Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment which hands over to the Minister of Sport and Recreation the control of the administration of this Act, the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would give us the benefit of his reasons for doing so, and tell us whether this has been agreed to by the Minister of Sport and Recreation. In other words, I should like to know what is in fact behind this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea here is that this sport normally falls under the Minister of Sport and Recreation in any case, and the Cabinet has, therefore, decided that this section of the work of the Police Department should also be transferred to the Department of Sport and Recreation.

It is all professional.

Yes, but there are also other kinds of professional sport that fall under the Department of Sport and Recreation at present. At the moment soccer, tennis and all the other kinds of professional sport fall under the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 9 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I read with very great interest the statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister about the amendment which he was going to introduce in the Senate. It just so happened, of course, that during the course of the debate in this House, I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the House that the Orange Street campus of the University of Cape Town would be included in the defined area. I must say that at the time this evinced no dismay from either the Government or the official Opposition, which was supporting this Bill.

We did not play politics.

We are “playing” politics, let me tell the hon. member; we are in the House for political purposes. As I say, Sir, this evinced no dismay from either the official Opposition or the Government. I moved an amendment in the Committee Stage which attempted to reduce the defined area. Admittedly me amendment was somewhat more extensive. It did not only cover the campus, but it certainly included the Orange Street campus, the City campus of the University of Cape Town. Of course, there was no support for that amendment and nobody even moved a reduced amendment, shall we say, simply to limit the defined area in such a way as to exclude the campus of the university. Now the Deputy Minister comes along and tells the Other Place that the principal of the University of Cape Town has expressed his misgivings that the wide definition of “gatherings” would interfere with normal academic and day-to-day activities on the campus.

Read the rest of my speech.

Yes, I did read the rest of it.

No, read the rest of my speech.

Now? Do you want me to read the lot?

That is taken out of context.

Sir, this is not out of context.

Yes, it is.

No, I am sticking strictly to the amendment which was moved in the Senate. That is what I have to stick to.

Order! What is the hon. member’s point?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying that I must read the whole of his speech and I am saying that I am trying to confine myself to the amendment which was moved in the Senate. The hon. the Deputy Minister can read his own speech when he replies to me.

The Orange Street campus, incidentally, as was pointed out at the time by the university principal, includes the Michaelis School of Art and the Drama School of the University of Cape Town, and students, in the normal cause of their academic work, gather in groups on that campus. This is why, of course, the principal of the university was so dismayed at the inclusion of the Orange Street campus in the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he did not share Sir Richard Luyt’s view that the normal day to day activities on the campus would be affected by the Bill. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I please ask for a little quiet? I cannot talk above this noise behind me.

Order!

Thank you, Sir. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that such a deduction could not be made if the Bill was read in context, and he went on to say that it was clear that the Bill dealt with particular types of meetings that had become well known. That was his reply to Sir Richard Luyt. Sir, I had occasion during the earlier discussions on the Bill to tell the Deputy Minister something which he should have known, and that is that he cannot pass legislation and then decide that he will exclude certain people from its effects by requests or directions to the Police, and now we have another such example of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s lack of understanding about the functions of this Legislature. Surely, the functions of our Legislature are to make the laws, and the function of the Police is to enforce the laws, to ensure that the laws are obeyed, and the function of the courts is to decide whether there has in fact been an infringement of the law; in other words, to interpret the law.

Order! What is the hon. member’s point?

With respect, Sir, my point is very clear. The hon. the Deputy Minister was trying to state that he did not interpret the Bill in the way in which the principal of the university interpreted it.

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the amendment.

Sir, I am leading up to the reason which prompted the hon. the Minister to introduce the amendment in the Other Place.

Are you for or against it?

The hon. the Minister then explained that because of the objections, he was going to move an amendment in the Other Place.

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the amendment.

Sir, I am discussing the amendment. Am I not allowed to explain why the hon. the Minister introduced the amendment in the Other Place?

No, it is not necessary; we have heard all that. The hon. member must confine her remarks to the amendment.

Sir, as a matter of fact, this House has not heard the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reasons for introducing the amendment. He gave his explanation to the Other Place, and we are now being asked to pass the amendment, which was passed in the Other Place and for which an explanation has been given there but not in this House. I am trying to analyze the reasons for the hon. the Minister’s introduction of that amendment in the Other Place, and I am going to try my best to confine myself to this particular point. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister, having accepted that Sir Richard Luyt’s reservations may perhaps have some grounds, has moved an amendment to the definitions clause, and the amendment states that a gathering now means—

And here is the amendment—

I would like to mention at this juncture that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of the amendment which he has moved in the Other Place and which he now asks us to confirm here, is open to different interpretations, and the important thing is whether a gathering is distinctly separate from a demonstration. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister considers that it is distinctly separate from a demonstration, because if it is distinctly separate from a demonstration— and it seems to me that he must consider it to be so, for he has two different definitions, one for a “demonstration” and one for a “gathering”, which he is now amending—then it seems to me that all that is now being banned, on the Minister’s amendment, is a gathering that arises out of a demonstration, but any other gathering, be it a political or a protest meeting, which does not arise out of a demonstration, is no longer illegal. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will apply his mind to that by re-defining …

Would you mind repeating that? My attention was distracted for a moment.

Well, I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister would give his attention to me just for five minutes. The hon. the Deputy Minister is asking me to put the question again, so I will do so. Is a gathering quite distinct from a demonstration? I assume that it is, for there are two different definitions. Under the new definition of “gathering”, if it is distinct from a demonstration, it now appears to me that a gathering, which is a political meeting or a protest meeting, which does not arise out of or relate to a demonstration, is a legal meeting.

(Inaudible.)

The hon. the Deputy Minister denies it. I think there will be some very interesting test cases in court on the interpretation of this.

I did not deny it. Why put words into my mouth?

I am sorry, I thought the hon. the Deputy Minister said “No”. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us, when he replies to the debate, whether there is a definite distinction between “gathering” and “demonstration” and whether the interpretation which has been given to me by legal counsel is correct, and that is that all meetings now which do not arise out of demonstrations are in fact legal as a result of the amendment which he has introduced in the Other Place. It would be very nice indeed if that were so. Sir, he also informed the Other Place that the Bill, as amended, would now extend to bystanders watching a demonstration; and whether or not they have a common purpose is again something which will have to be decided in the courts of law, but if the hon. the Minister is correct, Sir, how absurd to extend to innocent spectators a Bill of this nature, which will turn them into criminals for watching a demonstration!

Order! What bearing has that on the amendment?

Well, the hon. the Minister explained in the Other Place that as a result of the amendment which he was moving, innocent bystanders would now be included in those persons who could be arrested for watching a demonstration. Before that, Sir, it applied only to persons who were taking part in the demonstration, but now anybody who happens to stop to watch a demonstration, which has not been declared legal, for which a permit has not been granted—and I do not know how a bystander is going to know whether the demonstration he is watching is one for which the Chief Magistrate may have granted a permit or not—will have to hurry on about his business, otherwise he is going to run the risk of being arrested. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will explain to us the purpose of extending this to persons watching demonstrations.

Sir, the principal of the University of Cape Town has rightly stated that the Bill, even as amended, is ill-suited to the normal activities of a university, and he has also stated that he is unaware of any evidence having been produced to establish that activities on the Orange Street campus have ever threatened the dignity or the safety of Parliament, with which statement, of course, I heartily concur. No evidence had been produced to that effect, and hon. members sitting here today have not the slightest notion of what is going on on the Orange Street campus right at this moment, and even that now historic character, the messenger boy of the hon. member for Durban North …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment. She must confine her remarks exclusively to the amendment, otherwise she must resume her seat.

I am doing my very best, Sir, to do so. It is very difficult …

Order! The hon. member is not obeying the ruling from the Chair.

[Interjection.] There are lots of other “Speakers” who are giving you some assistance as well.

Order!

Thank you. As I say, I agree with the views which were expressed by Sir Richard Luyt that the Bill, even as amended …

Order! I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume her seat.

Sir, may I move my amendment?

Then the hon. member must come forward with her amendment.

I am about to come to that I was saying that I agree …

The hon. member must come to that straight away or resume her seat.

Sir, I move as an amendment to the amendment—

This will have the definite effect of specifically excluding from the purview of this Bill the Orange Street campus of the University of Cape Town. Sir, I am quite sure that I will have the support of the official Opposition in this regard, since at least two members intimately concerned with the University of Cape Town, that is to say, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gardens, were themselves perturbed that the Orange Street campus of the university should fall within the purview of the Bill which they supported earlier on.

I rise to enlighten the House on the amendment which it is considering now. My personal opinion was—and this is how I explained it in the Other Place—that the Bill, as it read previously, stated what Parliament wanted to state, but there nevertheless appeared, to be a slight possibility that our meaning would have been subject to interpretation by the courts, which is of course perfectly normal, I wanted to try and reflect in the Bill quite clearly and precisely what we had intended here in Parliament; and we never intended that people who have nothing whatsoever to do with a demonstration, should be included in the concept of “gathering”. Therefore the law advisers recommended to me that the following words be inserted: “gathering means any assembly, concourse or procession of any number of persons relating to or arising out of any demonstration”. In other words, all that happens here, is that the definition of “demonstration“ is linked to “gathering”. There is a nexus, a connection between “gathering” and “demonstration”. This is really the only effect that amendment has, and to my mind this will mean that people who assemble as a result of a demonstration, even though they themselves may not be demonstrating, would then— because there is a nexus between them and the demonstrators and because they come to a halt on account of a demonstration —be committing an unlawful deed in the area which is to be regarded as being protected for the activities of the public.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I just want to tell you, Sir, that it was given to me for consideration a quarter of an hour before the House met. I want to tell the hon. member that, as far as this measure is concerned, I was quite prepared to consider any reasonable amendment so that we could give effect to precisely what Parliament had wanted. I had quite an open mind to try and establish precisely what Parliament wanted, and I was quite prepared to consider amendments in that light. But this amendment was only given to me a quarter of an hour before the time. In spite of the fact that it was given to me on such short notice, I examined the amendment and established that, if it were allowed, the effect of it would be that a gathering on university campuses would be allowed, even though it is associated with a demonstration. In other words, if a demonstration takes place on the university grounds and a great many students start milling about there, even though they themselves do not form part of the demonstration, they would, according to the amendment moved by this hon. member—be excluded. Why they should be excluded while the rest of the public is not excluded is difficult for me to understand. I was under the impression that students claim to be just at full-fledged members of the public. Under these circumstances, I am therefore not prepared to accept this amendment.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? May I ask whether he does not consider for instance that students are entitled to have a meeting, perhaps to protest against the food in the refectory or the SRC or Nusas? [Interjections.]

Order!

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, amendment declared negatived.

Senate amendment agreed to.

When I started last night I mentioned that three matters had dominated the year as far as the Department of Sport was concerned, firstly the appointment of the new Minister; secondly, the inadequacies of the strange Government policy in regard to sport which inter alia led to the putting off of the New Zealand tour; and, thirdly, the South African Games. I started with the hon. the Minister. I wanted very much to ascertain his attitude to keeping politics out of local sport in general and out of White sport in particular. I think many of us feel that politics plays perhaps too great a part in the life of South Africans in general and I think we are all united in the view that there is one sphere from which politics should surely be kept, and that is sport. We therefore make a strong plea, all of us, that politics should be kept out of out sport, and that the best man should be chosen to run our sport and to administer it. Let us find unity in our sport where there are many factors which do divide us. It has been a unifying factor in the past. Let it be so in the future. But it will require a conscious effort to keep it out, because politics is so insidious, whether it comes from one side or the other. I say that in some sports damage has already been done. I have here an article which indicates a well-planned campaign to gain control of sport in South Africa in the interest of politics in general, and of Nationalist Party politics in particular. I say at once that it is an article by Mr. J. H. P. Serfontein which appeared in the Sunday Times. [Interjections.] I ask hon. members to weigh what is stated in this article on its merits. I believe it is clear that the writer had in his possession, when he wrote this, several secret Broederbond circulars on the subject of sport. [Interjections.] I want hon. members to read this article before they laugh so hilariously. For their information, I may tell them that it was dated the 22nd October. 1972. This article and the contents of it have never been denied by anyone, neither by the Broederbond nor by anybody else. I want to say that having read it, I firmly believe it to be true. Indeed, in so far as I have knowledge it accords with what I know about the matter. [Interjections.] I want to say again that one knows the harm and the suspicion that arise in sport if this sort of thing is true. Now, Sir, I have a great admiration and respect and liking for my Afrikaans-speaking fellow countryman, whether he is Sap or Nat, and I hope that my actions have shown it. I think that anyone who knows the great peoples from whom the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country have descended, and knows their history and achievements of Afrikaans-speaking people cannot but share this admiration. I have great admiration too for the cultural bodies of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and one admires them if one sees how many aspects of life they foster and what their achievements are. But when one finds that a body of the importance of the Broederbond apparently has plans to force sport into politics, then I say we must call a halt to it. This is a cancer in our life. I therefore want to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is. Does he know of the existence of these circulars?

He will deny it.

If he says that he does not, I want to know how it is that he does not know as he is generally known as the ex-secretary and, as far as I know, is still a member of the Broederbond. [Interjections.] Nobody here is to fob us off by pointing a finger at the writer or at anybody else …

But surely you are reading Etienne Malan’s speech now.

… because this article speaks for itself. There is a great deal in this article which I should perhaps read to hon. members—

One can see you want to stay in the Opposition benches for ever.

The article now quotes the actual words of the circular—

The article continues—

Then it quotes again:

Nobody would fob me off by laughing about this, because it is not a laughing matter. Anybody who is associated with sport knows what a cancer this is in the life of those sports into which this has infiltrated. [Interjections.]

Order!

Therefore I say that where the hon. the Minister assumes his new portfolio as Minister of Sport, he must give me and the country a full answer on this whole question and on his attitude to this whole matter. I expect him to condemn this plan root and branch. I expect him to express himself to be entirely against bringing politics into sport in this manner. I expect him to promise here today to do all he can to free sport of politics.

What are you doing now, Ossie? [Interjections.]

If he does not do that today, I urge him to lay the portfolio of Sport, which he has just taken up down tomorrow.

This Government, and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular, never stop accusing others of bringing politics into sport. The accusation is further that in doing so, the object is to exclude South Africa from sport. I will be the first man to stand with the Prime Minister in opposing that. However, if the hon. the Minister of Sport and his Government today are not prepared to condemn and promise to do all they can to root it out, then I say that this will be the most blatant example of hypocrisy that I have yet met.

I want to get on to the second matter with which I want to deal, and I shall have to hurry. I believe that this year has shown once again the inadequacies of the Government’s strange sport policy. I do not want to pretend that it is easy for South Africa in sport. In some sports it is very difficult, particularly in soccer and the Olympic games. There are many Afro-Asians there and communists who, for political reasons, are against us. But in regard to the IOC, that almost minor United Nations, we were only put out by 35 to 28 votes and therefore we have many friends. In other sports like tennis, cricket and rugby we have many friends. It therefore depends upon the countries that are on the international bodies. The task of the Government is to help the sportsmen in other countries to keep their relations with us and win over further friends. The Government should help to make that possible in every possible way. Therefore it is most galling that this Government, by its actions and blunders, should make it so difficult, and that South Africa and South African sport should suffer as it has. So often we get too little from this Government too late in this regard. Remember that once you are out, it is doubly difficult to get back, and it adds to the difficulties in the field of other sports if one suffers. There was a time indeed when the Nats refused to make any changes at all. They said that it would involve integration at club level. That myth has been exploded now, of course, because we have made progress in regard to tennis and other sports. In some sports, of course, it is permitted today to pick teams on merit, for example, in tennis and golf, and this has proved advantageous to us. In other words, in those sports the sportsmen’s wishes have been allowed to govern the position. But cricket and rugby remain the Cinderellas. No less a person than the Prime Minister said that in regard to rugby and cricket there would be no mixed teams representing South Africa. He said that he took full responsibility. Then I ask him today to take his big share of responsibility for the cancellation of the recent tour to New Zealand. There are many lessons to be learnt from this and the first is the danger for our international sport when Governments interfere. I condemn the action of the New Zealand Prime Minister in interfering. He did it for political reasons, too. He said it was in the interests of his country. I am quite certain that that tour could have gone on through New Zealand with perhaps some disturbances, but, in general, satisfactorily, had he been prepared to accept us. But our Government made itself guilty of interfering in sport; it made itself guilty when it said that our team had to be White. Our sportsmen apparently wanted to pick the team on merit. Indeed they went to Pretoria to plead to be allowed to pick the team on merit. But we know that nothing came of that plea. We know that there were hopeful signs in the Nationalist Press and we know that those signs were linked with the hon. the Minister of Sport.

A second lesson that we must learn is that the Government must let this policy of theirs unfold much more quickly than it is happening. We know that the hon. member for Johannesburg West is confident that South Africa will be able to tour New Zealand at some future time. We know also from the Prime Minister of New Zealand that this can only happen if our team is chosen on merit. In other words, the Government, according to the opinion of the hon. member for Johannesburg West, is going to unfold its policy to make this possible. I say, if they have no principle standing in the way, why must they delay it and cause such damage to our rugby? Our charge therefore is that the tour was lost and that no fundamental principle was at stake. The hon. the Minister had a chance to make a great name for himself because when he took over the rugby people had already seen the danger signals flashing. The danger signals were flashing not when the present Prime Minister of New Zealand came into office, but already in the time of the previous Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister of New Zealand said it would make it a great deal easier for the tour to New Zealand to take place if we would pick the team on merit. The rugby people saw the dangers; they went to Pretoria. The Minister made hopeful signs which were reported in the Press, but he was unable to persuade the Cabinet. The Cabinet stuck to its strange policy. I say that the hon. the Minister has lost an opportunity to make a niche for himself in history and get the Government to change its policy. The words of the hon. the Minister were these—

Of course.

He says: Of course. It shows that he does not understand the whole atmosphere in which he is conducting his portfolio. When we are dealing with New Zealand we are not dealing with whether agitation will decrease. It is a case of whether the New Zealand Government will want us to come and whether the New Zealand sportsmen will want us to come. Of course we are going to have criticism round the world and agitation from demonstrators wherever we play sport. But we don’t look to those people. It is to our friends and our potential friends that we must look. The hon. the Prime Minister followed up that statement of August by himself on the 13th September saying—

Those are very brave words and very stupid words I venture to say and are already refuted by what the hon. member for Johannesburg West has said. The hon. the Minister of Labour made the even more typical Nationalist utterance on the subject on the 16th September. He said—

This is what we are told. We were told this when it was asked whether the Maoris could come. We are told this again by this Minister. I say that unless the hon. the Minister will change and improve his policy South Africa will suffer further in this regard. One of their own papers Rapport, said that the crucial thing today in sport is—

That is the way Rapport put it and I urge hon. members opposite to face up to that or to face up to exclusion from international sport. If ever a political party had to be dragged into the 20th century it is the Nationalist Party in regard to Bantu affairs and in particular in regard to sport. It is a party that we are having the privilege but also the burden of dragging into the 20th century in these regards. We shall persist in doing it and we shall go on doing it until the get them into better shape.

If time permits I should like to take up the statement which the hon. the Minister made when the tour had been called off. I want to say that the statement he made then shows a degree of irritation and annoyance which has no place in the handling of our sport affairs. Let him decide and let Nationalists decide what their principles are. If they are prepared to have their tennis and their golf teams picked on merit why not rugby? Don’t let their future actions be coloured by irritation and annoyance of what the New Zealand Prime Minister did.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us how his policy is going to unfold and to take us into his confidence and to take the country into his confidence as to what his future intentions are so that we may know. I hope he will view with favour the plea by the president of the S.A. Cricket Association that they should be allowed to pick their team on merit and on the basis that was set out by the president, namely in accordance with the Government’s policy on a multi-national basis. The effect would be that they would be able to pick a South African team on merit. We urge the Government to adopt this. Cover it in as many words as you like. Use whatever fig-leaves you like. Let us get to the position that is sensible for South Africa, which is accepted in South Africa and which is required by the world, namely that South Africa be represented by a team chosen on merit.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time left I want to move to the South African Games. Let me say at once that we were delighted that these Games took place and that they went off without a hitch.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say to the hon. the Chief Whip that it is necessary to hit this Government hard on sport to get it to move. We do it with no pleasure but because they have let South Africa down and they must know it. The athletes enjoyed the Games, the sportsmen enjoyed the Games and the spectators enjoyed the Games. We applaud that. They were well-run Games, it was a fine achievement and reflects great credit on our administrators and officials, including many members of the Department of Sport.

Why not the Government?

I will come to that. We of course encouraged it. We said long ago that this sort of thing could be done without any risk. But we were not believed then. We were quite certain it would go well. And, for the information of the hon. member for Pietersburg, the Games would have been even more successful under our policy. Let me give him one example. The soccer teams which were supposed to have come from Britain and Brazil pulled out. Why? They pulled out because our South African soccer team, under this rigid Government policy, had to be on a basis of communities and they then pulled out. How much better would it not have been had we seen those Games crowned by Brazil or by England playing a whole South African team, as they do in tennis? It would have been a case of all pulling together. We have got to pull together in South Africa. But that did not happen. I give credit to the hon. the Minister. He did have one recommendation to make. He did agree that when those teams pulled out that the communities could play one another. It was not in accordance with Government policy. In fact the whole essence of Government policy was that you had to have foreign teams to play them. But it was sense and we applauded it. I say so again today.

This thing of multi-nationalism is purely a label, it is a fig leaf. These Games were not run in accordance with Nationalist theory. We did not have the Zulus, the Xhosas and Tswanas playing; we had a Bantu soccer team. It was not in accordance with Government policy. Nobody can think that. But we do not resent it. If the Government would make advances we would be only too glad to cover it by any fig leaf they care to name if it would make them happy. Had they insisted to the world that the Games had to be run in accordance with apartheid, we would not have had one foreign visitor there. It was only because the foreign visitors believed that they were not going to be run in accordance with apartheid—and it was not in accordance with the ideology of apartheid—that they came. I say again that the important thing is that the Games took place. It was a wonderful thing for race relations. The hon. the Minister said that. Let him take it to heart.

The fact that there was goodwill on all sides was proof that we could play in a good spirit together. We were playing as equals and we were competing as equals. The common humanity of the various peoples of South Africa was approved and realized. But I want to ask in conclusion: What of the future? Has the hon. the Minister had requests for a repeat performance of some of the things that took place at the South African Games? What is his answer going to be? If for example a soccer team would like to repeat that which was done there, perhaps once a year, is he going to approve of it? Are we going to have to wait for another South African Games with a great expenditure of money, before some of the highlights of the Games can be repeated? I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his plans are in order to allow all South Africans to take their rightful place in sport. We on this side of the House have shown the way. Under our policy the people will take their rightful place. We ask this Minister to get closer to our policy in which case South Africa can hope to flourish in sporting affairs.

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Pinelands, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Frank Waring, the previous Minister of Sport and Recreation. Mr. Waring was appointed as the first Minister of Sport and Recreation at a very difficult time for South African sport, and for South Africa at large. At that time even members on that side of the House objected to the creation of a Department of Sport. But, Sir, Mr. Frank Waring proved himself to be always a good sportsman and a good South African. He was always prepared to play the game. Perhaps he was not loved by that side of the House, but that was for reasons other than sport. We on this side of the House enjoyed working with Mr. Waring …

And Mrs. Waring! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, obviously that hon. member has never himself had the opportunity of crossing swords with Mrs. Waring. I want to place on record the fact that we on this side of the House appreciate the services of Mr. Frank Waring as Minister of Sport.

*At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend my congratulations to Dr. the hon. Piet Koornhof on his appointment as Minister of this department. I particularly want to congratulate him on the way he is handling this department. I want to congratulate him on his energetic approach and on the progress which has been made, not for the sake of politics, but for the sake of sport as such. I want to refer, Sir, to two particular matters. In the first place I want to refer to the recent South African Games, which were virtually a culmination of sporting activities in this country. In that regard the hon. the Minister and his department played a quiet but in fact a dominant role. I want to congratulate them on the way those Games were presented. Those who had the privilege of being spectators at the Games, will agree that they could be compared with the best in the world. I trust that these South African Games will become so popular all over the world in future that we shall find it difficult to cope with everyone who will want to come here on the next occasion. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the exceptional insight displayed by him as far as the development of sporting facilities is concerned. I am referring to the allocation on principle of an annual amount to every province and to local authorities for the development of local sporting facilities.

†Now, Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member really disappointed me this morning and last night. He simply repeated his speech of last year; he had nothing new to say. He even repeated the old stories of the late Senator Conroy about the Broederbond. I know the hon. member as a very good South African and as a very keen sportsman, but I am afraid to say that when it comes to politics and when he mixes his politics with sport, he is not in a position to evaluate properly the situation of sport in South Africa against the background of world sport. Apart from starting off by asking the hon. the Minister to keep politics out of sport, what did the hon. member actually do? Seventy-five per cent of his speech was concerned with political issues; he brought politics right into sport. This is what the hon. member said last night—

Now I want to ask the hon. member this: Does he really believe that the sports policy of this Government was responsible for the calling off of the tour to New Zealand?

The hon. member for Johannesburg West said so.

Sir, let me remind the hon. member, in spite of what he said here last night and today, and in spite of his comments in the newspapers just after the cancellation of the tour, that it is common knowledge that the New Zealand Rugby Council stuck to their guns all the time. I wish to pay tribute to them for this. Until this very moment they are still prepared to receive a South African Springbok rugby team. They did not ask us to hold mixed trials, to select a team on merit and that sort of nonsense. They invited the South African Rugby Board to send over a Springbok rugby team.

*After all, Mr. Chairman, any sober-minded person who has made a study of the situation knows where the problems arise. Surely they arise with those who have chosen sport as a field for terrorism? They arise with the extortionists there in New Zealand. It may be a good thing to tell the hon. member what the standpoint of these extortionists is. I quote from a report of 28th February this year in this regard (translation)—

Then he went on to say this—

Sir, did these people not show that they had the power in their hands to pressurise that Government into an impossible position so that they had to cancel the tour? But what is more, we have now repeatedly debated the point with the hon. member for Pinelands that the demand—not the requirement, but the demand—which is made by these terrorists, and which sometimes finds acceptance among responsible organizations in sporting circles, does not seek to achieve, as the hon. member believes, the selection of a representative team to represent the country; it seeks to achieve mixed sport being played in South Africa right down to the lowest level. Now I want to put a question to the hon. member. Last year he denied it in respect of cricket and the M.C.C.’s standpoint until the hon. member for Houghton had to point it out to him; she was in London herself when those matters were discussed at that time.

She, too, is, wrong.

She, too, is wrong? The M.C.C., too, is wrong? Sir, I stand amazed at the naïveté of the hon. member for Pinelands in this regard. Here is the evidence from all sides that a relentless demand was made. What was the difficulty in the case of the Olympic Games? We obtained permission to go to Mexico, and the hon. member also blames the Government’s sports policy for the fact that we were unable to take part in the Olympic Games.

But what about tennis and golf?

Sir, let me just make my point. The hon. member is blaming everything on the Government. We were invited to go and for reasons of security we were eventually asked not to attend. From all quarters the relentless demand is made, down to the lowest level, as I have already said. Last year, the hon. member even wanted to allow a mixed friendly cricket match to be played.

[Inaudible.]

Today I want to ask the hon. member, or any other speaker on that side, to explain to us to what extent the sport policy of the United Party will succeed in having a Springbok tour taking place in New Zealand, and in getting South Africa back into the Olympic Games. Has the hon. member read what the chairman of the South African Olympic Games Association, Mr. Duimpie Opperman, said in his annual report? I want the hon. member to listen to this. He must not have his head in the clouds; he must come down to earth in regard to these problems. Mr. Opperman said (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for the first time since I have been in this House I find myself able to agree with certain things said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. Firstly, he wished the previous Minister of Sport luck in his retirement. I want to say that we join him; we also wish the previous Minister the very best of luck and health in his retirement. Then the hon. member went on to congratulate the present Minister of Sport, and I say that we on this side also wish him everything of the best in handling what I believe is going to be a very difficult portfolio. The hon. member then went on to discuss the Games. I will also, in the course of my speech, speak about the Games, so I leave the hon. member there.

Sir, before I say anything else, I would like to compliment the officials of the Department of Sport for having drawn up a very neat annual report and to thank them for placing it on the Table timeously.

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment just very briefly on a few points contained in the report. Firstly, I want to say that it is very pleasing indeed that under the department’s policy of sponsoring projects for coaches, participants and administrators, the number rose from 140 in 1971 to 651 in 1972. Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, very important, because all of us who are connected with sport appreciate the fact that the very basis of maintaining sport of any sort at a high level depends on good administration and good coaching, and I would, like to say to the hon. the Minister that I would like to see the total number of projects increased even further in the year to come.

Sir, I am very pleased, too, to say that the report reveals that the Government is continuing with its policy to assist the national bodies controlling sport in South Africa to bring out experts in the fields of various sports. We know how important this is, Mr. Chairman, because these people bring along their considerable knowledge, and their lectures on sport benefit South Africa enormously. Let me say that this is doubly important in South Africa today while all the sporting bodies here have their problems in regard to international sport.

Then, finally, in regard to the report, I want to say that I am very pleased indeed to see that the department is assisting local authorities to build indoor sports venues in South Africa. I think everyone will agree that there is a paucity of indoor venues throughout South Africa. I do not think that we have a really decent indoor sports venue anywhere in South Africa, and we know that there are certain types of sport that have to be played indoors. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Cabinet to see that a larger amount of money is set aside for this purpose, because with the very high cost of building today the amount set aside here will not go very far. Sir, there is no doubt in my mind that the most important and the most significant event in the sporting calendar of 1973 was the South African Games held in Pretoria. I believe very sincerely that those Games were not only a victory for sport but most certainly also a victory for race relations in South Africa. Here we had a sporting function and at this function we had sportsmen and sportswomen of all races competing with and against each other under conditions of complete equality. It was pleasing to note that the inherent fear which had always been there under the surface that multi-racial sport at any level would be liable to cause race friction, was completely dispelled. I want to say that, because I was connected with a certain sport which was part of the Games, I had a very good opportunity to observe things at close quarters. I want to say that what happened at the Rand Stadium at Johannesburg was truly a revelation. There for a week and for the first time in the history of South Africa, we had a soccer tournament in which all the races in South Africa were allowed to compete. During that week we had attendances of more than 100 000 people and on two occasions we had a capacity crowd of 40 000 people at the Rand Stadium. This is a significant fact, that during this whole week there was not a single insident surrounding the players taking part in that tournament, and during that week the Police, who I must say did a very, very fine job throughout the Games, were not called upon at any stage to remonstrate with or act against a single spectator. Sir, this is very pleasing indeed and I believe that it shows that when people get together with the idea of playing sport, then they go there for that particular purpose. I think, too, that the hon. the Minister must be satisfied now that the sports administrators in South Africa are very responsible people and I think he will admit that they played a great part in making the Games such a success. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness. He has told us on one or two occasions that the policy of the Nationalist Party is not a rigid policy but a policy which is evolving. I want to say to him that after the great success of these Games, I believe the time has now arrived where he should try to remove an anomaly. This of course is the anomaly which makes it possible for certain sports to be played where they have the opportunity of selecting their teams on merit, while on the other hand the three major sports is South Africa, rugby, cricket and soccer, are not given like opportunities. I believe that the hon. the Minister has his feet on the ground and that he accepts with us that until such time as we are in a position to select our teams on merit for international purposes we will have problems in regard to international sport. I believe that after what happened in Pretoria and Johannesburg, the Government must feel that the people of South Africa are now prepared most certainly to accept sport at national and international level, and the ball is now truly at the feet of the Government. I am hoping, and I am certain that every sport lover in South Africa is also hoping, that things will be done in the near future to allow sport in South Africa again to take its rightful place internationally. I say this—and I am not bringing politics into it—because I honestly believe that there is not a single person in South Africa who would not like to see the Springbok colours again being shown all over the world. We as sports administrators can do our part but we can only do so much, and I believe that it is now up to the Government to act in a positive way and to assist South Africa to get back into international sport.

I should like to compliment the hon. member for Johannesburg North on the positive speech he made today. I regret that I am unable to say the same of the hon. the shadow Minister of Sport of the party opposite. That hon. member had many complaints about the so-called political interference in sport by this side of the House, but the hon. member had half an hour at his disposal, as has become customary every year, and he himself spoke nothing but politics. I should be pleased if the hon. member could mention to me just one thing which he said for the advancement of sport. [Interjections.] Sir, when we discuss mining, we speak for the advancement of the mining industry, and I believe that when we conduct a debate such as this, then we should speak for the promotion of sport. The hon. member spoke politics all the time, but accused this side of the House of political interference in sport. This is a naïveté which I really find difficult to excuse.

The hon. member very clearly charged the hon. the Minister with the Springbok tour to New Zealand having had to be cancelled as a result of the policy of this side of the House. If the hon. member was being sincere when he said that—I must accept that—then to me that is further proof of naïveté in that the hon. member still believes that nothing more than the selection of a team was involved. After all, that is not so. No matter how many non-Whites we included, the tour would not have taken place. I want to give the hon. member one example. He must realize that it is not we who are pronouncing judgment here. I quote (translation)—

Did you say so, Ossie?

I quote further from the report (translation)—

This is the judgment pronounced by a non-White who is very intimately concerned with this matter.

The hon. member also came forward with another story. I did a little research work in Hansard to see what progress we had made in these debates over the past years. I went no further than to refer to the Hansard of 1972, because there I found that a great deal of what the hon. member said this year, he also said last year. He spoke about our political interference. He spoke about the Broederbond. I wonder why the hon. member did not ask the hon. member for Sea Point to put him right as regards Serfontein’s stories in the Sunday Times. Has he not heard the speech by the hon. member for Sea Point in this regard? To me it is very clear that if we continue in this way and conduct this kind of debate, we shall not be rendering any service whatsoever to sport. I think it has become high time for us to get away from this.

The hon. members opposite have known for years and the whole world knows what the policy of this side of the House is regarding sport. After all, we have stated it repeatedly. Those hon. members attack us, however, but they do not have a policy on sport. Right from the start they have only said, “We leave the matter to the sporting bodies” and that has been the end of it. However, the hon. member continues to harp on politics and political interference. None of it is true, Sir.

I want to raise a matter which in my opinion is of much greater importance. To be specific, I want to make a plea for scientific research in the field of sport. I shall have to make haste, because I do not have much time left. One has appreciation for what has already been done by individuals and bodies, but we feel that there is a great deal more that could be done in this field in the interests of sport. In the first instance I believe that every athlete and participant in sport—here I have in mind sport played by terms—should be coached in a way which will enable him to give only of his very best. Then he derives the highest degree of pleasure from it, and it enables him to attain the highest level of achievement. This can only be done under certain conditions. It is necessary to do research into the technique required in certain types of sport. For example, an athlete may be exceptionally strong in his arms, but if he does not know the correct technique of putting the shot, he has no success. But take any other type of sport. We can mention many examples, but unfortunately time does not allow me to go into details. It is necessary to determine the correct diet for a sportsman and a sportswoman. When a person plays a sport, and particularly certain types of sport, energy is consumed at a very high rate. It is necessary to know what is good for the athlete and what will provide him with the required energy, and what could be detrimental to him. It is not always necessary for a participant in sport to try to increase his powers by eating a large steak or anything of that sort. A tremendous amount could be done in this regard in other ways. There is something like psychological preparation, the preparation of the person’s frame of mind. This plays a tremendous role, quite apart from his fitness, and due regard must be had to this. Sir, at this point you may ask me, what do I envisage? I cannot put it here in detail, but I believe, in the first instance, that provision should be made for the necessary funds to universities, even though not to all of them to establish a chair which could undertake this research work on a scientific basis and from where the knowledge gained in this way, could be carried over to the potential coaches of the future. To begin with things would be difficult, of course, and I believe that if we should take such a step, we should regard it as a total research project on a very wide field. For that reason the establishment of a chair or the provision of facilities at a university may perhaps not suffice; it is possible that we should also have to consider the colleges, to enable us to train as many people as possible at such an institution and to prepare them for their task [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands referred to, among other things, “the Government’s sport policy which led, inter alia, to the cancellation of the New Zealand tour”. Is that correct?

Yes.

The sports policy of the United Party, as set out by the hon. member’s Leader, reads—

harm our international relations or cause internal unrest.

Is that correct?

Yes.

On 10th April this year a group of 30 lecturers and 100 students of the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Norman Kirk, in which they asked him to cancel the tour. I have here the cutting containing the names of the students who took part in this, and I quote the following—

These students and lecturers of Pietermaritzburg asked that the tour be cancelled. I quote further—

The latter part is precisely what the hon. member for Johannesburg City has just requested, namely that “teams must be chosen on merit”. These lecturers and students are resident in the constituency of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City who has just entered the Chamber. There is also the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who has so much to say and who is not in his place today now that this Vote is being discussed. The policy of the party of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City reads inter alia—

Has the hon. member for Piertermaritzburg City repudiated these lecturers and students who are dragging politics into sport? The hon. member for Pinelands has just said that the tour was cancelled as a result of the “strange policy of the Government”. Has the hon. member repudiated these students and lecturers of Pietermaritzburg for directly interfering with sport? They definitely dragged politics into sport when they said that “apartheid is a crime”.

They are not in my constituency.

The hon. member says he has never done so. Did he know about it?

No.

Apparently the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City was unaware of what was going on in his own constituency and the hon. member was also unable to keep the students and lecturers in his constituency, Pietermaritzburg, under control. Now I want to ask the chairman of the sports group on that side of the House to bring this fact to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. To be specific, the fact is that there are hon. members on that side of the House who do not know what his sports policy is and who allow the students and lecturers of Pietermaritzburg to drag politics into sport by requesting that our rugby team should not visit New Zealand. They probably feel very happy about it today. I think that it is time for all the rugby players of Pietermaritzburg and all those good rugby players of the Natal team who have always made a very fine contribution to the composition of a Springbok team, to take note of the fact that this hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City and his colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, have failed miserably in their duty by not taking to task those students who asked Mr. Kirk to cancel the tour to New Zealand. That side of the House is therefore directly instrumental in the cancellation of the rugby tour …

That is nonsense.

That hon. member says it is nonsense, but he does not follow the gist of the argument. That hon. member failed to take to task this group of students at Pietermaritzburg when they dragged politics into sport. Does the hon. member understand that? I think that the young men throughout the country who play rugby should take note that one of the basic causes of the cancellation of the Springbok rugby tour to New Zealand is directly attributable to the actions and the laxity of those two hon. members from Pietermaritzburg. That is true and they cannot get away from it. Mr. Chairman, just as we were looking forward to seeing the green and gold run on to the field in New Zealand, so too did a multitude of rugby enthusiasts, not only in New Zealand, but throughout the world. The hon. member for Stellenbosch pointed out how the New Zealand Rugby Board stood fast. But now we have seen this morning in the short debate we have had so far what an egg-dance has been performed by the other side of the House. These people are playing straight into the hands of people like Peter Hain, Sanroc and the sport terrorists whom the hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to. Those hon. members are not consistent. What does this appeal by the hon. member for Johannesburg North that sports teams should be chosen on merit, signify?

That is our policy.

The hon. member will be free to get up in a moment and tell us how a Springbok rugby team should be selected on merit.

There must be trials, of course.

I want the hon. member to get up after I have resumed my seat and tell us how a Springbok rugby team should be chosen on merit. My argument is that the Springbok rugby team has been chosen on merit through all these years. Now I also want to ask him to get up and tell this House and the rugby-playing world that our Springbok rugby teams have not been chosen on merit in the past. He must spell out and explain to us in detail how they would select a Springbok rugby team on merit in terms of their sports policy. It is the duty of those hon. members. It cannot just remain hanging in mid air like that. The hon. members cannot just talk glibly about the composition of such a team on “merit”. They must explain it to us in detail, because it is not included here in Sir De Villiers Graaff’s “United Party’s sport policy”. They must say quite clearly whether they want sport integration down to club level, or not. Just look how they are deliberating now. The policy of my party is quite clear, i.e. no sport integration on club level; no sport integration on social level; and no sport integration on national level. The Springbok emblem on the green blazer and the green jersey is meant for the White South African. So it will remain, and those hon. members know it. Now that hon. member must tell us what his views on this matter are. It is a tragedy today that we as Whites in this country cannot speak with one voice on the application of our sports policy. It is a tragedy that that side of the House, with their opportunistic approach, should continually succeed in playing into the hands of Peter Hain, Sanroc and the others and by so doing bedevil our sports relations. The sooner they realize that they are bedevilling sports relations in this way, the better it will be. I therefore address an appeal to those hon. members to think before they talk about sport in the way they do.

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing the hon. member for Pretoria District must tell us quite clearly in this House. Does he repudiate the interference of the Broederbond in sporting matters? That is the question he has to answer.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. H. VAN Z. CILLIÉ: No.

He is afraid.

Order! It is unparliamentary to say that another hon. member is afraid if he does not want to reply to a question. The hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for De Aar said it was not because of the policy of the Government that the tour to New Zealand was wrecked. I should like to quote what was said by the candidate for the Nationalist Party, Mr. Dawie de Villiers at present the hon. member for Johannesburg West, during his election campaign. I quote from the Cape Times of 14th September, 1972—

I hope the hon. member will have the courage to get up here and repeat that.

Sport on the International level has always been an important facet of a country’s contact with the outside world. Whereas in days gone by our Springboks were able to represent South Africa with honour and glory at the various Olympic Games or on the rugby, cricket and soccer fields of the world, and, in doing so, were able to win friends for South Africa, today, after 25 years of Nationalist Party Government they are just as isolated as the Republic is on the political level. There is no doubt about the fact that when a sportsman achieves international standard, he wants to compete with citizens of other countries on an international level. It is therefore not surprising that a man such as Marcello Fiasconaro had to become an Italian citizen in order to be able to take part in the Olympic Games at Munich.

Whose fault is it?

The fault of the Government.

It is not surprising that a person such as Danie Malan had to go overseas on his own initiative to take part in international competitions. There are of course sportsmen from other countries who come to South Africa and of course there are some of our people going overseas, but the point is that the doors of the Olympic Games are closed to us. The doors to our traditional cricket, rugby and soccer opponents are also closed. The fact is that the domestic policy of the Nationalist Party Government, which includes its sports policy, is the reason for the isolation of our sportsmen today. Our Springbok rugby players would have received the traditional welcome in New Zealand if the team had been selected on merit, as the United Party policy allows. The National Party Government forced the Prime Minister of New Zealand to intervene in a purely sports matter just as our hon. Prime Minister intervened when he told Basil D’Oliveira that he was not allowed to visit South Africa as a selected member of the MCC team. He also closed the door to Arthur Ashe to come here as an individual to take part in our tennis championships. We see what happens when a vigorous politican interferes in sports matters. Politicians are not always the best diplomats we have known. There is one thing South African sportsmen must understand quite well, and that is that as long as a Nationalist Party Government is in power in South Africa, and as long as that Government applies its present policy, South Africa will be discriminated against in the field of sport overseas. As long as it is Government policy that a man like Papwa Sewgolum is allowed to take part in a White golf tournament but must receive his winning price outside the club house, isolation will be our lot. Just as sensible Whites in South Africa fail to understand this kind of folly, so our friends abroad are unable to understand it.

†Our sportsmen, Mr. Chairman, must decide whether they can continue to tolerate Nat Government interference which prevents them from participating freely in all fields of sport on the international level, and whether they are satisfied with the Nationalist Party’s compromise policy of warmed-up international competition at our South African Games, or whether they wish to participate, as in years gone by, freely in international sporting events, as would be the case under a United Party government. In making their choice our sportsmen and sportswomen should remember one thing, and that is that the Nationalist Party Government has been granted many years to get away from the unfortunate sports policy as outlined by Dr. Verwoerd in his Loskop Dam speech, and to change and to adapt its thinking and its policies to the fast-changing modern world. This Government has failed our sportsmen and our sportswomen, just as they have failed to combat the galloping rate of inflation or to win political friends for South Africa. The time is fast running out for us to shed our colour prejudices and to bring about change by evolution. An ominous cloud of complete sport isolation is looming on the horizon and the sportsmen and women must understand that the United Party policy of permitting national teams to be selected on merit, should the controlling bodies request this, is the only policy which will ensure that South Africa will again be accepted with enthusiasm and with open arms by all our erstwhile opponents in the field of international sport.

Mr. Chairman, when listening to what hon. members opposite have to say during the discussion of this Vote, one gets the impression that the Opposition thinks that the only task of the Department of Sport and Recreation is to organize international tours and meetings. If that is the attitude of that side of the House towards this department, I want to tell them that this is a blatant failure to appreciate the services rendered by this department. I shall come back to that later. I just want to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has just said. I think it is a disgrace for an hon. member to get up in this House and defend the Prime Minister for New Zealand. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said it was the policy of the National Party Government that compelled the New Zealand Prime Minister to interfere in this tour. Surely, this is absolute nonsense. If the hon. member had watched the Press, he should know that the New Zealand Premier tried to place the ball in our court. We know the Minister of Sport and Recreation did not want to give the New Zealand Prime Minister an opening and that it was New Zealand which eventually cancelled the tour, on their responsibility. We also know what their problems were in that regard. I think hon. members can learn something from one of our young stars of a few years ago, Karen Muir. She said the cancellation of a tour was not the end of the world. That is why we on this side of the House agree with the Prime Minister when he says that we shall win our way back into international sport; we shall not crawl back.

I said it would be a failure to appreciate the work of this department were we only to use it to organize international meetings and tours. I should like to dwell for a moment on one of the major services this department has rendered in the past and is still rendering. I think one of the most colourful schemes ever tackled in South Africa, is the national fitness scheme. In the past few years we have had the Water Year in another sphere, and we have our Green Heritage Year at present; these are ventures with which we agree and like to support, but as far as I am concerned this national fitness scheme is one of the most important ventures in this sphere, because it is an uninterrupted project. Sir, I should like to convey my gratitude and appreciation towards the department for the further development of the National fitness scheme. Last year, during the debate on this Vote, I pleaded that swimming should also be included in the National fitness scheme, and I am grateful that in November last year it was in fact included. Mr. Chairman, when considering this national fitness scheme, we realize that we are also dealing here with a project serving more than one purpose. We have in mind the particularly great value it has to make people familiar with the various types of sport; we have in mind the fruits it may bear and which it is already beginning to bear in regard to “Run for your Life”, while among the youth in particular the Spring Walks are becoming increasingly popular. We have in mind a twofold purpose in regard to swimming, not only for relaxation and fitness, but also for the possible combating of the exceptionally high number of drownings we have in South Africa. Sir, on the basis of the success already achieved by this national fitness scheme, I want to plead this morning for the further extension of this scheme. Sir, I say that it is a multipurpose scheme. When considering the annual report and one of the photographs taken during one of the Spring Walks and also the “Run for your Life”, one notices how excited and happy these young people are; and an excited group is a happy group. I think that the possibilities of development in this field are virtually unlimited. I also think that it is virtually impossible to foresee the tremendous results this scheme may have in future. Sir, when talking about a further extension of this scheme, I think gymnastics should be the next sport to be included in this scheme by the department. I think that gymnastics, which is proof of suppleness, is a sport which could become an ever greater source of pride for us in South Africa in future. In passing, Sir, the greatest sporting team which has ever left South Africa, was a group of 140 gymnasts who visited Austria in 1970 to compete there. Sir, I think that if one were to choose a slogan for gymnastics which would link up with or fit in with Run for your Life and Swim for your Life, it could be “Suppleness means Vitality”. Sir, I believe that through this possibility we should not only be able to increase the ability of our people to work, because suppleness usually denotes an eagerness and an ability to work. Sir, this vitality we could fit in with gymnastics through suppleness, could also assist us in South Africa in our everyday life in speeding up our normal actions and reactions and reflex movements. I think one of the most important factors which is being neglected in South Africa to an increasing extent is that our actions and reactions and reflexes are becoming too slow. May we then express the hope and the desire that the national fitness scheme will in future contribute to an increasing extent towards making us vivacious, eager to work and cheerful. Mr. Chairman, this is another field I also want to emphasize which is another indication to me of the importance of this department; which emphasizes once more the multiple aims of this department with its various types of sport.

Then I should like to break a lance for two of the less well-known types of sport in South Africa, which are controlled by the South African Amateur Judo Association and the National Amateur Karate Association. I say that these are types of sport which can be used for more than one purpose, and to support this statement I just want to refer to findings in the United State of America, where it has been found that in 43% of all assaults, where fire-arms were not used and where the attacks did not have any serious consequences, the attacker was physically weaker than the person he attacked. Further tests have proved that in 72% of these cases, the attacker subsequently feared a confrontation with the person he had attacked. In other words, the attacker was physically the weaker, and he was successful in his assault attempt only because he caught the victim unawares; that the victim’s reaction was too slow and that his self-defence was not what it should have been. But a further investigation in West Germany indicated that 67% of all motor-car accidents could have been avoided if the actions and reactions of the drivers had not been so slow. Here, then, we have two types of sport which concentrate on speeding up one’s actions, reactions and reflexes, and here I want to make an appeal that this department, since it has in the past already given tangible aid to the Judo Association and the National Karate Association by way of funds, aid and organization, I want to ask that this aid should be further extended in future and that consideration be given to the possibility of bringing home to our children at our schools, and perhaps even at an earlier stage, the advantages of these particular types of sport. The history of judo can be traced back as far as the seventeenth century, when it was applied in self-defence for the first time. It subsequently developed into a sport which is not only suited to young and old but is also safe for young and old. I think that we are able to succeed in making our children more familiar with these two types of sport in South Africa, this could in future also contribute towards limiting assaults in South Africa, to speeding up the actions and reactions of our youth and of our older people, and when we could perhaps include this later among our gymnastic exercises, where the emphasis lies on the suppleness of body, among our young people, suppleness and a willingness to work among our labourers, I believe that this Department of Sport and Recreation will come into its own because I believe this is one of those departments which can exercise its beneficial influence in most spheres. I just want to conclude with these words. Let our national fitness scheme come into its own, because it is in the hands of a capable Minister with a capable Secretary and an excellent department.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central delivered himself of so many untruths here that it is impossible for me, in the short time at my disposal, to reply to all of them. In the first instance, I should like to reply here to an interjection he made and which he later supplemented by a quotation from a newspaper according to which I had supposedly said that our sports policy was responsible for the rugby tour to New Zealand having been cancelled. Sir, that is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard. [Interjections.] What that article does in fact say, and for which I accept the fullest responsibility, is that it is of course so that it is the policy in South Africa that also the White people in this country have the right to retain their own identity and sovereignty here and that this policy naturally makes us unpopular among those people who are prepared to surrender us to to a Black majority.

Hear, hear!

As a result of every aspect of this policy—whatever adjustments we might make, which would enable these people to overthrow the existing order in South Africa entirely—we would not make any headway with our enemies abroad. I should like to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Pinelands. He said that he had read—he had read quite correctly—that I believed that the day would come when we would be able to undertake tours in New Zealand once again. I, as someone who was privileged to be able to tour there, fully believe this, because I am a positive person and similarly I believe that the day will come when we shall be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games. If the hon. member for Pinelands had read a little more of that article, he would have seen that I had also said that the decisions were not always in our hands. In that same article I stated that we had a policy of multi-nationalism and that we were only prepared to let our sports policy develop within the framework of our policy of multi-nationalism.

Other members have replied adequately to all the negative remarks made by the hon. member for Pinelands. I believe that this has been a debate which has offered ample opportunity for positive contributions to be made in regard to sport in South Africa. I should like to come to a more positive aspect of sport in South Africa. Unfortunately many people still have the approach that in terms of our national interests, sport should not enjoy a very high priority. That is an incorrect approach, an approach which does not take account of the tremendous mental, physical and cultural value of sport. Sport is a powerful means of education. Not only does it have a formative value for the body, but it also has a formative influence on the spirit, on the personality, on the character, on the approach to life and on the attitudes of the people who participate in sport.

The U.P. people should all take part in sport.

I therefore believe that it has become imperative, particularly for the sake of our youth, that the activities of the Department of Sport and Recreation be extended. Disturbing signs of physical, moral and cultural poverty may be detected among the youth of South Africa. I believe that sport is a bulwark against this poverty. But then sport must not merely be left to a few voluntary, enthusiastic sporting individuals.

Nor to the Broederbond. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must give the hon. member for Johannesburg West the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is incapable of thinking about important things or of talking about them.

The Department of Sport and Recreation with its outstanding services, services to which the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred, too, services in respect of coaching, sport research and so on, must also expand these services and by means of programme planning, assist clubs not only to accommodate the crack sportsmen, but also the masses. A dynamic, countrywide, action of youth and sporting bodies under the leadership of the Department of Sport and Recreation could, in the final analysis, measured in terms of spiritual value, achieve a higher price than our gold price at the moment.

I should briefly like to motivate this idea further. Without going into the matter in detail, the fact can be stated that man today, as a result of the reduction in the number of hours worked per week, has more free time than in any other time in the history of mankind. In many respects we are rightly moving from a working community to a free-time community. In our community more time is continually becoming available, time which is not bound to the essential ties of labour. There is also the fact that in our education at home and at school we are so geared for labour which will have to be performed one day, that we fail to prepare people, particularly young people, also to employ their free time meaningfully. Man is as much a consumer of free time—and perhaps to an even greater extent—as he is of labour time. The limited provision which exists in regard to the spending of free time, leads to the aimless sauntering about of young people, the gadding about and the addition to superficial pleasure. In this regard I believe that the State has a responsibility and that the Department of Sport and Recreation has an exceptional task to perform.

This task can be summed up briefly as follows: Firstly, the value of sport as educative and formative medium must be utilized more effectively. Secondly, greater participation in sport must be promoted.

The ridiculous ignorance of people who still maintain in our day that South Africa, and particularly the young people of South Africa, are sports mad, is shown up adequately by the fact that barely 20% of the young people in the age group 16 to 25 years take an active part in sport. There is a shocking erosion in participation in sports by the school-leaver. Mass participation must be promoted. Thirdly: Leadership, coaching and research in the field of sport are essential. This must be initiated and developed by the Department of Sport and Recreation. From this it follows that the regional offices as well as the establishment of the department must necessarily be extended. As much attention as possible must be given in the fourth place to family recreation, particularly at this juncture when the disintegration of the family is causing serious concern. Fifthly: More effective use must be made of existing facilities. Here I want to refer particularly to school buildings which often stand like white elephants in our communities after school hours. I am convinced that school buildings, particularly in regard to after-school youth and family recreation, can be utilized much more effectively in the community. In the sixth place: The benefits of the services of the Department of Sport and Recreation must be extended to all population groups. As a result of the exceptional specialization which research, coaching, administration in the field of sport and the financing of sport demand, it goes without saying that the Department of Sport and Recreation must be the logical focus for all the sporting bodies in South Africa. The exceptional services performed by the Department in South Africa can be extended into a grand attempt in the interests of everyone in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, indeed. I believe that we on this side of the House have achieved something today. Firstly, we heard the hon. member for Pretoria District tell the House that it is not because of Government policy that South Africa is isolated in international sport. He gave many other reasons why we are today isolated in world sport. Now his colleague from Johannesburg West tells us that it is because of Government policy that we are isolated. This we have been telling hon. members on that side for 25 years. We are certainly making progress. I yet want to hear hon. members on that side of the House repudiate the indications that the Broederbond is influencing South African sport today. Not one member on that side has yet raised the issue. They have all steered around it, and no one dare deny that the Broederbond is deeply involved in South African sport.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, my time is limited.

†Today we find ourselves cut off from the outside world as regards international sport—so what can we hope for? All we can hope for, is to have smaller and more localized teams, such as the London Counties touring our country at the moment; Newport, which is a Welsh team; and the French team who will also be touring South Africa. But as regards international sport, this is out as long as those hon. members are in control of sport in South Africa. We have now come down to the level of provincial sport. This is the best we can now hope for: Provincial teams against visiting clubs, etc., such as those I have mentioned, from the outside world, and most games on the local club level. I would suggest that, seeing the Broederbond is so interested in South African sport, and has so much to say and has such control over our sport, that the Broederbond should choose a Broederbondbokke team. Let us then send this Broederbondbokke team overseas to play against the Welsh, the Irish and London Counties. It would be very easy for them to send a team and I shall tell you why, Sir. They will be able to take along their own referee, the hon. member for Waterberg. Furthermore, when they arrive at their destination, they need never give the names of the members of their team; this is secret! And they need never give the name of the hotel where they are staying because this is definitely secret too! They need not give their telephone numbers either. I believe they will probably go a long way on this account.

The hon. members on that side are celebrating 25 years of government rule. I do not know what they have to celebrate about. Today we do not have a friend in the outside world as far as sport is concerned. International sport is out for us and we find ourselves going deeper and deeper into the morass in this regard. So there is nothing to celebrate at all. We should all know that the best ambassadors any country can have one finds on the sportsfields of international sport. I think we will all agree that our South African sportsmen are second to none. We can challenge any other team in the world and we will prove ourselves to be second to none. However, for our sportsmen to achieve the standard to which they have risen to date in international sport, they must start when they are young boys and girls at school. Therefore we should concentrate on our youngsters at school. However, what do we find? On the Border in the Eastern Cape we have an arrangement which has become traditional.

We have amongst our leading schools, Afrikaans-medium and English-medium schools, a day we call Derby Day, a traditional day amongst all Border schools. These Derby Days are arranged between the leading schools in East London, King William’s Town and Queenstown. When Rugby Derby Day is arranged, no less than 15 teams are transported from one town to the other to represent their schools. I do not know of any other place in South Africa where this happens on such a scale, but one has always found it in the Border between the schools of East London, King William’s Town and Queenstown. [Interjections.] Please listen, man. I want the hon. the Minister to listen too because I want to ask him to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for a great favour. What has happened since the Budget was introduced? The train fares have been increased to such an extent that the 15 teams together with their supporters—this is to say the entire school—which used to be transported from one town to the other to take part in this traditional Derby Day, with the increased rail fares the whole proposition is no longer feasible or possible. It is the increased train fares which are in the process of killing this traditional Derby Day for all the schools in the Eastern Cape.

What has been the result? The parents and many friends of the schools have had to subscribe to buses; they have had to purchase large buses to transport the teams, which have had to cut down costs to a minimum, and it is no longer possible for 15 teams together with their supporters to take part. These buses now add to the heavy traffic on our roads. I am speaking on behalf of many parents, many supporters of rugby, and generally the people in the Eastern Cape, who are very disappointed that the Government has increased the fares for children playing sport, whether it be rugby, cricket, tennis, swimming or athletics. I plead with the hon. the Minister to give this his serious consideration. I feel sure his department will. It is not the case, as the hon. member for Bethlehem mentioned just now, that we are attacking the department; I know he is trying to find a scapegoat for their policies, but no one on this side has ever attacked the department.

Where did I say that you were attacking the department?

You accused the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central of attacking the department. You accused him of this at the beginning of your speech.

I never said that, I said you were attacking the Government.

None of us envy the department in its work. They have a very unenviable task to perform, but we do appeal to the hon. the Minister that, as far as the school children are concerned, when they have to play rugby or any other sport against another school, they should receive concessions on the railways.

Mr. Chairman, if I …

Duck, there is a jukskei pin on its way!

Yes, someone is hurling jukskei pins about again. Never mind, I shall return to jukskei. That hon. member wants to know something about jukskei and I shall tell him about it in a moment. I want to tell him about it because then he will know more about it.

Mr. Chairman, if I did not know the sporting bodies in South Africa as I do in fact know them and if I had not had many dealings with bodies such as the Department of Sport and Recreation and the Federation for Youth and Sport in South Africa, the president of which is the chairman of the South African Rugby Union, I would really have thought that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was speaking the truth. I dissociate myself completely from what he said, i.e. that sport in South Africa is being controlled from outside, and not by the sporting bodies. I dissociate myself entirely from that statement because I am personally involved in a sport which boasts of between 20 000 and 30 000 players. We arrange our own affairs. We arrange our own affairs in such a way that no offence is given to any one involved in other sports.

I want to go further and say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central dealt the hon. member for Johannesburg West a slap in the face. Instead of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central rising and saying that he took off his hat to the hon. member for Johannesburg West for joining his team mates in foreign parts in standing up to the most shocking antagonism and provocation, and for being a credit to South Africa, and instead of the hon. member rising and paying tribute to countries such as France where there were no demonstrations against and attacks on our Springboks, he disparaged his own colleague here in the House of Assembly. I really cannot understand that.

The hon. member for Durban Central is keen to know something more about jukskei, but before I tell him more about it, and before I say something about the sound relations which are created not only at home but also among nations through sport, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Sport and Recreation for everything they are doing for sport in South Africa. I think it speaks volumes that the Department of Sport and Recreation has awarded 44 merit sport awards, 31 silver medals and 13 bronze medals to sportsmen and sportswomen.

I come now to the department as such. The work of this department covers a very wide field and is in the interests of White as well as non-White sport. I make so bold as to say that the good relations which prevailed recently during the S.A. Games in Pretoria and Johannesburg were largely attributable to the example of the fine spirit which the officials of this department conveyed to the various population groups, to serve our country in a proper way on the level of relations. We thank them very gratefully for that. The department serves as the initiator of sound relations and also as the catalyst and ensures that those sound relations are utilized to the full. Reference has been made so many times in this House to the wonderful atmosphere which prevailed at the South African Games that I want to refrain from saying anything further about it, for it was a good thing and an excellent thing. One appreciates it when this spirit iis constantly conveyed to others.

I want to state that it has been my experience that most sportsmen and sportswomen in the world are keen to compete with South African sportsmen and sportswomen because they know that if they have not competed against our Springbok teams, they have not pitted their strength against the best in the world.

Now I should like to return to the subject which the hon. member for Durban Central is so keen to know more about. Last year I had the privilege of visiting the northern states of the United States of America together with a group of South African sportsmen and sportswomen. It was an experience. It was wonderful. I can state that an unparalleled interest was shown in the South African sportsmen and sportswomen and also in this variety of sport which is as yet a very humble one and which is perhaps not yet very popular in the sportsfields of the House of Assembly. However it is popular elsewhere in our country. If the hon. member for Walmer wishes to, he can play a set with me. I think he will enjoy it thoroughly. Last year we also had a visit from American sportsmen and sportswomen. It is no use my telling these hon. members what they said. Let me read out what they said. With the approval of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation and of the Interior, I just want to quote an extract from two significant letters. I have a whole file of letters addressed to me. However, those letters do not carry as much weight as these two. I think I ought to read out these two letters to the Committee. A judge from the State of Ohio wrote as follows to the Minister of Sport and Recreation—

Speaking of great moral strength—those good people asked us to demonstrate the game of jukskei on a Sunday. We conveyed to them our viewpoint on that matter and they respected our viewpoint and consequently arranged no Sunday matches for us. I say that this is an indication of what those people thought of us.

There are a few other passages which I could quote from the letter of the hon. judge. This letter was received on 22nd January this year by the hon. the Minister. These people are still thinking of what occurred in August of last year. Here I have another letter which was also addressed to one of our Ministers, namely to Dr. Mulder. This letter was sent by an American mayor to the Minister of the Interior. He said, inter alia—

Then he said something significant—

I can continue by quoting from further extracts, and could really become lyrical about these people’s attitude towards the sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa. But I think I have said enough to indicate to you what a fine spirit prevailed there. Not only did we discover thousands of friends, but we won thousands of friends for White South Africa. It was a great success. Thousands of friends will still turn up in future to prove to you that what I said here is indeed based on well-founded facts.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is a leading light in the jukskei world and I am quite certain that his team were a credit to South Africa in the United States. I am just intrigued with one thought in that I wondered whether the hon. member could tell us whether that team was selected on merit as well. After all it was an international team that went overseas. I therefore do believe that it should have been selected on merit.

I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he is deserving of congratulation. If anybody should think that remarkable it is even more remarkable when one considers that, as an ex senior official of the Broederbond, he has shown remarkable powers of recovery after years of indoctrination. I would like to welcome him in his adaptation to the modern world

If the hon. the Minister will do me the courtesy of listening to some of the things that I might have to say, I will now cease offering him praise …

I am listening to the hon. member with great pleasure.

… because you have no idea, Mr. Chairman, how much it hurts me as an individual to have to praise anybody associated with the Broederbond. There is no question in anybody’s mind that the Pretoria Games were a tremendous success and a great credit to South Africa. It was a milestone in our sport. Of that there can be no doubt. I must temper this thought though, in case the hon. Minister gets a swollen head, and say to him that it took 25 years for the Government to reach the stage where it could hold the Pretoria Games. What we really achieved was merely catching up on the last 25 years. I think it was a great shame that it took so long for this thought to sink in into Government minds. And of course, it was all brought about by the fears in the ranks of Government supporters that people could not play sport together without friction being brought about.

To my mind, the most important thing that the Pretoria Games showed was that people of different races can play sport together, and that the fears, which the Government has in fact propagated and dwelt upon for 25 years, were proved to be entirely unfounded. I believe that if one looks at the Pretoria Games in its true perspective—and I think the hon. the Minister must agree with me from his own experience at the Games—it showed that people of different races, of different backgrounds and different cultures, can meet on the sportsfield; that it is a perfectly normal thing to do and that in fact race relations are tremendously strengthened by the very fact that people are able to do this. My appeal to the Government is not to stop at the Pretoria Games, but to go further; to go as far as good law and order allows us to do. I think the only thing that enabled the Pretoria Games to take place was the fact that the Government suddenly discovered the term “multi-national” rather than “multi-racial”. This term “multi-national” enabled them to find suddenly that the Pretoria Games was possible. Sir, in my book all people in South Africa are South Africans, although we may be multi-racial. I do not mind if the Government wishes to play with words if it enables us to have an event such as the Pretoria Games. Sir, when you think of the years of blustering that we had in this respect, then the adaptation performed by the Minister—the almost miraculous adaptation brought about in view of the Minister’s record—is quite remarkable. One thinks of the D’Oliveira incident, the incident of the Japanese jockey and the incident of the Federation Cup. Sir, if you look at last year’s Hansard and read the then Minister’s attempt to explain how it was possible to select a team on merit for the Federation Cup, it reads like something out of Punch. The team was selected privately with a great deal of secrecy and no Press reporters were allowed to attend the trials. But then suddenly at the Pretoria Games something like 600 athletes, I believe, of all colours from all over the world were able to play their particular sport in front of thousands of people; no one was excluded and the ground was not private ground. I therefore say to the hon. the Minister that I sincerely congratulate him. He has come a long way. Perhaps in the next 20 years he will have advanced far enough to be able to sit on this side of the House with some merit. Mr. Chairman, because the hon. the Minister has seen the light, I would like to put a couple of salient points to him. Firstly, there is the matter of a world champion boxer, who happens to be a non-White, coming out to South Africa to fight, but that tournament has to take place beyond the borders of South Africa. On the other hand, at the Pretoria Games Whites and non-Whites fought against each other and conducted themselves in the best of manners and nobody was able to utter a word of complaint. But when a world champion boxer who, according to my information, is certainly a man of character, comes to South Africa to fight a White South African champion, they have to go across the borders to fight there. I believe that the hon. the Minister is not being logical in this particular approach. I know that this is not his department, but when it comes to the matter of sport I know that the hon. the Minister has a great deal of influence with the Minister of Community Development. Sir, I have heard the explanations of the hon. the Minister of Community Development in regard to the Nico Malan Theatre, and I hope and I sincerely pray that when he tries to give those explanations to the Minister of Sport, he will get the reaction that he (the Minister of Community Development) got from this side of the House when he talked about Mrs. A and Mr. B wanting to dance together, or to have tea together. Sir, I would like to mention this fact to the hon. the Minister of Sport: In various parts of South Africa non-Whites are able to watch White sports as spectators. Let me quote as an example the football matches which are played under the National Football League. In Bloemfontein non-Whites are not allowed to be spectators; in Pretoria they are not allowed to be spectators, and in Pietermaritzburg they are not allowed to be spectators, but the very same non-Whites are quite happily received in stadiums in Johannesburg. Cape Town and Durban. Bearing in mind that the behaviour of these people at these various sports stadiums, despite the heat of the moment, has not at any stage been any worse than that of White spectators—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this respect—I can see no reason why non-Whites should be allowed to watch sport in one city of South Africa and be excluded in another city. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is these things which give South Africa unnecessarily a poor name, because it makes no sense whatsoever. I asked the hon. the Minister to appeal to his colleagues in the Cabinet, when he is not thinking of Nico Malan but of higher things, to make it possible for spectators of various race groups to watch each other play sport. I say to the Minister that the only yardstick at any time should be the question of good law and order. If this is the matter at issue, then of course it is a different matter entirely. But I want him to use his influence to the best of his ability to see that this can take place as soon as possible.

I would like to refer to one of the hon. members opposite who spoke about the students who sent a letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand in regard to the proposed rugby tour. I do not see the hon. member in the Chamber now but I want to say to that hon. member that I disagree entirely with the action of those students. I do not agree with boycotts. [Interjections.] I want to say that I disagree entirely with those students. [Time expired.]

I am certain that when the hon. member for Port Natal kisses his wife, he first kicks her a few times on her shin. He puts me so much in mind of a bantam; before pecking at a maize kernel he first kicks at it a few times. Why did that hon. member first have to kick out at the Minister of Sport a few times on the S.A. Games? Why did he not say “thank you very much” to the hon. the Minister for the way in which these South African Games were arranged and for the great service the Minister did to sport in South Africa by the Games in such a way within the framework of the policy of the National Party.

This is the first time in his life that he has done something right and now you want me to thank him for it.

I want to say to the hon. member that I admit that he did in fact say thank you, but there are a number of ways in which a person can do that.

The hon. member for Pinelands, as well as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, referred to the isolation of South Africa in the sphere of international sport, but now I wonder whether the hon. members read the report of the Department of Sport and Recreation, in which it is stated that during the past year only 13 of the 72 registered amateur sports did not participate in competitions at international level.

The 13 most important, of course.

Of these 73 sport associations 37 were hosts to teams from overseas countries and 37 participated overseas. In this report the names of the countries from which sportsmen and sportswomen visited South Africa are furnished, and also the countries which were visited by sportsmen and sportswomen from South Africa. This information is available and if one looks at it one would not say that South Africa is isolated in the sphere of international sports.

During the past year quite a number of merit sports awards were made to our best sportsmen. At the State President’s state award on 15th February, 1973, the Minister of Sport and Recreation expressed the idea of making a sports merit award to coaches and sports administrators as well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the wonderful idea to which he gave expression on that occasion. I should also like to see the persons behind the scenes, the people who do the coaching and administrative work in regard to sport, also being honoured for the work, zeal, affection and dedication they give to sportsmen so that they may accomplish these wonderful achievements for South Africa. If I may be permitted to make such a sports merit award to sport administrators. I should like to say that the first sport merit award should be made to the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, to Mr. Beyers Hoek, the competent and dedicated Secretary for Sport and Recreation, and to his department—they who have recently meant so much to sport in South Africa.

If we look at the annual report of the department we see that a wonderful, balanced view of the department’s task and the performance of its duties is reflected in it. During the past year this department has given a great deal of attention to coaching. There was the coaching offered to outstanding sportsmen, but particular attention was also given to the coaching of sportsmen and women who do not have the physical ability or the aptitude to accomplish great achievements. According to the annual report a great deal of attention was devoted to the coach, the administrator and the sportsman.

A project I want to emphasize in particular is the youth vacation courses and the adventure courses which this department undertook during the past year. In 1971 they undertook 27 youth vacation and adventure courses which were attended by 2 532 young people. In 1972 74 of these courses were offered, which were attended by 6 772 young people. This is an indication to me of the popularity of these courses which are being arranged. Since this department is, with its youth vacation and adventure courses, taking the young people from the cities into the open air, are taking them back to nature where they learn basic skills and their basic interest in certain sports is aroused, sports with which they were perhaps not yet acquainted, I think that a tremendous task is being performed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that a great deal of attention is devoted to this aspect in the year which lies ahead.

I accept that the arrangement of these courses and the implementation of the numerous other projects to which various other hon. members referred is not possible with the small staff which the Secretary has at his disposal. I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister today for the staff to be expanded, and for more regional offices to be established. Specifically I want to make a plea for a regional office of the Department of Sport and Recreation for the northern Cape and Griqualand West region, which will be situated in Kimberley or somewhere in that part of the world.

There is another important aspect which I also mentioned last year and to which I should like to refer again. I want to raise the matter of the technical journal for our sport and physical education. Our way of life, our eating habits, our overweight problems and the diseases incidental thereto, emphasize the importance of sport and physical training throughout our society. Attention should not only be given to the outstanding sportsmen, but the idea of sport and recreation should be brought home to every citizen of South Africa. As I did last year, I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that a technical journal with a scientific approach should be introduced as soon as possible which could give guidance in the field of sport and physical training. A technical journal could make a major contribution to publicizing our sport image and to bringing to the attention of the public the findings of scientific sport research, which was advocated by the hon. member for De Aar. Such a technical journal could also serve as a means of communication in the sphere of sport and physical training. There is today an urgent need for such a technical journal among sportsmen and sportswomen, coaches, administrators and also research workers.

I must mention to you that when I was still a physical training instructor in the teaching profession, the journal Vigor, which was published at the time but eventually disappeared, for the physical training instructor, for the sport teacher and coach meant a great deal with its sport research work, coaching work and so on, which it disseminated in that way. For that reason I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that such a journal be re-established.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, we had a very interesting debate this morning, but this side of the House and indeed the whole nation have been waiting for somebody on that side of the House to repudiate the accusation that the Broederbond has had, or still has, an influence in the sport policy of this Government. Somebody on that side must do so. No one has done so yet. Therefore we are entitled to accept that a secret society like the Broederbond is ruling this country, and not the Government. [Interjections.] Where is the hon. member for Pretoria District? He is afraid to be here because I want to reply to him.

He has gone to the airport.

Well, then I beg his pardon; he did not tell me he was going to the airport. At any rate, we on this side reject the action of those Natal University students and lecturers as does everybody else. We are still, however, waiting for a reply to our question on the Broederbond. All the laughing and all the jokes will not wash that away whatsoever. South Africa is waiting for that answer.

Sir, I wish to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Mind you, Sir, he received his promotion just when he saw his famous Bantu policy collapsing. He has now entered safer and., I hope, calmer waters.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on behalf of the South African Surf Life-Saving Association. This is a body of young, dedicated, highly trained and well-disciplined men who perform a considerable service for this country. I notice in the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation that this body was granted an amount of R500 last year when they held their national championships in Durban. I may say it was a very successful function. People may or may not realize that in South Africa there are only 35 White surf life-saving clubs to guard the shores of South Africa all the way from Mozambique on the east coast to South-West Africa on the west coast. This is a vast stretch of coastline. These 35 clubs are to be found on the north and south coasts of Natal, including Durban, at East London. Port Elizabeth and the Cape Peninsula. In addition, there are two Indian clubs in Natal and three Coloured clubs, two of which I understand are in the Cape. The third Coloured club is in Natal, and a Bantu club has been newly formed at Port Elizabeth. I am glad to say that the White clubs give the non-White clubs every assistance both as regards training and equipment. There is a brotherhood amongst these lifesavers which you find throughout the world. The membership of the White clubs is just under 1 700, and it is expanding at the rate of about 10% per annum.

The first surf life saving championships were held in 1936. These championships continued until 1939. Then the war broke out and the championships were resumed in 1947, after the cessation of hostilities. The fundamental aims and objects of this association are to provide men and boys with the knowledge and skill to protect the bathers on the sea shores of the Republic. This is done free of charge. These men risk their lives in this service and they do so free of charge, content in the knowledge that they have done a good job.

Tell them what their miserable subsidy is.

It was R500 last year.

That is right; it is a shame.

The association is the controlling body for all recognized and affiliated amateur surf life-saving clubs in South Africa. It relies entirely on fund-raising efforts, subscriptions and donations from the public for its funds. It would be invidious to name certain oil firms, tobacco firms and the one or two electronics firms which give very generously to the Surf Life-Saving Association, but without this bounteous gesture from these people this association would be in a parlous financial state. Weekend after weekend, holiday after holiday, we find these young men and boys giving their services freely and voluntarily. They ask for no reward, and you would be surprised, Sir, to find that when a person has been rescued he very rarely thanks the people who have saved his life. Perhaps it is a psychological effect. I do not know what happens, but they just disappear without even saying thank you. As I have indicated, this voluntary service is performed without any cost to the taxpayer whatsoever. The efforts and the dedication of these highly trained and disciplined surf life-savers mean that people can relax and enjoy their coastal holidays with greater peace of mind. Without the fearless devotion of South Africa’s amateur surf life-saving clubs, hundreds of holiday-makers would be drowned each year. The fine public spirit shown by our country’s life safers deserves everybody’s admiration and gratitude. I can assure this Committee that the high regard in which our life savers are held is not confined to the Republic, but exists also in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany, and our life savers are counted among the best in the world. They have won tests against Australia and other countries overseas. Not only have they competed against other countries, but they have attended seminars in the U.S.A. and in other countries where they have shared knowledge, which has been of benefit both to those countries and to South Africa.

Next year the world life-saving championships are going to be held in South Africa. These championships will take place in January and February at Durban and Port Elizabeth, and so far teams from six overseas countries are to take part. They are England, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S.A. and Taiwan. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Sport will prevail upon his colleague, the Minister of Community Development, to get rid of this—I very nearly used an unparliamentary word—silly and stupid idea of segregation. Some of these people who will be coming in from the other nations will not be White. I want to point out that this will be a world championship. South Africa will be the host and we must show that we are big-hearted.

In the past this association has made very few calls on the Government for financial help, but I hope that in view of the enormity of the task facing this association, the Minister will use his influence to assist them. We know that he has a way of talking and winning people over to his side and I hope that he will convince his colleagues in the Cabinet to open their hearts and, in that way, the purse strings of the Minister of Finance, so that they will be more bounteous in their gifts to the Surf Life-Saving Association, in order to ensure that this world championship in 1974 will be a success. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether my information is correct, but I have been told that the hon. member for Umnazi is a champion surfer.

“Moedersbond!”

Now I just want to tell him that he should rather confine himself to playing his kind of sport and leave the Broederbond alone. It is really a pity that he and his party have dragged the Broederbond into this debate, this debate which should really have been a purely sporting debate and which has offered them the opportunity to indicate a direction to us. That is why this debate reveals two facts to me: Firstly there is this side of the House which is systematically creating opportunities for our sportsmen and sportswomen in a hostile world. And then on the other side of the House there is the United Party with their prophecies of doom and laissez faire policy, a policy in terms of which they want to throw open the gates and hope for the best. I leave it at that.

Actually there are two matters I should like to raise on this occasion. Firstly I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for a symposium of sports administrators in South Africa at which the overall planning of South African sport may be discussed, a symposium at which ideas may be exchanged. I believe that if such a symposium could be arranged, it would lend more sparkle to our sport. Secondly, I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Kuruman and ask whether some award could not be made to sports administrators, not as a reward, but as a token of appreciation for the valuable work done by these men and women.

This debate affords us an opportunity to pay tribute to our sportsmen and sportswomen for their brilliant achievements, achievements of world quality, which are not always recognized by a hostile world. It also affords us an opportunity to express our thanks to the Department of Sport and Recreation for their ingenuity, purposefulness and positive actions. However, on this occasion I also want to pay tribute to those men and women who are working behind the scenes and who, through their successful attempts, enable our sportsmen and sportswomen to take part in meetings. I am referring to our sports administrators. Let me say at once that without the work done by these people no sports meeting would be possible. Therefore I am grateful to learn from the report of the department that departmental sports administrator courses are being offered, on a national as well as on a provincial level. I hope and trust that these will be continued in 1973 as well. I believe that we shall have to realize that sport today, as well as in the future, is going to make ever greater demands on the ingenuity, resourcefulness and organizational abilities of our sports administrators. In this regard I should like to emphasize one aspect in particular, and that is that there will have to be thorough planning. I think that it would also be a good thing for our sports administrators to take cognizance of the fact that the policy of this Government is not merely a laissez faire policy, not merely a policy in terms of which we want to leave the matter in their hands, but that we on this side, and the Government through the department, want to assist these sports administrators and give them all possible assistance in the handling of the wider implications of what they are doing. I believe that sports administrators can play a very important role to meet the needs of not only the sportsmen and sportswomen but also of the sporting public. I also believe that our sports administrators should take cognizance of the fact that spectators have become selective, that boring sports meetings are something of the past, and that particularly the overlapping of large sports meeting in our major centres is something which should be guarded against. On this occasion I want to refer in particular to the outstanding hour event of the University of Stellenbosch. I was privileged to attend it earlier this year. Those sports administrators had the athletes there and because it was an event of this nature, they also had the spectators. I believe that when sports administrators act within the framework of the Republic’s sports policy which has been laid down, and do so in full co-operation with the department, they can make a major contribution and achieve great success.

This afternoon I also want to sound a warning that these sports administrators, too, should perhaps be more on their guard, in particular against precipitate statements. One can understand that there is frustration among these people at times and that there are often disappointments when tours must be cancelled, but I do not think that that is the occasion to issue statements left, right and centre. I believe that some of our sports administrators should beware of publicity because they do not always realize the implications of certain statements issued. We have also noted that often there are differences amongst themselves as well as personal differences, which I believe are not in the interests of sport. This afternoon I want to ask our sports administrators to put sport first and to do so with dedication, with unselfish action and with positive leadership. Much has been said in this debate about international sport and tours. I believe that these are not the be-all and the end-all of sport. We must also look at our internal sports meetings and what is offered here. I think that when we do that we can be filled with pride. All our sportsmen and sportswomen have an opportunity to participate and I believe that if we continue to work on our internal sports meetings, we could achieve a great deal of success. In this regard our sports administrators can make a major and important contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once, with reference to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said, that we arrange five provincial sport administration courses and one national sport administrator’s course annually. These courses are in fact identical to the sport symposiums which the hon. member advocated. We made a start with these precisely because we believe that they are very necessary. Someone once said: “If a father doesn’t look after his son, who will?” I want to say that my approach and my view in respect of the sportsmen and women of South Africa is that if the Government, I myself, and my Department of Sport and Recreation, do not look after their welfare, who will? It is in that spirit and in that frame of mind that we should like our sportsmen and women to be made capable of the best and the highest achievements here in this country. But they must also be made capable of producing the best abroad, in other words on an international level. In that spirit and in that frame of mind it is a wonderful privilege and a very great pleasure for me to have charge of this portfolio of Sport and Recreation. I said on one occasion, and I repeat it now in a very earnest spirit and as coming from the bottom of my heart, that I can honestly say that I am not seeking fame or fortune, nor a long life, nor am I seeking the death of any of my enemies, for I do not think I have such enemies; therefore I am not seeking the death of anyone in the Opposition benches opposite either! However, I am seeking one thing, viz. that I shall cope with this portfolio, which affects so many people and is so important in our country and in the international sphere as well, with the necessary insight, and that this matter shall be handled with circumspection and, if I may say this, in all humility, with wisdom. That is honestly my profound desire.

Against what background are we discussing this important matter today, a matter which arouses so many feelings throughout the country and also, when all is said and done, throughout the world? We are doing it here in South Africa against a background of newspaper reports such as the one I am holding in my hand, of January, 1973, and no one opposite can argue this away. No one in South Africa can argue this away. The headline to this report reads: “Intensified action against South Africa in 1973,” and in this report the following inter alia is said—

On 31st December, 1972, virtually the same date as that of the report to which I have just referred—I have a considerable number of such reports which I could present to this House—a report appeared under the headline “Plan to Kill All-White sport —Sanroc.” I quote—

So they continue. This is the background against which we are debating this matter today. I have here in my hand one of the constitutions, or whatever you would like to call it, of the Non-racial Sports Council which was established here in South Africa. I want to quote to the hon. House what their declared aims are in black and white —and I am not talking politics now; I am stating the facts to the House:

That is their aim. Here I also have a report in regard to the United Nations Apartheid Committee. I want to quote from it—

of the United Nations Apartheid Committee—

This is dated 18th May, 1973. What is the position in South Africa against the background of these facts? The position in South Africa is that we held the South African Games here this year under the National Party Government, which could only be described as a triumph for South Africa, for that is what it genuinely was. I agree with every hon. member on the opposite side who stated how this had been conducive to sound race relations. I could tell you wonderful anecdotes of how these Games was conducive to sound race relations. We on this side are grateful for and pleased about that.

I could have made a pleasant little political game of this matter this afternoon, with hon. members opposite on the receiving end. I could, in plain, down-to-earth language have wiped the floor with some of the hon. members there in political terms, but I do not want to do so because we want to consider the more important matter here this afternoon. But I do want to tell you that the S.A. Games were brought about as a result of the sensible and correct policy of the National Party Government. I am saying this because I believe it, and not because I want to make political capital out of it. I am honest enough to have stated it differently if I had wanted to. Good speeches were made on that side of the House today. There were excellent speeches on this side of the House. The hon. members on my side came to this House prepared. They are being activated in the groups, and one is grateful for the fact that they are making such an excellent contribution. One or two speeches were made on that side of the House which I could really, if I had wanted to, have torn to pieces very effectively. I would really have been able to ruin the reputation here of one or two members on that side, perhaps for good, but I would rather not do so. I shall in fact return to this later. I am advocating, and I want to say things today which I hope will have the effect that we will in future have a debate on this matter on a high level, so much so that it will really be of service to sport in South Africa and really be of benefit to this country, instead of the Broederbond and other stories which were mooted here.

Let me deal at once with that Broederbond story. I reject it with the contempt which it deserves!

Why?

I shall tell you why. I have never concealed the fact that I was Chief Secretary of the Broederbond. Let me tell you now that I am proud I was able to hold that position. I am a member of the Broederbond and I have never concealed that fact. I want to state here this afternoon that I am proud to be a member of the Broederbond, for it is a good organization, a noble organization, an uplifting organization. For hon. members on that side to quote the Sunday Times on the Broederbond in a debate on sport is merely a sign of their absolute, flagrant bankruptcy. I think that it is a disgrace to the country.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I want to reply to the Broederbond story, and after that the hon. member may put a question to me. Let me finish dealing with this first. I want to put an end to this matter once and for all, if that is possible, for if we wanted to be vicious, we would also begin to recount the antithesis of the Broederbond story here and begin to smell out who the Freemasions are, and begin to debate this and everything attendant upon this across the floor of this House. I have told you that I am a member of the Broederbond and that I was Chief Secretary of that organization. When I was elected to the House of Assembly I gave my voters the assurance— and that was a long time ago—that I would represent the voters who had elected me as a member of the House of Assembly. I gave them the assurance that I would not allow the Broederbond or any organization of which I was a member to prejudice in any way the interests of the voters which I was serving. I have been a member of the House of Assembly for seven or eight years now, and so far not one person in my constituency has been able to point a finger at me and say that I allowed this to happen. Nor shall I allow this to happen, not now nor at any time in the future. Now the hon. members on the opposite side of the House are asking: What about the Broederbond? Speaker after speaker rose to say that we should repudiate this organization. Now I am telling hon. members on that side—and when I say this, I hope that it will be the end of that ridiculous story of the Opposition—that this country is being governed by the National Party Government, not by the Broederbond. Nor does the Broederbond dictate to this Government what it should do. I am telling the hon. member for Pinelands now that the Broederbond will not dictate to me what should be done, for I am here as a member of the National Party Government, and I am here to serve the interests of South Africa: No organization shall dictate to me what is, or what is not, in the interests of South Africa; the Cabinet and the Government shall judge what is in the interests of this country. Therefore let us now put an end to this matter which was raised by a few journalists to exacerbate a matter which is difficult and troublesome enough as it is. The hon. member wanted to know from me whether I would allow sport to be turned into a political issue. I am on record as having said that in so far as it was within my humble and modest ability, I would try under all circumstances to exclude and keep politics out of this matter. Is there anything else the hon. member would like to know about this?

I should just like to know what the hon. the Minister’s reaction is to the allegations that the Broederbond is trying to get its people into all levels of sport so that they can take control. I want the hon. the Minister to condemn this, and promise that it …

Order!

I should very much like to reply to that at once and tell the hon. member what the facts of the matter are. I want to say at once to the hon. member that the position is that the sporting bodies in South Africa are autonomous bodies. They may elect to their managing committees whomever they please. No one can dictate to the sporting bodies whom they should elect. I cannot dictate to them; no one can dictate to them. I have already told the hon. member that the National Party Government governs this country, and that we will not allow any organization to dictate to the Government how it should act and what it should do in respect of any matter. Everyone is free to do as they please in this country, except those who are restricted by the law and are prohibited by the law from doing certain things. We shall adhere to those guidelines, and therefore my reply to that hon. member is unequivocal and very clear, i.e. that he need lose no sleep tonight over the possibility that sport and recreation in this country will not be dealt with in an objective manner in the interests of this country by the Government of this country. Those are the facts of the matter.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

I do not have very much time, and I have already furnished an adequate reply to the hon. member’s request.

You have as much time as you want.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to condemn what is contained in this article. [Interjections.]

I hope passionately, in the interests of this country which we all love, that we will hear the last of this miserable story in this discussion of sport and recreation today. I have given the assurance …

All I am asking is that you should condemn this.

Every organization is free to do what it wishes. I have already said that. Why should I condemn the one now and not the other? Surely I have replied. [Interjection.]

Order!

There is great sport in your caucus.

You are not brothers at all in your caucus.

You are not even a Brother; they do not want you.

You are a baboon.

Order!

May I ask the hon. the Minister …

Sir, I have finished replying to the question raised by the hon. member; I therefore do not want to go into this matter any further.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether all South Africans may become members of the Broederbond? [Interjections.]

Sir, I should very much like to deal with a matter which is an important one, and one in regard to which many questions were put, and that is what our sport policy is. I have gained the impression that there are certain bodies that are deliberately trying to create the impression in South Africa that the sport policy of the National Party Government is complicated and difficult to understand. What are the facts, Sir? I should like to try, in a few minutes this afternoon, to state and explain our sport policy to hon. members. I want to say at once that I honestly believe that our sport policy is very simple, so simple that even a child could understand it. I want to begin by saying that participation in sport in South Africa should in the first place be seen against the background of the policy of the National Party Government of separate, distinctive development which applies to the entire multi-national public of South Africa. This is not a policy which was created specially to serve sport alone or, as is frequently alleged, to place obstacles in the way of sport. I have already said that our purpose is in fact to help our sportsmen in every sphere. Separate participation in sport is a natural and obvious outcome of the Government’s policy of separate development. It is therefore wrong to speak of a new sport policy or a different formula or certain concessions. However, it is in fact correct to speak of a developing policy which was applied and is being applied to new situations. Sir, in a young country like South Africa adjustments in every sphere are constantly being made—in the sphere of education, of communications, of science, foreign relations, etc. Announcements in respect of certain points of departure relating to sport should therefore be seen as adjustments, development and progress without sacrifice of principles, and I should like to prove this, giving chapter and verse. In a young country like South Africa there has to be a certain degree of elasticity, for one has to deal with and control the situation here in a realistic way under all circumstances, as the National Party Government is still doing, particularly against the background that we will not allow and do not want to allow ourselves to be isolated from the international world in the field of sport, or in any sphere whatsoever, as our enemies are trying to do. We do not want to be isolated, and we are not going to allow ourselves to be isolated, and the National Party will make its contribution towards ensuring that this does not happen. We are willing to enter the lists against those people who wish to isolate us. We are saying to them in advance that they will not succeed, not with the National Party Government in power.

Sir, then there is a second point I want to make. Sport is important to man, to the individual, nationally as well as internationally, but the National Party Government maintains that there are other things which are considered to be more important than sporting interests. For that reason the interests of sport cannot be placed above the other interests of South Africa, national or international, and I think that every hon. member will readily agree with me in this regard. Sir, the Government lays down certain guidelines within the framework of its policy of separate development. What are these guidelines? I maintain that they are perfectly simple. The fundamental standpoint of the National Party Government in respect of sport is that no mixed sport between Whites and non-Whites will be practised locally, i.e. on the club level, the provincial level and on the national level. Every population group plays and administers its sports separately, and the level of proficiency has nothing to do with this aspect of National Party Government policy. South Africa is a multi-national country, with each one of the different nations on a course of separate development. Sport integration under the National Party rule is therefore not possible, and consequently it is logical to accept that the further development of sport will take this fact into account. Sport integration under National Party rule is not possible for it is practised separately on club level, provincial level and national level. What this approach amounts to is that for the sake of internal order and peace South Africa therefore continues to practise sport separately as far as the various population groups are concerned. Secondly: That all population groups are afforded every opportunity to develop and to practise their sport on a distinctive basis—no ceiling is placed on opportunities for international competition; and lastly: South Africa does not resign itself to demands from elsewhere, specifically from abroad, to have arrangements in regard to sport on the basis of alien political objectives forced on South Africa. For an examination of the developing sport policy it is therefore of importance that the policy should be seen in its entirety. But it happens that people quite frequently single out portions of this policy, as it suits them, and read into those certain concessions which do not exist at all. The interpretation of the sport policy should constantly be consistent with the country’s fundamental policy of separate development. If this is not done, it is not only erroneous and meaningless, but also causes confusion.

Let us now, in the first place, consider snort administration. As far as the administration and control of sporting activities are concerned, these should be in accordance with Government policy, i.e. that non-White associations should exist and develop alongside the corresponding White associations. The non-White nations of South Africa are being afforded every opportunity to develop their own relations with international countries by means of their own sporting bodies which have existed separately on club level, provincial level and national level alongside those of the Whites, and have done so for 300 years up to this point where we find ourselves today.

Just like Pretoria.

It is important to bear in mind that the White sporting bodies in South Africa were the bodies which in the first place organized themselves into a cricket council, a rugby council, into an athletic association, etc., and established certain relations in this connection with overseas countries. In time the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians followed the same course and began to establish their own bodies separately. For that reason I maintain that it is now the task of these non-White bodies, in accordance with the traditional policy, to establish their own international relations. For that reason it is clear that in respect of the control and administration of sport in South Africa, the control as well as the administration on club level, on provincial level and on national level will, under National Party rule, take place separately. For the sake of international liaison, a liaison committee on a high level, presided over by the White body, may exist, on which officials of the various peoples in regard to the particular sport may have representation in an advisory capacity. In other words, it is very easy and simple: One has separate Bantu organizations, one has the Coloured organization and the Indian organization, and one has the White organization, and over these there is a liaison body on which all these organizations have advisory representation, and the inter-national arrangements are made there. I am not going into detail because I think it is clear and simple. Therefore the control and administration is separate and simple, and everyone in this country can understand and comprehend it.

I come now to the basis of our policy, and that is participation in South Africa. I shall deal later with participation by sportsmen in sport outside South Africa. Participation in sport in South Africa takes place separately in terms of the policy of multinational development, on club level, on provincial level and on national level. Now I find in practice that once one has said this, many people do not understand what you are saying. For that reason I want to define this a little more clearly. It means the following. It means that Whites and Coloureds and Bantu may not, on club level, or on provincial level, or on national level, play together or on a mixed basis in the same team and in the same leagues.

Just like the police guarding our borders.

Order!

I am trying to state very simply and to explain to the House a matter which is causing unnecessary confusion. It would be in the interests of this country if this point which I am now making were thoroughly understood and comprehended. In addition it means that a non-White club team or a non-White provincial team may not play against a White club team or against a White provincial team. Only inter-national competition on the highest level is allowed in terms of National Party policy and principles; i.e. under no circumstances will mixed sport between the various population groups take place on the club level, on provincial level or on national level. [Interjections.] I want to try and state it even more simply for hon. members. This is the difference between “multi-racialism” and “multinationalism”. On the one hand there is multi-racialism which those hon. members advocate, if I understand them correctly—I do not think even they are certain what they are advocating in this regard—and on the other hand there is multi-nationalism. What does multi-racial sport in South Africa mean? It means that on the club level you will have a soccer team which will be able to consist of a miscellany of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu of the various Bantu nations together. This is then a multi-racial soccer team. We say that at club level this is not at all possible under National Party policy. Nor is it possible at provincial level, and not on the national level either, while if one advocates a multi-racial sport policy, one has Whites and Coloureds and Indians and Bantu mixed up together in one team on club level. Consequently you will have this on the provincial and on the national levels as well: Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu mixed up together in one team. This is multi-racialism.

It is U.P. policy.

That is your own definition of it.

But it is the only definition there is. [Interjections.] The multinational policy of the National Party means the following: On club level such a mixed team will not or cannot exist. In soccer one will have separate Bantu nation teams on club level, separate Coloured teams, separate Indian teams and separate White teams. On club level the different teams of the different population groups will not be able to play against one another either. A Bantu team will not play against a White team and similarly an Indian or Coloured team will not play against a White team either. Precisely the same applies on the provincial level, and so, too, on the national level. However, there is the exception in that you say that on the highest inter-national level you will have what we recently had at the South African Games, and which is completely consistent with the policy of the National Party Government. You will then read on the score-board, as we read in the case of soccer: “A South African representative White team”, which consists of Whites only, which plays against a South African representative Coloured team consisting solely of Coloureds. The South African representative White team will also be able to play against Indians in an Indian team consisting solely of Indians and it will also, if our policy is carried to its logical conclusion, be able to play against a South African representative Zulu team, a South African representative Xhosa team and against a South African representative Tswana team, etc. Since we have up to now, owing to the high standards which are set, not yet been able to have a representative Zulu or Xhosa or Tswana team which complied with the standard, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North will be able to confirm, the Government has arranged that in the interim period we will allow a South African representative Bantu team to play at the Games for example.

I now want to say something about international teams. When a South African sporting body issues an invitation in respect of a team sport to a country with whom the Republic has traditional sporting ties, that country may select its team on merit, and South Africa will not interfere with the composition of such a country’s team, just as long as it is not done with ulterior political motives. What is involved here is clearly inter-state relations, and for this purpose personal relations are not important.

Hon. members will realize that not all sports developed in the same way. Most sports in South Africa were developed by the White sporting bodies. During the interim period, therefore, we must regard these matters in a very realistic way.

I come now to the inter-national meetings on the highest level. I have now stated the policy very simply, I think. Now what about inter-national meetings? From the policy statement I have just made, it therefore follows that in South Africa itself this, under National Party rule, is done on a separate basis. At the highest level international meetings will take place. International meetings therefore indicate unequivocally that the competition is in principle open to any participant who qualifies on the basis of laid down standards. Certain basic requirements are set in regard to this type of meeting, of which the following are the most important: The basic idea of non-mixing of the population groups on the various levels, remains. In the case of inter-national competitions the only possibility of multi-nationality participation against one another is on the highest level of competition, namely the international level. In view of this a basic principle, which has to serve as condition of participation, is obviously that of proficiency and the necessary standard or quality which has to be attained. Consequently only participants, South African or foreign, who comply in advance with certain minimum standards (qualifying times or distances, or achievements on the basis of a laid down criterion), will participate. They will be classified in advance and will then qualify in this way to participate in such inter-national meetings on the highest level. Therefore, in terms of National Party Government policy, it is not a case of any participant, White or non-White, being free to enter for such a competition, but as matters stand in the international world, only those people who comply with the necessary qualifications are free to do so. A further requirement is that such an international meeting should have the necessary prestige value and should be open to any participant and/or country, and should be proclaimed as such. It will be possible for both White and non-White spectators to attend such an inter-national meeting, and such meetings shall be presented in approved stadiums with adequate facilities, etc. There are other requirements which are also being set, but in regard to which I need not go into detail now, since I should now like to dispose of this aspect.

In this connection I should like to point out two other aspects. Firstly, I want to raise the question of the participation of South Africans in sport abroad. I have now stated the policy to you. It is simple: On club, provincial and national level, participation is on a separate basis. On the international level any person who has attained the standard and who has complied with certain set requirements, may participate. All that remains now—I really think this is very simple—is participation by South Africans in sport abroad. In 1962 the Olympic Games and certain tournaments of world class made it necessary for South Africa to state its attitude in regard to this matter very clearly through the late Dr. Verwoerd and the then Government, viz. that every South African sportsman, White or non-White, who had attained the necessary standard of proficiency, would be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games under one flag and the Olympic emblem—not the Springbok emblem. Such a team was in fact chosen at the time to participate in Tokyo. This decision was taken on the basis of the stipulation by the International Olympic Committee that only one team from a specific sovereign country would be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games. This participation takes place on a national basis and not on a team basis. This standpoint, I am just repeating here, confirms that the designation and emblem of “Springbok” will for the present and the future apply only to White sport and White teams. As long as I occupy this position, and as long as the National Party is in power, this will certainly remain the case. It is the emblem of the Whites, and it will remain White. In cases where the rules and regulations of international world sports meetings require that only one team from a country may participate in the meeting, a representative South African team, which may therefore include non-Whites as well if they should qualify for that, will participate under the South African flag as one team or contingent, as the late Dr. Verwoerd stated it in 1962. It has remained unchanged since that time.

Then the Government is changing its principles.

The selection and composition will take place separately, or during an inter-national meeting in which only classified participants may participate, as I explained to you a moment ago. For the purpose of the composition of the team, there will have to be liaison between the White and the non-White sport administrations under control of the White body.

What does the hon. the Minister then foresee as the emblem for the team to represent the country?

It may be determined by the various bodies, which may then decide about this in conjunction with the Department of Sport and Recreation. Up to now no resolution has at any stage been adopted in regard to such an emblem. This arrangement may be made applicable to certain tournaments of world class, such as the Canada Cup in golf and the Davis or Federation Cup in tennis. It is therefore clear that in terms of the Government’s policy of multi-nationalism with regard to the matter of sport, mixed trials are completely superfluous and will therefore not be held under any circumstances, now or in the future, for they are not necessary. The policy of inter-nationalism makes this completely and utterly unnecessary and impossible. I hope that is clear. All that finally remains for me to do is to say something about international meetings. South African White and non-White sporting teams may play against international teams abroad.

If one were to summarize this entire matter which I have stated very simply, one would see that the Government is affording every inhabitant of this country, in accordance with the official policy, an equal opportunity to participate in sport right up to the top, locally as well as on the international level, but not on an integrated and mixed basis. Both White and non-White sportsmen of international standard may participate in inter-national meetings within South Africa, and also beyond South Africa’s borders. In spite of general common features which are typical of sport in general there are nevertheless fundamental mutual differences among the 70 odd varieties of sport, and aspects which are made applicable to the one cannot always simply be made applicable to the other. I therefore want to advocate that people should not talk so readily of concessions for one sport, while that same concession cannot be made for another. Surely the nature of a multi-national meeting in an individual sport, such as golf and athletics, cannot be compared to a team sport such as rugby or cricket. In this regard I conclude by saying the following: The department is encouraging national sport control bodies to ensure that sport administrators on national, provincial and club level are fully conversant with the sport policy of the Government, and to consult the department before precipitate, and possibly erroneous, interpretations are given to the policy. On this occasion I should therefore like to issue a friendly invitation to all bodies in this country dealing with sport, regardless of race or colour, to co-operate with my department and myself so that we may make our sport in South Africa and for South Africa what it is supposed to be, i.e. something pleasant and something wonderful. I think it is in fact possible to do this. Against this background of what the Sport policy is, the hon. member for Pinelands asked me: “What of the future?”

†In regard to cricket, I am aware that the South African Cricket Association is desirous of staging an international Gillette Cup competition in South Africa next summer, that is the summer of 1973. If suitable arrangements can be made by that association, I believe it is intended to invite Gillette Cup winners in England to participate in the tournament. I wish to state that provided there are no political motives behind the selection of any player, the Government will in no way inhibit the County concerned in so far as the selection of its team to play in South Africa in such an international tournament is concerned nor for that matter, any other team in this category. I had the pleasure, secondly, of meeting Mr. Derrick Robins during his tour of South Africa last summer and understand that he is very keen to repeat his cricket tour, only with a stronger team. In similar conditions applicable to the suggested international Gillette Cup competition, the Government would place no restriction on the selection of his team if the best interests of South African cricket are served by such a tour and if the normal conditions I have stated here are adhered to, namely that no politics be made of it, that it creates no internal problems for South Africa and that relations between respective countries will not be disturbed. I believe it will happen in this way, and I think I have reason to believe that it will happen in that fashion. With regard to double-wicket teams, there was an item in the newspapers this morning, the Government has decided on principle that if double wicket teams from international sources can be fielded here in South Africa, they can come and play here and if a Coloured team, a Xhosa team, a Zulu team or an Indian team can be staged, there will be nothing in principle against these different teams playing in such an international double-wicket competition on a multinational basis in South Africa.

Does that apply to the Gillette Cup competition as well?

Yes, of course.

With regard to soccer in the future, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Government has given its approval to the staging in 1974 of an open national soccer tournament in which the different South African nations can participate on a multi-national basis as was the case with the South African Games. A South African representative White team, a South African representative Coloured team, a South African representative Indian team and a South African representative Zulu or Xhosa team or a team representative of any other nation can compete in the tournament. Any other international teams wishing to participate in this open South African national tournament will be most welcome if that can be arranged.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would we be allowed to include all soccer players, i.e. professionals and amateurs?

Yes, it will include both.

Does the same argument apply to rugby?

That is a hypothetical question. I cannot now deal with such hypothetical questions. I have dealt with a definite fact which has been placed before the Government and about which a decision has been taken. That decision is in regard to soccer.

*As far as athletics are concerned, the Government has given its consent to the South African Athletics Union arranging two international meetings in 1974, one probably in the north and one in the South, on condition that at least two countries beyond the borders of South Africa participate. This will take place on an inter-national basis in 1974, and all athletes from South Africa who meet the stipulated requirements will be able to represent their various nations there at two international and inter-national athletic meetings, which will be held in South Africa next year.

In respect of cycling, permission has been granted for an international cycling competition, similar to the famous “Tour de France”, from Cape Town to Johannesburg, provided at least two countries from beyond the borders of South Africa participate. Whites, Coloureds, Indians and the Bantu nations who meet the laid down requirements, will be able to participate on an inter-national basis in this international South African cycling competition, corresponding to the “Tour de France”.

In respect of other varieties of sport, the following world series will be held in South Africa during the period August 1973 to March 1974: A world squash tournament here in South Africa; a world trampoline tournament here in South Africa, and a world lifesavers’ competition, to which the hon. member referred a moment ago, here in South Africa. In 1976 the world bowls championship will be held in South Africa. An international women’s hockey team will undertake a tour of South Africa during the second half of this year, and the same will be done by an international women’s netball team. World series in certain other sports are being arranged.

With this I think I have disposed of the most important matters. I have, I think, replied to all the important questions put to me. Questions were put to me from this side of the House. Owing to lack of time I shall not be able to deal with them now. I had to deal with these matters fully, and I want to assure hon. members that I will give the necessary attention to every matter which was conveyed to me. I want to express my appreciation for the fine things which were said about the Games and my department and myself. I cannot now reply to each member’s individual questions adequately. I hope that I have also replied to the questions of the other hon. members. If there is a member who has a specific question to which he wants a reply from me, I shall furnish him with a reply. I took note of every matter which was raised and, even if I do not reply to that now, simply owing to the fact that I think that I have already spoken for too long, I promise that I will give attention to all these matters and that I will, where necessary, subsequently give the hon. member in question a written reply.

I want to conclude by making two appeals to hon. members. The first one is …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I raised the question of the attendance of different race groups at sport meetings and how it varies from city to city.

The position is as follows: The Orange Free State has its own authority to deal with that aspect and it does it in accordance with its own ordinances and as the people of the Free State wish. The Government does not interfere with that. The same applies to the other cities. The hon. member is expecting too much of me as Minister of Sport and Recreation to dabble into that matter and to force them away from what they in their own local towns find is an accepted practice. But I will go into the matter. At the moment I cannot say anything more than I have already said in this regard.

*Because this is a difficult matter I want to make a friendly appeal to hon. members to try to acquaint themselves with what the policy of this Government in respect of these matters is. I tried to state the policy very simply, and I should like hon. members to understand the principles of this matter clearly. They must trust us in this matter, who are dealing with it, and I can assure them that the application of this sport policy will not become the thin end of the wedge to force integration upon us in South Africa. I am also convinced that if this policy is applied to its logical conclusion it will enable us to participate freely on an international level in every sport. I am saying this because we adhere to an international standpoint of an inter-national arrangement which is universally accepted throughout the world. Secondly, we say that we do not intervene in the private affairs of other nations, and therefore we have the right to ask that other nations should not interfere in the private domestic matters of South Africa.

Lastly I want to make a friendly appeal to all, also to the “non-racialist” groups in South Africa to co-operate with us, with my department and myself, so that we can compete with one another on the highest inter-national level. In that way we shall create sound relations in South Africa, but we may not throw overboard the tried and true methods which we have adopted for 350 years in South Africa. We must adopt these methods, and then I think all of us together will be able to make of sport what it should be in South Africa —something fine and something wonderful. I therefore say: “Let us get on with the game” in this spirit and in this frame of mind, and then South Africa will again excel in the world as every hon. member in this House would like to see happen.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 38.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration”, and 39.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, Loan Vote C and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, Revenue Vote No. 40, Loan Vote D and S.W.A. Vote No. 23.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, and Revenue Vote No. 41 and S.W.A. Vote No. 24.—“Agricultural Technical Services”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? On a previous occasion we told the hon. the Minister that we welcomed him as the Minister of Agriculture in this Vote. We also congratulated his Deputy Minister on the fact that he had been appointed as such. Today we are being afforded our first opportunity of taking stock of the various Votes which are under the control of these two gentlemen. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that we said on a previous occasion that in the discussion of these Votes we should like to furnish him with our views of the agricultural industry in South Africa …

We should like to hear them.

… what the object of it is and what our policy and our approach are in respect of the agricultural industry, and on what principles our policy is founded. We want to do so with a view to making it possible for us to have a good debate and so that the hon. the Minister, his Deputy Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House will also be able to state their standpoint to us in a proper manner. Up to now we have had for the most part an ad hoc approach on the part of the Government, without there having been a broad view in respect of our agricultural problems in South Africa. I say this against the background that at this very stage we ought to have a practical yet enlightened approach to agriculture in South Africa, for the simple reason that it is being calculated that by the year 1980 there will be millions of people in the world who will be dying of hunger. In this way, for instance, it was calculated, some years ago that between the years 1830 and 1980 the world population would increase by about 450%. This calculation was made seven years ago, and seven years ago it was determined that from that time on until 1980 the world population would increase by another 40%. This will not only make demands on the world. This population explosion will also make demands on South Africa itself, and we shall not be able to escape from them. We shall have to feed this increased population in South Africa, and in addition to that we shall have to be able to play our role in the world when it comes to agricultural exports. That is why I say that it has now, more than ever before, become necessary for us to have a practical yet also enlightened approach to our agricultural situation. For that reason the United Party committed its policy in this respect to paper as long ago as 1968. Since then the basic approach has not changed in any respect. Some of the statistics, some of the figures mentioned in that brochure, may perhaps no longer be applicable, but otherwise the principles have remained just as forceful as they were then.

It is also interesting to note that many of the predictions we made five years ago came true sooner than was expected. I refer, for instance, to the shortage of red meat. This is not the only kind of food in respect of which a shortage is being experienced. Many others can be added to the list. With this tremendous population increase to which I referred, we shall have even more shortages in the course of the next decade or so. In addition to that the demand has also remained tremendously strong as a result of a sophisticated taste which is developing amongst members of the consumer public every day.

†Therefore, Sir, we feel that both sides of the House should strongly reaffirm their approach to agriculture. Nothing over the past 15 to 20 years has happened to stem the depopulation of our rural areas. Many of our smaller towns have become villages where older people and pensioners live. Such villages may have the infrastructure such as post offices, railways, schools, police stations, etc., but for all practical purposes these towns have become completely dead. The younger people are becoming fewer. Why is this so? Because there are no longer enough young people left on our farms. The experts tell us that the average age of the South African farmer is today between 55 and 60 years, and it is progressively going up. I believe that this particular feature of the South African agricultural industry has up to now been completely ignored by the Government, or at least they have done very little to try to change this situation.

Nonsense!

That hon. member says, “Nonsense!” If I am talking absolute nonsense, what is the explanation for the average age of the farmer going up progressively? If the Government had done something about it, the average age of the farmer in South Africa would have gone down and not up and up.

Where do you get those figures from?

Sir, that hon. member knows that these figures are obtainable at the South African Agricultural Union and the Department of Census, etc. He merely has to take a look in his own district, and then he will find that this is the position there.

†I want to propose in this debate that we should stop thinking that it is not wrong for one farmer, especially if he is a no-good farmer, to sell out to the next farmer. This next farmer, by enlarging his farm holding or his farming operations, will not necessarily be more economic or more productive. It has already been proved scientifically that the moment farming operations go beyond a certain scope, then the supervision suffers and the production costs per unit produced tend to increase. I believe that when the no-good farmer has had a chance, when his training has been improved, when we have provided extension services for him and he still does not make a success of his farming, then by all means let us take him out of farming, but let his place be taken by another farmer, a good farmer. Sir, this is how we will get back on to our farming land new farming entrepreneurs and younger farmers.

*Not for a single moment can I believe that one can have a prospect for one’s agricultural industry unless one is prepared to encourage younger people to enter that industry.

†Sir, I believe that this is the method that we should apply to stem the tide from the rural areas to the urban areas; to stop the depopulation of our rural areas. I also know that we can re-populate our rural areas with White people, and I also know that farming is not the only method. We on this side have often suggested to the Government and to the hon. the Minister and to other Ministers that we should have light industrial development in our rural areas which have the potential for industrial development, but I do not want to discuss that at this stage. Sir, a further reason why we must reaffirm our approach to agriculture is the deterioration which has taken place in our agricultural land and also our pastoral land over the past 25 years. South Africa is not over-endowed with agricultural wealth. Approximately 12% of our total land can be cultivated, and we place a tremendous premium on this land available to us when we think that by the year 2000 we will need annually for local consumption something like 100 million bags of maize, 24 million bags of wheat, 4 million slaughter-cattle, 11 million slaughter-sheep, and more than 1 200 million gallons of milk. Sir, our approach is that our soil is the heritage of the generations to come and that we must leave it in a better and a more productive condition than we received it ourselves. But, Mr. Chairman, one is filled with anxiety and actually with despair when one views, for example, the land in our major agricultural and pastoral areas and when one sees that very little headway has been made with regard to soil conservation. Our approach is that South Africa cannot produce agricultural products at the expense of our soil and at the expense of its fertility. But I also believe that one should never talk about agricultural exploitation; that is the wrong term; we believe that we must only harness our agricultural resources for our common good and for the benefit of those who will come after us.

*Sir, nobody will deny that a stable and a well-anchored rural farming papulation is essential.

We have known that for a long time.

Yes, hon. members on that side know everything but they are doing nothing. I knew their reaction would be to say that they were aware of all these things, but these obvious things are the very things which we must bring very clearly to the notice of that hon. member and his colleagues, with the request that they should do something in this regard; that is the object of this debate.

Bring your criticism and your proof.

We say that over and above the fact that this stable and well-anchored rural farming population is essential for the development for our rural areas, we may also need these people in times of emergency, in times of terrorism, in time of hostilities. These people could then be the outposts in maintaining the security of our country and State. I can mention to the hon. member for Carletonville a splendid example, of which he ought to be aware, and that is Israel, which is going out of its way to develop its rural areas and to settle its people there.

Sir, a further object of any agricultural policy should be to provide one’s population with protective foods, because tremendous amounts of money are being spent annually on things for preserving and promoting our health, which would not be quite as necessary if there had not been a certain measure of malnutrition, if I may put it this way, in this country.

What are you talking about now?

Underfeeding is to my mind not such a big problem, although it may become a problem.

Sir, we all want to promote South Africa’s industrial development, and in this regard our agricultural products and agricultural raw materials are playing a very important role. We on this side believe that these two industries should be complementary, for the good of both and for the benefit of the country as a whole. When we so often have an adverse balance of payments, it is not always attributable to a large volume of imports, but often it is also a case of poor agricultural crops which have caused a drop in our exports.

Owing to droughts.

I have mentioned these things in order to emphasize the importance of the agricultural industry, and hon. members on that side and other hon. members on this side will quite possibly be able to mention many other reasons for its being so important. There ought to be no difference of opinion on the importance of the key role which this industry must play, but, Sir, how is this key role to be played? In the first instance, we must have an agricultural price policy. The diligent farmer must be assured of a reasonable dividend on his capital investment, after due regard has been had to the risk factor, and furthermore there must be an incentive for this farmer to improve production methods. There must be a motivation for the farmer to be able to produce and to produce well, and it cannot be expected that the farmer with a bigger turnover will also be able to make a bigger profit. This may be a sound business principle in the world of commerce, but it does not always work out in the agricultural industry. As a result of climatic and all sorts of other factors—such as droughts, etc.—his turnover may be reduced overnight to the minimum. We on this side of the House also disapprove most strongly of price manipulation. One often finds that when surpluses develop, the State enforces prices which cause the farmer of South Africa a great deal of embarrassment. If there will be surpluses of one product, surely the accepted thing is rather to encourage the production of another product of which there is no surplus.

Surely that is ad hoc …

For that reason price determination should not necessarily be effected independently. We on this side believe that a co-ordinating body may bring about effective correlation in this regard. Furthermore, production costs may not be allowed to get out of hand, even if production costs plus price are guaranteed to the farmer. In this respect the Government is often very guilty. The latest increases in railway rates are a splendid example. These have caused production costs to soar, over and above the effect they have also had on the cost of living. Our approach on this side makes provision not only for the risk factor to be duly taken into consideration in price determination, but also for unstable agricultural income to be avoided as far as possible.

How?

The hon. member wants to know how. I shall tell him. That is why we support the principle of a state-aided crop and stock insurance scheme. In unfavourable circumstances this will at least be a guarantee to the farmer that his production costs will be recovered.

What will the premium be?

By determining prices at the beginning of a production cycle instead of on a seasonal basis, it will also be possible for the risk factor to be pinned down properly. If the farmer knows from the start what he may expect in the form of a minimum price which is adjusted regularly, it will be possible for him to plan accordingly. For years now the authorities have been concerned about the gap between what the farmer gets for his product and what the consumer has to pay for it. However, up to now precious little has been done about this.

That is not true and he knows it.

Order! The hon. member may not say “and he knows it” and he must withdraw these words.

I withdraw them.

Therefore it is by no means unheard of that in some cases, such as in the case of perishable products, the consumer has to pay up to eight times more than is received by the producer. This year still this happened to an item such as tomatoes in Johannesburg. There the consumer paid eight times more than was received by the farmer. I believe that there are a number of ways open to us for coping with this situation.

†We on this side of the House believe that the interests of the consumer and that of the producers are not necessarily conflicting. Speculation in essential foodstuffs should not be allowed. Exorbitant consumer prices can build up consumer resistance. High meat prices which were experienced recently in America, made consumers fuming mad and resulted in boycotts. It forced prices down, although temporarily, but it also engendered hostility between producer and consumer. We believe that if prices are to be kept artificially stable for the consumer, then it must not be done at the expense of the producer. We realize that a substitute for consumer subsidies has up to now not yet been found. This is done all over the world and it is also done here. If it is necessary for us to increase consumer subsidies then we should be prepared to do so in order to keep the price stable for the consumer. Unfortunately the Government has recently not seen its way clear further to increase the subsidies on bread and maize for the consumer. It is regrettable and will have and has had a tremendous impact on the rise in the cost of living. Such consumers’ subsidies must be paid, as we have stated so often, by the Consolidated Revenue Account. It is not unusual for industrialists to become involved in farming or in commercial business and vice versa. We want everybody to have his legitimate share of the economic cake of South Africa. However, at the same time the farmers’ duty should not necessarily stop at the production end of things. When the farmer has the training, when he has the knowledge and the willingness, he should play a far greater part in the processing and marketing of his own products. This then will cut excessive costs in the distribution chain and also at the same time ensure a more reasonable price to the consumer in the country.

I have mentioned some of these aspects of United Party approach to farming in general. However, a very complex one, and often also depressing, is the position of agricultural finance. It should not be difficult for us to work out that a farmer, who competes on the open market for his finance, will not be able to exist when he receives a low dividend on his investment. When the farmer therefore borrows at current rates, he will need vast increases in producer prices. The slightest rise in production costs must be recognized in the price structure. When this should happen, then the South African consumer will never be able to afford the things which the farmers of South Africa produce. Therefore agricultural finance, if done on a reasonable scale, can go a long way towards keeping our production costs as low as possible.

We have often pleaded with the hon. the Minister that the State must take a strong stand in agricultural finance. We have often pleaded that the Land Bank should be in a position to spread its wings a little wider. We have often pleaded that the Department of Agricultural Credit and the Land Bank should be organized under one roof; that is to say under one department or one division of a Department of Agricultural Finance. It is not difficult to predict that urgent attention will have to be given to this particular problem.

Nobody wants State assistance if it can be avoided and nobody wants to interfere with private enterprise. We all know that private enterprise should really tackle the job. However, private enterprise does things at a price. The South African consumer and, I believe, also the South African farmer cannot afford that price. Furthermore, there is enough evidence which points to one inescapable fact, and that is that private enterprise is these days becoming less and less interested in long-term agricultural financing. One is then entitled to ask: If they are not prepared to do it, who must do this job? I think that we as members of this House should be prepared to give the answer.

*We have tried to give the answer by saying that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank will have to play their part in this respect. But what is necessary for restoring the general confidence in the industry, is not only these things which I have mentioned now. I also believe that as far as the matter of an agricultural planning council is concerned, about which the hon. the Minister should like to know more, we should, on this occasion and in this debate, see whether this proposal is acceptable to the hon. gentlemen on that side. Let us try to ascertain what such an agricultural planning council will be able to do for South Africa. We have already pointed out that we have for the country as a whole an economic advisory council which has to advise the hon. the Prime Minister. A Department of Planning has already been established on a national level.

In respect of industrial development we have the Industrial Development Corporation, which has for decades been a major propelling force behind our industries. Such an agricultural planning council would, in the first instance, have to provide for proper mutual co-ordination between the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and, in addition, for the conversion of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure into that division or the Department of Agricultural Credit which I mentioned a moment ago. Furthermore, it ought to make more streamlined and effective bodies of those public institutions which have to provide for the agricultural industry. We believe, furthermore, that such an agricultural planning council could provide for proper co-ordination of action and for the elimination of administrative bottlenecks. This is an important function which this council could perform. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the Minister now that he has become a full Minister. We have got to know him as a person who is a friend to the farmer and who has agricultural blood flowing in his veins. We want to wish him everything of the best in this new post and on the enhanced status that has come his way. Then I should also like to extend my hearty congratulations to the Deputy Minister on his appointment and ensure him, too, of our good wishes. We are looking forward with interest to what he is going to accomplish in this post.

The hon. member for Newton Park came along with his generalizations once again. He did not say anything new in this debate. The matters mentioned here by him are matters which have been raised by him time and again over the past number of years during which he has been the main sneaker on agricultural matters. We had expected him, now that they are experiencing such difficulties in their own ranks, to come forward with a new vision in order to capture the imagination of the farming community. But he fell far short of the mark. The minor matters—I call them “minor matters”—which he mentioned, will be replied to by this side of the House in due course.

Why do you not reply to these “minor matters”?

I should like to bring a very important matter to the notice of the House, a matter about which a great deal is being said in the private sector today. I am not going to waste time now by replying to the trivialities raised by the hon. member.

In the time at my disposal I should like to express a few thoughts on the agricultural co-operative undertakings in our country. There are other aspects in this regard which will be dealt with by members on this side of the House. In our view it is an indisputable fact that agricultural co-operatives in our country are steadily growing and flourishing. This is proved by the following figures: The total turnover of agricultural co-operatives in 1971—these are the latest figures—was R1 383,8 million, an increase of 6,6% as against 2,8% the previous year. The total assets increased by R39,l million to R743,l million.

These figures are gratifying to us, but the opponents of the co-operative movement do not feel very happy about them, so much so that they have been using their powers for breaking down and hampering the co-operative movement. They have been doing so with one end in view only, namely to get their hands on a certain part of that trade. It has therefore become necessary for thought to be given to the task and the function of the agricultural co-operative movement in South Africa so that we may have clarity on the place which the co-operative movement ought to take in the economy of the agricultural industry.

In order to do that it must be borne in mind—and this is important—that the co-operative movement in South Africa was born because a need existed for it in practice. Consequently it received strong support from the State in the past, because it was regarded as a valuable element in the agricultural industry. Co-operatives cannot and may not be equated with profit-seeking undertakings, for it has a distinctive character. What is significant is that co-operatives moved into certain fields because there was a need for that to be done. I want to put it even more strongly: They moved into certain fields because at certain points there had been tremendous exploitation of the producer as well as the consumer. Whereas co-operatives have gained for themselves a niche in the economy of the country through standing united and working hard, co-operatives will not easily give up the rights and privileges they have acquired over the years. The co-operative movement is not fighting the profit-seeking undertakings.

I believe that there is room in the economy of South Africa for the co-operative movement as well as other forms of undertakings. Nor does this rule out the possibility of co-operation and agreement with non-co-operative movements. There may be differences of opinion on the method and the way in which this has been done or ought to be done. If this is the case, it is something which must be ironed out so that there may be clarity on the action to be taken in this field. However, there are certain aspects which must be set in their proper perspective. To my mind this is the matter about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding and prejudice and in regard to which unnecessary reproaches are being levelled at the co-operatives. The reproach is being levelled that co-operatives are in a privileged position because this form of undertaking is not subject to income tax, and that the working capital consists of inexpensive Land Bank capital. Now, let us analyse these reproaches a little more closely.

I have no argument with the fact that co-operatives are not taxable, but have the critics ever given any thought to the fact that co-operatives are providing the producer with means of production on an economic basis, are enabling the producer to raise his profit margin? In this way the co-operatives are indirectly causing a major flow into the Treasury. As far as the Land Bank capital is concerned, the opponents of co-operatives tend to overlook certain facts. People do not bear in mind that co-operatives also have their own funds. In this connection I read the following in the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—

But here the following fact must be borne in mind: More bulk storage and handling facilities had to be created. Furthermore, expansion had to take place in manufacturing activities. The attendant rapidly rising costs of buildings and equipment of the type required, necessitates ever-increasing investment. Here we must emphasize that the investments made by the co-operatives were not made for the purpose of making profit. It must be pointed out in this respect that the investments made, have been made because it is in the national interest to do so and because this is essential owing to the fact that one is dealing here with the storage and processing of basic foodstuffs for the country.

The aim here is not to enrich the cooperatives, but to render a service of national interest with—and this I want to emphasize—moneys obtained for the most part from their own funds. Therefore it is encouraging to read in the report that there are indications that, with the awareness of growing capital requirements the accumulation of own funds has become an important feature of the policy of agricultural co-operatives. In a few cases statutory authority has already been granted for the establishment of members’ interests funds to be built up from contributions from crop realizations, dividend and bonus appropriations, and interest on existing members’ funds. When this has been said, it must nevertheless be conceded that the Land Bank is still the main source of financing for both the long-term and the short-term requirements of the agricultural co-operatives. The long-term financing is effected by way of instalment loans, which are intended for durable capital works and equipment. The short-term loans are intended for the seasonal requirements.

What is important to me, and should be emphasized, is that the loans provided by the Land Bank are supplementary to the co-operatives’ own funds. The impression is being created that the co-operatives obtain all their money from the Land Bank, but this is not true; such loans are only supplementary to the co-operatives’ own funds which consist of contributions obtained through its paid-up capital levies and also from reserves built up annually out of surpluses. On this point the report of the Land Bank is very clear, for the Land Bank says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have no quarrel with the statements made by the hon. member for Virginia in regard to the important part played by the co-operative movement in South Africa in agriculture. Most of the statements he made are well known. We have unfortunately not gained any new information from the hon. member’s speech. Nevertheless it may be important for these facts to be mentioned here in the House.

Do you support it 100%?

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wants to know whether I support it 100%. We on this side of the House have no quarrel with any of the statements the hon. member made.

In dealing with this agricultural debate under the Minister’s Vote, we do so under certain special circumstances. In the first instance we have two brand-new Ministers, or at least a new Minister and a new Deputy Minister. Recently those in this House interested in agriculture had a trip organized by the Department of Agriculture. We were taken to see certain important aspects of the activities of the Department of Agriculture in the Western Cape. For more than a year now we have had the benefit of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture and we have also had some reactions from the hon. the Minister in respect of this report. Another very important event has taken place. The final blasting of the Orange-Fish River tunnel has taken place and it means that water from the Orange River will flow down the important Fish River valley in about a year’s time. We have also seen a dramatic recovery in the wool industry. I think that it is something which we when we gathered here last year could not have anticipated. We have also had another season that has demonstrated again the extreme unpredictability of the South African climate and the harshness of the conditions with which the South African farmer has to contend. Probably the most important situation of which we must take note is that there is a greater realization today of the importance of agriculture as an industry that has to feed the nation. In previous debates we have emphasized agriculture from a point of view of the farmer alone, but I believe that that phase is something of the past. We now realize that the consumer and the housewife are as interested in the agricultural industry as the farmer on the land is himself.

In respect of the two new Ministers the chairman of our group has already expressed his good wisses to these two Ministers and I would like to be associated with those good wishes.

*The other day the hon. the Minister described the drought as a two-tooth drought. I think I can say that these two Ministers are two four-tooth Ministers. They are old enough to have been able to gain considerable experience in agriculture, but they are still young enough to be very productive.

They are not full-mouthed yet.

No, they are not full-mouthed yet, but we wish them a successful term of office which I nevertheless hope will not be too long. I look forward to the day when the hon. member for Newton Park will sit on the other side of the House as Minister of Agriculture. That day is very near. [Interjections.]

†Anyway, I wish these two hon. Ministers the best of luck with their term of office. We are not so fascinated by their politics, but what we do like about them is that they are two dedicated agriculturalists. I think that they will serve this portfolio very well indeed.

*The problem, however, is that the wagon they are drawing is a very old one. It seems to me that that wagon has become somewhat ramshackle, because its wheels are coming apart and its rims are falling off. What they need is a new wagon with golden wheels and a green body. It will be a United Party wagon which will save agriculture in South Africa.

Old Solomon is dead, you know.

†I want to speak about our trip to the various agricultural institutions here in the Western Cape and on behalf of this side of the House I want to place on record our appreciation to all of those officials and to the Ministers who arranged that trip. It was most instructive and I believe it gave us an insight into the vast activity in which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is engaged.

How much have the Ministers learnt?

I am sure that the Ministers learnt a great deal. It also gave us an insight into the dedicated way in which the officials of the Department of Agriculture tackle their task. I want to express my appreciation to them for showing us what they are doing in this part of the country. However, I hope that that will not be the last of this kind of trip. I believe that we should have a trip of this kind every year and it need not necessarily be during the parliamentary session.

I want to refer briefly to the Orange/ Fish tunnel. I believe that the near completion of this great project is one of the most important things that has happened to the agricultural industry in recent times. I mention this project because it is going to have a great effect on the future of agriculture throughout South Africa.

I mention it because one wonders to what extent the hon. the Minister is giving his attention to planning how that land will be used. I wonder too whether he is giving consideration to ways in which young farmers who are interested in finding a living on the land, may be accommodated in that area. I wonder whether he is doing all he can to ensure that proper crops will be grown, and that sufficient attention will be given to the growing of lucerne, because in this way, coupled with our great maize surplus, we will be able to eliminate the instability of the pastoral industry which is centred in the Karroo and the Free State areas which adjoin this vast project. Mr. Chairman, one mentions these things because although one is impressed with the overall functioning of the Department of Agriculture, one is not always certain that the co-ordination of the activities is anything like it should be. I think that planning in advance, with particular reference to a great project like this, one which is about to be completed, is something that is of great importance.

The dramatic recovery of the wool industry is something about which we are all very pleased. I think we can applaud the efforts of the Wool Board in trying to stabilize the price of wool to the farmer. I think they have met with a measure of success, but I want to sound a word of warning here. I believe that more has to be done to try to stabilize the price of wool in so far as it affects the buyer and the manufacturer. I do not say that this will be easy, and other members will have more to say on this subject, but I do feel that we must stabilize the price of wool to the buyer and ultimately therefore to the consumer. This is a great challenge that lies ahead for the planners in the Department of Agriculture and especially those connected with the wool industry.

Mr. Chairman, we have suffered another season of changing agricultural fortunes. We have had droughts and we have had reasonably good rains in some parts but this emphasizes the fact that the agricultural industry, above any other industry in South Africa, needs proper long-term planning if there is to be any stability whatsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems as though the hon. member for Walmer, as well as the main speaker on that side, the hon. member for Newton Park, wishes to discuss agricultural matters with great responsibility in this debate. I said that this seemed to be the case, Sir, but if one goes back a little, one finds that the hon. member for Newton Park, who has now discussed agriculture in a very responsible manner, had the following to say on 26th April this year when he spoke at Maclear—

Sir, this does not sound to me like responsible debating on agricultural matters. If one wants to act with great responsibility in this House, then surely one has a duty in this regard on the platforms outside the House as well. But, Sir, in the second place I believe that this is the most blatant contradiction I have ever heard, for funnily enough not one of the hon. members of the Opposition who are now sitting here represents a rural constituency.

There the hon. member for Albany is sitting.

Sir, I have no fault to find with the way in which those hon. members conducted the debate today; it just struck me, and this is something one merely wants to mention in passing. However, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Virginia, and I should also like to refer to the question of the co-operative movement in South Africa. I think it is essential, in the light of recent events. I just want to begin by saying that it should be very clear in the year 1973 that this movement has become permanently established in South Africa and that there can be no doubt about the survival of the co-operative movement in South Africa in its present form. Up to now 330 agricultural co-operatives have been registered, with a membership of 309 000 members. Twenty-five years ago about 100 fewer cooperatives, i.e. 235, with a registered membership of 184 000. So there has been tremendous growth in this respect. Sir, this is the only method by which the farmer is able to exercise his bargaining power as an individual. It is a self-help scheme which has developed in South Africa. It is a way in which the State is able to assist the farmer, not only in his own interests, but also in the national interest. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned several aspects in this regard, namely that it can be a channel for financing by the Land Bank and that it assists the farmer in difficult times. In this respect I think in particular of the fluctuating interest rates we have just experienced and of the scarcity of capital. The Land Bank was able to use the co-operatives as a channel for financing, especially in respect of short-term credit, at a fixed interest rate. This eliminated the tremendous fluctuations in the open market. But another very important function performed by the co-operatives, something we certainly cannot lose sight of in discussing this arrangement, is the enforcement of the provisions of the Marketing Act in South Africa. I think that if it had not been for the agricultural co-operatives, it would have been very difficult for us to enforce the Marketing Act. Sir, in the wheat industry in particular the co-operatives play a very important part in respect of the storage of foodstuffs. We see that in the past year the turnover in agricultural products amounted to R1 044 million, out of a total of R1 300 million. Sir, we are glad to hear that the Opposition agrees with us on the principle of the co-operative movement in South Africa, but unfortunately this is not the position in the commercial world outside, and for that reason I suppose it is necessary for us to address these people as well on this occasion. I am referring now to a report in the Financial Mail of 5th April, 1973, under the heading “Co-ops still privileged”—

This article then proceeds to quote several people, including people from the Department of Commerce and Industries and the Minister of Agriculture, and then it goes on to say—

It then concludes as follows—

Sir, these people are terribly worried about the co-operatives which have grown ever larger. The growth of co-operatives in the previous year, in 1970-’71, was only 2,8%; in 1971-’72 it was a little more, 6,6%. So there was no very rapid growth. I think that the growth of the industries was much more rapid and much more impressive. But, Sir, these people have suddenly found a new source of taxation in South Africa. They think that if this source of taxation could be utilized, the other people in the world of commerce would not have to pay so much tax. But let us analyse the position of taxation. If we were to suppose that co-operatives were taxable, and we made as analysis of what the value of this source of taxation would be, we would find that in the past financial year a profit, if one may call it a profit, of round about R40 million was made by the 330 co-operatives in the country combined, and that a loss of approximately R1,61 million was suffered. If we now take into consideration the fact that it is the right of the farmer to build granaries by way of providing for the storage of his wheat, and that, if he had done so as an individual, he would have had the right to make certain tax deductions; if we were then to deduct this from this profit of R24 million, there would certainly be very little left of the R24 million or R25 million which would have been taxable. But if something were left and one subsequently had to pay it out in the form of a bonus to one’s members, one would not be able to tax it again. In other words, the farmer would then simply pay less in the way of taxes in the end. But the statement I want to make is that the taxpayer in the co-operative set-up is the farmer or member, because the farmer is an extension of the co-operative movement. In order to prove this statement it is necessary for us to look at the Co-operative Socieites Act, and here I am referring to section 6 in particular, which provides that a co-operative may only do business with a member. It is not allowed to do business with non-members. In other words, if I as a farmer do not take my requirements, the co-operative cannot sell them to someone else. If I do not supply my products to the co-operative to be stored, it cannot market them; in other words, it cannot look for another market to dispose of them. So if my support is withdrawn, the co-operative goes out of business. This is an undeniable link between the farmer and his own enterprise. This is one of the big differences between a co-operative and a commercial enterprise, for a commercial enterprise can compete in every respect in several markets. Another very important section which embodies an important principle is section 15, which deals with the distribution of the profits of co-operatives. The section provides that there are only three ways in which these profits may be distributed. The first is that of the interest on the member’s paid-up share capital, which may not exceed 8% and on which the member has to pay tax. If there are any funds left, the co-operative has to pay them into a reserve fund, in accordance with a resolution taken by the members at the annual meeting. Then, if any balance is still available, the co-operative may, in the third place, pay it out to its members on the basis of the operational activities of every member within that co-operative. This differs from a company. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just spoken spoke about the co-operative movement. I understand he is the chairman of a big co-op in the Transvaal and he obviously knows the subject very well. I believe on another occasion it will be necessary to debate the subject because there will be legislation dealing with this matter, so I will leave my comments until that time.

I was talking about the important effect which drought has on our farming life in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will know that there has been a change in the production of maize between two seasons of over 100%, caused very largely, I suppose, by drought. But I pose the question to the hon. the Minister whether this is entirely due to drought, or is it possibly due to incorrect planning in so far as agriculture is concerned? I believe it is an expression of improper and incorrect planning. I say this because I believe implicitly that we are planting cash crops in areas in which cash crops should never have been planted, and this obviously will cause greater fluctuation in production and greater difficulty in estimating crop disposal, etc. This is only happening because there is not the proper price structure in so far as other pastoral commodities are concerned and the farmers are therefore forced to plant cash crops where they should not in fact be planted. This is a theme which is raised right throughout the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, the improper use of land in South Africa. I raise this point because I think it is something to which serious attention will have to be given in the near future.

Then we come to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture. I believe this report is the most important document ever produced in respect of agriculture in South Africa. For the present we have the hon. the Minister’s reaction to these reports. I have no doubt that in due course we shall have the reaction in greater detail, but in the meantime we must use the statements that have been forthcoming. It is impossible in a debate of this kind to discuss all the implications of these reports, but one can make an assessment of the general implications and the recommendations.

My impression is that what the department needs most urgently, according to the message these reports bring to the hon. the Minister, is a body to co-ordinate and plan the agricultural industry on a long-term basis. I believe this is the message. As far as I am concerned and as I read these reports, this comes through most clearly.

I believe that lack of planning, lack of co-ordination creates malfunctioning and inefficient use of the vast resources available to the department. This department, in fact, has vast resources, not only of personnel, but of buildings and equipment that must be as good and as up-to-date as those with which any such department anywhere in the world has to operate. However, in spite of that, the problems which remain unsolved are far too many. There must be some problem somewhere and it must be in the field of co-ordination and in the field of proper planning. That is why I am supporting the hon. member for Newton Park when he pleads, as he so often has done and as my hon. leader has done, for a statutory planning council for agriculture.

I cannot mention all the cases during the time at my disposal where lack of planning has resulted in bottlenecks in the agricultural industry. I am only going to mention one or two. We start with the meat industry and more in particular, the beef industry. At the present time we are sitting with a shortage of beef in South Africa. Figures which the hon. the Minister gave me tried to imply that the supply is meeting the demand. Perhaps this is what the hon. the Minister tries to imply. However, I believe that were there more beef available today, it would have been readily bought up and consumed. I believe there is a shortage and the fact that there is such a shortage is entirely due to the fact that there was not proper planning way back in 1966. That was the time when it became obvious that we were going to run into a short-supply situation. At that time the department failed to produce the proper incentives towards greater production. Had they taken proper remedial action at that stage, we would not have been in a short-supply position at this stage.

We have only to look at a couple of comments that appeared in the Press recently. Here I have a statement by the Chairman of the Meat Board—

This should have happened before. We realized then years ago that we were going to have a position of short supply, but nothing was done. He said—mark these words—

I believe this is a remark of which the hon. the Minister must take note. Here I have another report which states that an important gentleman in the Department of Agriculture—

South Africa should stop producing cash crops, such as maize and wheat, in marginal areas where cattle ranching could be the main enterprise. I believe this is the direction in which we must move. I believe that there should be proper incentives towards production. During the last week new prices for beef and mutton were announced. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister does not think that we took too long to come to the decision to provide prices that would in fact be an incentive to increase beef production. I think we have dragged our feet in this matter, and that is why we are experiencing this short-supply situation at the moment. The other day, I asked the Land Bank if they are providing short-term or medium-term hypothec loans to encourage beef production in South Africa.

Yes, they do.

The answer is no. You cannot get a loan from the Land Bank to buy young cattle under the age of 12 months for fattening purposes. Surely, this is a short-term policy.

You may breed cattle.

I am talking about cattle for fattening purposes, and this is one of the most profitable ways of making money and producing beef, which is urgently needed in the country.

Do you want to speculate?

It is not speculating. If you buy young cattle—and these hon. members obviously know nothing about agriculture, otherwise their interjections would not have been so stupid—it is evident that you are not speculating, because the increase in growth and weight is the proper incentives for the increased production purpose. As my hon. Leader produces milk, this is producing beef for the consumer.

I have a document here from the S.A. Federation of Meat Traders. In 1966 already they sent this memorandum to the general manager of the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board, recommending then that steps should be taken to provide the proper incentives for the increased production of red meat in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I stand up chiefly to associate myself with the trend of thought expressed by the person who introduced the debate on our side of the House, and just to make a few remarks about the hon. member for Newton Park, who said here that the United Party’s policy in respect of agriculture is the same as it was in 1948.

I did not say that. I said that it was put in writing in 1968. I said nothing about 1948.

He said it is still the same policy.

That may perhaps be.

Anyway, it does not matter. Sir, I do not want to argue with him about that. The point I want to make is that he asked that we should state the National Party’s policy in respect of the agriculturalist very clearly. The question more specifically dealt with was the question of the people on the platteland. We on this side are saying that we should like to keep our farmers on the farms. We should like to make it possible for them to remain there by making cheap production means available to them or by trying to negotiate these for them. Thirdly we want to keep them there because they are the ones who feed the entire population. They must ensure that there is enough food, and even a surplus amount of food, so that we can earn export currency with it. But here I want to confine myself to the provision of the means to be able to produce at a reasonably cheap price. In recent times it has become clear that millions of rands are being spent annually on advertisements by business undertakings who may claim this as a reduction from their income tax, business undertakings that are actually geared to competition, not only with their own colleagues, but also with agricultural undertakings, particularly co-operative societies. In support of that I just want to quote from the Farmers Weekly of 29th September, 1971. It is illuminating that that publication, which is supposed to be a purely agricultural publication, thinks fit to place such an article. This brings me to the basis of my discussion. The article reads—

The point I want to make here is that it is broadcast to the world that the farmer is responsible for the high cost of living in this country. This is the reason why organized commerce and industry have passed resolutions at virtually every congress asking the Government to take steps against this great force which is emerging in the co-operative world, the operation of which they do not actually understand very well. It remains common knowledge, though, that a co-operative society, whether it be an agricultural co-operative or another co-operative, or a central co-operative—and I am going to confine myself more to the central co-operatives —is a consequence of the farmers’ activities on his farm. The fact is that the world has changes. If things were now the same as they were in the old days when the farmer could harvest his own maize, could grind it, package it as the packers today want it and could then offer it to private people at depots for which he had to pay rent, there would possibly have been no problems. But that is really thinking that has grown rusty; old-world thinking. These major price fluctuations are caused by people who establish large profitable businesses in competition with our food organizations, meat organizations, implement organizations and with our co-operative societies. The time has also come to give the ordinary man the opportunity to inspect these peoples’ books. It is a fact that in the co-operative world the books of co-operative societies are given for inspection to any interested party, with the result that people know what the internal workings of those co-operative societies are. In this connection I should like to quote further—

The idea being conveyed to our public is that the co-operative societies, which are continuing their activities in terms of the Co-operative Societies Act, are doing so in terms of so privileged a position that they are regarded as such a power factor that the Government ought to hold them responsible eventually if things are not going well with food prices and related articles. I now want to say something about what agricultural co-operatives and the co-operative home industries in the smaller towns mean to our housewives. In this respect I want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for the cudgels he could take up for women throughout the country who belonged to these co-operative home industries, so that they can now again freely register provided certain requirements are met. It was, in the first place, an encroachment upon the right which housewives also had to furnish their own contributions to the downward trend we want in the cost of living. In addition, the whole concept we are dealing with here is that of higher costs, the higher cost of living for which that section of the population, which is active in agriculture, is supposedly responsible. It has been mentioned on this side of the House that agricultural co-operatives have found justification in serving as a means by coming between the producer and the consumer at a profit which is as low as possible. This is important because it keeps the cost of living low. Whether they get all their capital from the Land Bank, or whether they do not, is not very important as far as I am concerned; the fact remains that the majority of agricultural co-operatives work on a net profit of about 2%. I challenge any commercial undertaking which is not going bankrupt, and which has to pay these large dividends to their shareholders and directors, to show us their statements in all honesty and tell us: “We are working at a 2% profit.” The moment the sources of provision are cut, it would mean that these co-operatives would have to go and get their money on the open market at an increased interest rate, which would eventually result in the prices of the products they produce taking an upward trend. In connection with this aspect the hon. member for Springs appealed here the other day to the Minister for an investigation into the high repair costs of motor cars. I want to link up with the hon. members’ plea. I want to go further and ask that, if possible, the Government should institute an investigation into the tremendous increases in costs in accessories and repairs to tractors and pick-ups and those articles which have an important share in the farmers’ production costs. Then this must be divided up into two parts, i.e. on a co-operative level and a non-co-operative level. Our books are open. We have come to the point of establishing central co-operatives registered throughout the country, for example the manufacturing division at our purchasing central co-operatives for agriculture and the central co-operatives for the handling of building matters, the erection of buildings and for importing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural industry is probably one of the most hazardous industries in our country. And consequently agriculture is also saddled with many problems. We have in mind, for example, a problem such as changing natural phenomena like droughts, etc. Another very great problem is one which the hon. member, who has just spoken, touched upon, i.e. the high production costs. I should like to say a few words about that. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing a great deal of research, and we are very grateful for the research they are doing, but there is one sphere in connection with which the department could do much better research and concentrate more on extra research, i.e. in the field of high production costs. We must see whether we cannot bring those production costs of the farmer down slightly. It is well known that the production costs are high. Over the past few years we have all been talking, as it is, about the high production costs of the farmer. It nevertheless seems as if there is not much that can be done about that. I just want to quote a few figures to show what I actually mean in this connection. The spending on short-term requirements increased during the past year to an estimated amount of R480 million, which is about 14% higher than it was in 1971. We can also look at a publication by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, i.e. Trends in the Agricultural Sector, in which we read—

Let us look at the producer prices. I quote—

One can take a look at this and bear in mind that production costs have increased by a great deal more. It has already been mentioned here that production costs increased by 14% in one year. The farmer’s production costs are also much higher in many other spheres. The hon. member has already mentioned that the costs of repairs and accessories have also increased a great deal. I am also thinking of bags, artificial fertilizers and other production means, which the farmer also has to deal with. There is one sphere I should like to point to in this House this afternoon, a sphere in which the farmer, in my opinion, could still be accommodated to a large extent. The sphere I am referring to is the supply of electricity to the platteland. This matter is one of national importance, and I think that everyone who is a farmer regards it as a matter such. The provision of power is a tremendous cost item as far as farmers are concerned. In analysing this matter, we ask ourselves where the farmer must obtain his electricity from. In the first place he could obtain it, for example, by acquiring a power-generating system, a battery system. In the second place there are certain municipalities that supply electricity to the platteland and thirdly they can also obtain electricity from Escom. As far as the provision of electricity is concerned, there is a serious injustice being committed against the farmer. When a farmer obtains his electricity by way of a municipality or by way of Escom, he must erect those powerlines himself at his own cost. He must provide his own capital for the erection of those powerlines, for the transformers and for getting the electricity to him. Then he must still pay a basic levy over and above his unit costs. If one now takes the urbanite or factory man, one sees that he only pays for those units. Those initial capital costs are overhead expenses financed by Escom or by the municipality. One asks oneself why the farmer has to provide this capital. One asks oneself why he must finance Escom while Escom itself lends the capital to finance the urbanite. In my opinion this is a very great injustice. One also thinks of the fact that the electricity provided to the industrialist and the urbanite is very much cheaper than the electricity provided to the farmer. Then one must also think of the fact that the industrialist draws a very good salary from that industry. For example, he obtains dividends on his shares and, in addition, he obtains very good interest on his investments. The farmer, on the other hand, must pay more for his electricity, must finance his powerlines himself and obtains a very low return on his investment. All the farmers who are dependent upon one powerline simply cannot make use of the power and they cannot contribute their share to the erection of that powerline. If there are a few farmers who would like to have electricity, they apply to Escom for the supply of electricity and must then pay for that powerline. As more farmers wish to be connected to the powerline, they must contribute their share towards paying for the erection of the powerline. At present there are about 20 000 farmers in the Republic making use of electricity. This is about one-fifth of the total number of farmers in this country. If one were to look at what the national gross domestic product of the farmers is, one would see that it amounts to more than 10% of the country’s total gross domestic product. For that reason one feels that the farmer is entitled to his electricity contribution. In his report, from which I have just quoted, one also sees that the total gross value of local agricultural production in 1972 was an estimated record amount of R1 654 million. One then asks oneself whether it would not be fair for the farmer to be treated in the same way as the industrialist as far as the provision of electricity is concerned. With a view to the fact that he is such a great asset to this country, he ought to be given the same treatment as the industrialist and the urbanite. One also asks oneself the question: To whose benefit would it be if cheaper electricity were provided to the agriculturist? Would it not also be in the country’s interests? Would it not also be in the interests of the consumer? Would it not help the farmer to produce more cheaply? That is why I want to ask very seriously today that the hon. the Minister should really consider instituting an investigation into this whole matter, into the high production costs and the high costs of providing electricity to the agriculturist. I think the time is ripe to go into this matter thoroughly and to see whether we cannot reduce the production costs for the farmers. The whole country would benefit from that.

Mr. Chairman, the maize industry has frequently in the past been singled out as the scapegoat for specific bottlenecks encountered in the economy, particularly since the word “inflation” has taken up a permanent place in our everyday conversation. This year it is again the case. In the Financial Mail of 5th April this year I read the following under the heading “Now it’s maize”—

Sir, I should like to say that there must be an end to this nonsense about the slightest increase in producer prices, granted by the Government as a result of increasing production costs about which the farmer has no say in any case, being seized upon to try to make the country aware, each time, of the so-called increase in the cost of living which the farmer is causing the country. The hon. member for Newton Park was guilty of that again this afternoon. On the other hand, no-one is apparently concerned any longer about the tremendous burden of production costs that are piled onto farmers chiefly by commerce and industry.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has already frequently expressed his opinion about an issued warnings against the increases in the selling prices of maize products which cannot be justified. In the 10 minutes at my disposal I do not have enough time to draw a comparison between the increase in the selling prices of maize products over the counter, inter alia, and the increase in the producer prices in respect of maize over the past five years. I am referring, in particular, to the past two years, since the control over the selling price of maize products was abolished.

The United Party must never again come and pose in this House as the so-called champions of the farmer, because they are not. What did they say this year when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture increased the maize price for the farmer in, I may say, an emergecy? What did they say then? “United Party horrified at maize price”, one heading reads. In the Argus of 13th April I read the following—

They are the ones sitting there, Sir—

That is the United Party, Sir, the people who pose here as the so-called friends of the farmer. I am telling them that it is altogether scandalous.

In the 10 minutes at my disposal I should also like to appeal to the Minister to reintroduce that control over the selling prices of maize products which was abolished. Sir, I should like to do so on the grounds that the farmer has a direct interest in the fact that there should be control over the selling prices of maize and maize products. I am doing it firstly in the interests of the consumer as well, because maize is still a staple foodstuff. I am doing it in the interests of the maize producer himself, because he would like to develop the local market to its maximum instead of having it bleed to death as a result of high prices. I am making this appeal to the Minister in the interests of the maize industry as a whole.

I should also like to say a few words about the position of bags as production cost items in the maize industry. In the past the view has frequently been adopted that the price of bags is not of any importance to the maize producer because the maize price is determined without consideration of the price of bags, the price of bags being added to the maize price subsequently. In various ways the maize producer does, in fact, have a direct interest in the price of bags. In the first place his interest lies in the fact that the Government subsidizes the consumer price of maize. Sir, this high price of bags must be paid by someone. If the producer does not pay it, then the consumer must—someone must pay it, and because the consumer has to pay it, this is one of the reasons why the Government is compelled to subsidize the consumption of maize. Secondly the producer’s interest lies in the fact that a high price for bags, which the consumer must pay, could build up purchaser resistance against maize, while the maize producer, as I have said, would like to see the local market developed to its maximum rather than have it bleed to death as a result of high prices. Thirdly his interest lies in the fact that the actual price which the farmer must pay for the bags is frequently higher commercially than the amount for which provision is made in the maize price. Sir, I want to emphasize that in my opinion jute bags are one of the most expensive of packing materials in which a cheap product like maize is packed. We must look for a cheaper packing material.

It is already on the market.

If a cheaper and more efficient plastic bag cannot be developed for the maize industry, something which I have previously advocated in this House, then I want to ask that a positive research programme be instituted as quickly as possible in respect of alternative fibres, and their cultivation, from which bags can be manufactured. [Interjections.]

Sir, the remark is made here that a plastic bag already exists. That may be so, but it is not yet being allowed to the maize industry. If it exists, we must be given the concession of using it in the maize industry, but we are not allowed to do so.

Sir, you are aware of the fact that in the early fifties the Government agreed to phormium tenax remaining the standard grain bag until 1980. I immediately want to add that this was done for good reasons. I do not have the time to outline those reasons, but I want to say that having its own bag industry is and can be of the utmost strategic value to this country. But the cultivation of phormium tenax was not very successful. Today, for example, we can import jute bags at a lower price than bags manufactured locally from phormium tenax, and for that reason we must see whether we cannot obtain an alternative fibre plant. I have also read in the Sunday Tribune of 6th May, 1973, that there are only 34 of the original 68 phormium tenax growers left in the country, and this shows that, in actual fact, phormium tenax has finally failed as a fibre replacement for jute. There is an alternative plant, i.e. kenaf, and I think that we should now get away from the initial prejudice which obtained in relation to kenaf when it was still decorticated by decomposition and was not quite suitable for the industry. But with the new chemical decortication process, kenaf has become a competitive fibre, and the manufacture of bags from kenaf, or compounds of kenaf, can be undertaken quite economically in relation to phormium tenax bags and imported jute bags. There are many farmers in the Lowveld and elsewhere who are eager and keen to cultivate kenaf if they could find a good market for it. I think that the market could be created and that this market could be developed in such a way that we could even think of export possibilities. Therefore I should like to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the departments—I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is also present—for the green light to be given to those who are interested in manufacturing bags for our local industry from this fibre. I think it is time for us to seriously start making this possible. If we could bring that about and also succeed in developing a cheap plastic bag for the maize industry, I think we would furnish a great contribution not only towards helping the maize producer but also towards making maize available to the consumer more cheaply. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus says that we in the United Party are no longer the friends of the farmer. This is quite untrue. We are not only friends of the farmer, but of the consumer as well, and all we said was that the price of maize products should not rise for the consumer, and that the State should see to it that it does not rise. That was all we said. The hon. member raised a great hue and cry here, but now he is thinking of other things.

The people of the United Party hate the farmers, and they cause one to work oneself to death.

That remark means very little, for it is not the truth.

†I was dealing with the question of the planning in the agricultural department and I indicated to the Minister certain problems which had arisen in the meat industry. In the dairy industry we are in exactly the same situation. We suddenly found ourselves with an over-production of dairy products, so what did the Government do? They lowered the price. After they had lowered the price, they suddenly found themselves with a shortage, so what did they do then? They tried to import butter from overseas. While they were in the process of importing butter they suddenly decided, through the good offices of the Minister of Health, that yellow margarine should be manufactured. The net result of that was that many of the dairy farmers in South Africa decided that the dairy industry was not worth while. The result was that thousands of good dairy cows in South Africa were slaughtered. The result is that we now find ourselves with a shortage of butter, but because of unfavourable climatic conditions and a shortage of oilseed we have now also a shortage of margarine, and now we are again in the position where we have to look to overseas countries to supply our needs.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister this too. After 25 years of Nationalist Government, does he think that they have got anywhere in regard to soil conservation in South Africa?

*I ask every hon. member on that side what he thinks. Are we falling behind or are we making progress in regard to soil conservation in South Africa?

Making progress.

If the hon. members say that we are making progress, they do not have a proper understanding of what is going on in South Africa.

†I state this proposition and I would like to know what the Minister’s reaction is. I say that our agricultural potential, with special reference to the pastoral areas of South Africa, today stands at about 35% of its optimum. That is the extent to which grazing conditions and general agricultural conditions in South Africa have gone back.

Whose fault is that?

It is improper planning on the part of the Government. That hon. member has only to look around in his own constituency, then he will see for himself the extent to which the grazing conditions in his constituency have deteriorated over the past 25 years. I live in his constituency. I ask him to prove to me that progress is being made.

But I am not saying that there is no deterioration. [Interjections.]

I say that had there been better planning, better co-operation and more efficiency, this could have been tackled in a proper way and we would have solved the problem.

You cannot blame the Government for that.

What is one of the most important things in any department which renders technical services? I want to make special reference to this aspect. I refer to the extension officer. What do we find? We asked the hon. the Minister how many extension officers they have available in the country at the present time. The answer is that there are 280 professional officers, but 37 posts are vacant. There are 281 technical officers, but 152 posts are vacant. In the answer I received from the hon. the Minister he worked it out that there is one extension officer to every 164 farmers in South Africa. For that hon. member’s information I want to say that there are only 81 000 farmers left in the whole of South Africa. I hope he realizes that. That is how far the population of the rural areas has already progressed. I say that if the figures are worked out correctly, one will find that there are 180 extension officers in South Africa available to the department at the present time. If you divide 180 into 81 840 farmers, you find that there is one extension officer to every 420 farmers. If an extension officer tries to spend one day on one farm, he cannot visit all the farmers in his area in the course of a year. This is one of the problems the department has to contend with and this is why we are not making any progress. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the point in connection with the organization in the department. The hon. the Minister has accepted certain recommendations put forward in the report by the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture. If one looks at what he has accepted, one finds that he has to have an advisory board on agricultural credit. I am merely trying to indicate to the hon. the Minister all the boards which he will have to create. First there is this board to which I have already referred. The next one is a study committee of experts to investigate the hiring and letting system of agricultural land in South Africa. Then he will have to have a study commission which will be appointed to look into land tenure. The next is that he will have to have a control body to look into the control of the acquisition of land in South Africa. He will also have to have an institute of land-use planning. These are some of the recommendations which are made in this report. In addition he will have to have a national advisory board for the planning of agricultural production. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the hon. the Minister already has an agricultural advisory board. There is also an agricultural adviser to the Prime Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is not going to be a top-heavy organization that will find it quite impossible to function on a properly co-ordinated basis. Does it not lead him to think that somewhere there must be a central body at the top to co-ordinate all the activities of all these advisory boards that are recommended to him in this commission’s report? I cannot possibly see how his department can function on the basis which is being adopted at the present time. In addition to that, he will know that many of the activities and schemes administered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, for example the bull-testing scheme, artificial insemination, fleece-testing schemes, the studbook associations, the activities of all the breed societies in which the department has an interest, the import and export of livestock, etc., are controlled by Acts of Parliament which were passed by this House. I believe just to properly control the breeding of animals in South Africa, whether cattle, sheep or goats, we need a proper body of control. The time may well have come when a special Act of Parliament has to be passed to consolidate all these Acts already applying in respect of these aspects of agriculture. I cannot possibly see how the Minister can control all these activities on his own, unless he establishes an agricultural planning council that can give proper, cool, calm and collected attention to the activities of this vast department of which he is the Minister.

What is worse still, is that the department has three separate Secretaries. There is a Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, a Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, and a Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Surely, a ministry of this size needs one person who can co-ordinate the activities of these different departments. It seems to me illogical. The hon. the Minister will know that there appears in this report that has been published by the department “’n kort begrip van die departementele aktiwiteite en prestasies van 1958 tot 1972”. On page 10 of that report comment is given as regards “vordering op landbou-tegniese gebied”. It is reported how the Minister’s department attempted in three instances to reorganize itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park said this afternoon that we should discuss the agricultural industry in a responsible manner and that we should state our policy.

Then the hon. member stated the old, old policy of the United Party, the one which we already know and by means of which they have made such progress in the rural areas over the years that there are virtually no members opposite who are representatives of rural seats! This policy of theirs, which is stated in that yellow booklet and was once again repeated here this afternoon, namely that we should guarantee the farmer production costs plus profit, has often been debated in this House. But for the sake of the record I just want to ask him again: In a year such as this year, when the maize industry is virtually experiencing a complete crop failure and certain areas produced no maize whereas others had a reasonable crop, what price would the hon. member have given the maize farmer under his policy, seen in the light of the present circumstances,

You did not listen to what I had to say about how one could remedy the position.

The hon. member must tell us whether R4-50, which is the price we determined this year, is too low, whether he would have determined the price on the basis of the average production in as exceptional a year as this year, or whether he would also have guaranteed production costs plus a profit to the farmer who could not even plant anything and whose fertilizer was lost as a result of the drought. Then the hon. member said—this is their policy—that prices for agricultural produce had to be announced beforehand. Now, if it had to happen this year that the hon. member, according to his policy, had announced a price for the maize farmer of South Africa before we were hit by this disastrous season, I wonder what he would have done at the end of this year with the price he would have announced beforehand; for, surely, this could never have been in the interests of the maize farmer.

The hon. member also spoke about the depopulation of the rural areas again. In Die Vaderland of 13th December, 1967, there was a report of what had been said by the commission which had dealt with that matter, namely that the drought conditions of 1966 could be regarded as being one of the main reasons for the migration from the rural areas. This year’s drought will definitely not have that effect again, and this will be the case because of the policy of this Government and because we appointed in the meantime the commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry, which analysed the internal problems and bottlenecks within the agricultural industry. We have taken the necessary measures.

I should like to come to another important matter, and that is the question of the maize industry as a whole. The maize industry is our largest single agricultural industry in this country. The weal and woe of approximately 30 000 maize farmers is very closely connected with what is happening in this industry. This year we were faced with tremendous cost increases, as my hon. friend also said. On the other hand we were also faced with price increases for the consumer. Now it is my pleasant privilege to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the most responsible manner in which, on the one hand, he gave the farmer his due, namely a 20% increase in his price, whereas, on the other hand, he did not allow the consumer price to rise excessively. Recently quite a big fuss was made in the newspapers by the United Party—this was pointed out by my hon. friend for Odendaalsrus—in which they said that these prices should have been subsidized to such an extent that there should have been no need for the consumer to pay more.

Now I want to tell the hon. member that the National Party, after assuming the reins of government in 1948, started with a subsidy on maize for the consumer, which amounted to R2,6 million in that year. This subsidy was gradually increased to R38,5 million, which is the amount in respect of the past year. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Government for having done its duty in respect of the consumer in this country over the years. The consumer and the producer in this country go hand in hand and should not fly at each other or try to steal a march on each other. However, the United Party wants to have the best of both worlds. On the one hand they want to butter up the farmer, but on the other hand they also want to butter up the consumer.

A case has now been made out here to the effect that, by way of this increase in the maize price, we are doing an injustice to the underprivileged section of our population. In the 21st report of the Bureau of Market Research a market survey was published in which reference was made to the consumption and the domestic spending of the Whites and the Bantu in the urban complexes. According to that survey the Bantu are spending 22,5 % of their money on cereal foods. Now, if one bears in mind that the price of a bag of maize has been increased by 70 cents, this increase comes to only 6 cents per month for such a Bantu. This matter is being blown up as if this were an impossible position.

Maize is still the cheapest source of energy for any person in this country. We merely have to consider the achievements of the sportsman who eats maize porridge. Then we may also have regard to the beneficial effect which it has on the cholesterol content in our blood. Because maize used to be cheap in the past, people thought that it was an inferior product. We must raise the maize price, for then people will also buy it more easily because then they will know that it is worth something.

In respect of the 50 cent emergency payment which the Minister granted the farmers this year, I want to extend my thanks to him. I just want to say a few things in this regard. On the other side of the House the argument was advanced that devaluation had not been in the interests of South Africa. I just want to say that as far as the maize farmer is concerned, last year alone we saved R3,4 million on an export of 1,6 million tons of maize. The figure for this year is much higher. On 1,6 million tons the additional revenue was R3,4 million, and on this year’s export the amount of money benefited was such that we were in a position to pay out R45 million to the maize farmer of South Africa. The success with which the agriculturist of South Africa has been able to practise agriculture—and I say this in a responsible manner—is attributable, on the one hand, to the policy of the National Party Government and, on the other hand, to the fact that he has organized himself in a co-operative structure. Our co-operatives have performed a tremendous task in this country over the years. This was pointed out by hon. members on my side, and I do not wish to elaborate on it. I can but say that as far as the maize industry is concerned, they received more than 87% of the maize crop last year. Just think of these co-operative organizations in terms of employers; in terms of an instrument for, also, promoting orderly marketing in this country; in terms of the stability which they have guaranteed to us as farmers; think of the large storage facilities provided by them, for which they pay out of funds which they borrow from the Land Bank and which they pay back by way of storing maize and providing it to the consumers of our country. I think our consumers do not always realize what a major asset these cooperatives were to them in the past. I also want to bring something to the notice of the hon. the Minister: An amount of approximately R25 million or R26 million goes directly to the consumer for the storage and handling of maize in this country. This is referred to as a subsidy, which is confusing. Many of the people think it is only the maize farmer who is benefiting by it, whereas it is actually the consumer who is getting the benefit of that storage subsidy.

I should like to mention another matter which is very important to my mind. The other hon. member also referred to it. I refer to the advanced age of people in the agricultural industry. I have here the latest figures in that regard. The number of farmers in the agricultural industry, expressed as a percentage, are: under 20 years of age, 1,3%; 20 to 24, 4,8%; 25 to 34, 15,5%; 35 to 44, 18,9%; 45 to 54, 21,7%; 55 to 64, 23%; and over 65, 14,8%. I admit that the average age is too high. I should like to see far more of our young people entering the agricultural industry. However, it is an expensive industry, but the Government is doing everything in its power to help. Now I want to point out that the Government had confidence in the young man of South Africa when, in 1957, it granted him the franchise at the age of 18. Now I ask that the Government should also have confidence in the young farmer of South Africa and that we should grant the person who has the franchise—in other words, all of them who are 18 years of age—the legal authority to be able to do business if his case can be dealt with on merit by the Department of Agricultural Credit. In a year of calamity, such as this year, these are the very people who do not as yet have substantial security with their co-operatives or other organizations, and who land in the greatest difficulties. Let us have confidence in these people and also create legal authority for them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in availing myself of this particular opportunity to join previous speakers who expressed their congratulations to the hon. the Minister and also to the hon. the Deputy Minister on acting here today in their new capacities as Minister and Deputy Minister, respectively. Therefore we also want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to wish them every success and all the best for the years ahead.

The farmers of South Africa are good, hard-working and honest people, but there is one thing I know about South Africa, and that is that its climatic conditions are the harshest in the world. That is why a Minister of Agriculture in South Africa also has tremendous problems to solve in regard to the agricultural industry. However, we hope and trust that the severe droughts we had in past years will not recur during the hon. the Minister’s term of office, but that during his term of office we shall have fine and good years so that we may look forward to a good future for the agricultural industry in South Africa. Therefore I want to wish the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister success and good luck for the years ahead.

I want to associate myself with a resolution that was adopted recently at a North-Eastern Cape agricultural congress, namely to request the hon. the Minister to declare next year to be an Agricultural Year, and to celebrate it as an Agricultural Year. Having listened to the sad tidings being spread on the other side of the House, I feel that it really has become time for us to sell the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry is a dynamic industry with a dynamic economy. When one speaks to the consumers outside, one realizes that they are under the impression that the agricultural industry is just like a day-old sparrow which is only fed from above. They are of the opinion that the agricultural industry is being subsidized entirely by the State, whereas this is not the case. The agricultural industry has an economy which stands on its own legs. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned the huge amount of R780 million, which is the amount of the annual turnover of agricultural co-operatives. What about the R700 million in foreign exchange which our agricultural industry is earning? Today the agricultural industry is still the most important earner of foreign exchange, and for that very reason the agricultural economy is one of the most important economies of South Africa. We must familiarize the consumer and everybody in South Africa with the agricultural industry, for it is of very great importance. Whenever I listen to the hon. members on the other side of the House, I think of the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem. Every year they come together here in order to complain about the conditions in the agricultural industry. As a practical farmer I am the last one who will not concede that there are in fact bottlenecks in the agricultural industry. It is true that bottlenecks do exist, but what economic industry in South Africa does not have them? The agricultural industry is no exception. For that reason, therefore, I want to refer to it today. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about our young farmers. Let me point out to the hon. member for Newton Park that recently, three weeks ago, it was my privilege to address a young farmers’ association in Griqualand East. Of the farmers who attended the meeting of that farmers’ association, 95% were under the age of 35. Why is this the case? This is the case because that area still has inexpensive land and because that region has a good rainfall. Nobody can expect young farmers to move to places which are over-capitalized and also expect such farmers to make a proper living. These are things we cannot expect of our young farmers. Therefore, in that part which has not been over-capitalized, the young farmers are making a good living. South Africa’s young farmers are prepared to farm provided that the opportunity to do so is created for them, but they are not prepared to farm on an uneconomic basis.

I have already said that there are bottlenecks in the agricultural industry. Farming has developed into a self-supporting, vital industry, and it is founded on commercial principles today. In view of the fact that the agricultural industry is founded on commercial principles, it is no longer a way of life, as it used to be in the olden days, but more in the nature of a business undertaking. Since this is the case, I feel that there is a deficiency in the long-term financing of the agricultural industry. I should like to dwell on this for a few moments.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member is welcome to say “hear, hear”, but I am at least being positive and not negative in my approach. I really feel that the agricultural industry should now bring home to our people a positive approach, and that we should not always be negative in respect of everything we do in the agricultural industry. As far as long-term financing in the agricultural industry is concerned, we must have a new approach, we must provide for a new dispensation. In this respect, I think, it will be of interest if I referred briefly to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agricultural Matters, which was tabled last year. The Land Banks’ percentage investment in agricultural mortgages is 28,9, that of Agricultural Credit is 9,3, that of insurance companies is 10,4, that of the agricultural co-operatives is 2,2, that of banking institutions is 15,4, that of other financial institutions is 13,6, that of other persons is 13 and that of other organizations is 1,6. One of the biggest problems I have encountered in my constituency, developed as a result of the terrible droughts that prevailed. Especially during the years 1968 and 1969, when a great deal of money was in circulation in South Africa, the banks were saying, in spite of the mortgages which farmers already had, “Purchase another piece of land. We shall grant you a 100% mortgage”. This was not only done by banks; it was also done by other financial institutions. The effect this had was that when the interest rates rose, the agricultural industry could not keep up; and that was when those financial institutions called in the mortgages. At that stage the poor farmers had to turn to other organizations in order to obtain mortgages. Many of our farmers experienced problems in this respect, and many of them can still not be financed today as a result of the fact that these long-term funds do not exist. Therefore I want to plead today that a different course be adopted. I have already mentioned that the Land Bank’s percentage investment in agricultural mortgages was 28,9; today it is already more than 30. I feel that that percentage should systematically be increased further, so that the Land Bank may play a bigger role in the financing of mortgages in South Africa. This matter is of very great importance, for in order to bring about a sound agricultural economy and to keep it sound, we must have a sound system of financing. Especially in South Africa, with its risky farming conditions, where nature periodically strikes at the agricultural industry, we must have a sound system of financing. I think the Land Bank is the obvious body which is in a position to comply with this basic requirement.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested earlier on to hear the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet say by way of interjection: “You cannot blame the Government for bad farming.” I would suggest to him that you cannot blame the farmers for a bad Government. In the short time at my disposal I want to discuss the country’s agricultural shop-window, the agricultural society shows. When any breeder in this country requires stock from overseas to improve his own herd or his own flock of sheep, or even his own thoroughbred horses, he knows that the only way in which he can choose the best stock from overseas countries is to time his visit overseas to coincide with agricultural shows in other parts of the world. This is done, and it is only natural that buyers overseas who want to improve their stock with pedigreed stock from our country, should time their visits to South Africa to coincide with our shows here. Now I want to mention something which has been brought to my notice in this regard. During this session, and especially after the recent budget—and after all is said and done we are discussing the Budget here today and how the money should be spent—we have found that the Government is working directly against the agricultural shows. The tariffs and railway rebates in respect of these shows are no longer satisfactory. In this year’s Budget the rail tariffs on all stock sent to agricultural shows were doubled, and in many cases more than doubled. I mentioned earlier on in the session the problems which some farmers encountered when sending their red poll cattle to the national championships at Goodwood, and how much extra they have had to pay. Now this has gone even further. Due to the increased rail tariffs the number of pedigreed stock at the Bloemfontein show, for instance, decreased alarmingly this year. The hon. the Minister of Transport said earlier in the session that because pedigreed stock being sent to shows was of a very high quality, he saw no reason why the farmers should not pay increased rail tariffs in respect of such stock. I believe that that is no argument at all. There are many enterprising young farmers in South Africa today who are starting from the bottom and who want to advertise their pedigreed stock. It is indeed very unfair that we should call upon these young farmers, and in fact all farmers sending stock to agricultural shows, to pay these tremendously increased rail tariffs. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is here to hear this.

During April we had the horse yearling sales in Johannesburg. What did we find there? Today, because stock is so badly handled on the railways, and has been badly handled on the railways over the past few years, breeders of thoroughbred horses no longer choose to send their horses to the yearling sales in Johannesburg by rail. They transport them by motor lorry along our main and national roads. I know of a very well-known breeder from Dordrecht who transported no less than 47 horses to the yearling sales in Johannesburg in April.

He made a lot of money, did he not?

Yes, the 47 horses realized R350 000, but this is not the point. That breeder was prepared to pay far more to transport his horses to the Johannesburg yearling sales by road instead of by rail, and he did so. Those 47 horses were transported by road and it cost him R200 extra. In other words, it cost him R200 more than it would have cost him had he sent his horses by rail, but at least when they arrived in Johannesburg—a couple of days earlier than they would have arrived had they gone by rail—not one of those horses was injured. This has not been the case in the past. Mr. Chairman, surely it is only reasonable to suppose that the Railways are losing out in this respect?

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to agriculture. We are not discussing the Railways now.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleading with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to consider the question of railway tariffs on agricultural products, livestock, and—this is more important—to make recommendations on behalf of the agricultural industry to the Minister of Finance. After all, we are discussing the Budget, Mr. Chairman. We are actually losing out in respect of finance, because the people are no longer using the Railways. They are using motor transport instead, which is not really desirable, bearing in mind the heavy traffic on our roads today. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture must bear in mind, too, that there are certain items in our economy in regard to which we must get our priorities right. This is one item in agriculture where the agricultural societies should be assisted and where the farmer sending pedigree stock to the agricultural society shows should be assisted by reducing this tariff. After all is said and done, if it was brought down to what it was before the last Budget, the Government will not go broke on it at all; it is not such a big item when it comes to our national Budget, but it means a lot to the young farmer who is starting in life.

While I am on the question of tariffs, I want to deal with the tariff on one of the main items used in the production of fertilizer, and that is agricultural lime. Agricultural lime today is being marketed by Centramark or Amcor at the rate of R5 per ton, and last year it cost R14 per AZ truck to transport agricultural lime from Meyerton to Tarlton, which is only about 25 or 30 miles away. As we know, Sir, there is a great demand for agricultural lime in the Tarlton area, and today it costs no less than R7 per ton from Meyerton to Tarlton on the S.A. Railways, and this makes the proposition hopelessly uneconomic.

You are appealing to the wrong Minister.

No, I am appealing to the hon. the Minister. It is no use passing the buck; we have had that too often. When we speak to the one Minister, he passes the buck to another Minister. In the interest of agriculture, I ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence to have the tariff on agricultural lime reduced. If need be, Sir, I could produce a petition with many names within a week to lend weight to such an appeal, through the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Finance.

Then I want to deal with the rebate on feeding, and here I am thinking of a large meeting which was held at Calvinia only recently by a group of agricultural union farmers who were concerned about this item. I speak on behalf of them and many other farmers as far as the rebate on feeding is concerned. [Time expired.]

Sir, many of the problems which the hon. the Minister is usually saddled with in this Vote are caused by factors beyond his control. However, one problem remains in respect of which I think he cannot evade responsibility and complicity, and that is the drought we have experienced in this House the past few days. In that connection I have very seriously asked myself how the Government, the hon. the Minister and his colleagues could do such a thing to this country, i.e. how they could give the United Party men such a thrashing that we had what we have had here the last two days. Sir, a natural drought is an alarming disaster, but a spiritual drought, such as that which prevails amongst the United Party men at the moment, is almost unbearable, and it is fatal to this country. The hon. the Minister will have to give very serious consideration to this situation. Sir, I note that in Germany there is a very urgent demand for eggfruit and pumpkins but the condition is that they must, however, be juicy and not altogether shrivelled up. If the hon. the Minister bears that in mind, he is slowly going to have to start moving.

Have you become a joker now? If you do not watch out you will become Prime Minister.

Sir, I am just standing up to present for the hon. the Minister’s consideration the fact that we must avail ourselves of the opportunity which has presented itself in recent months, i.e. the demand for fresh South African agricultural products—fruit and vegetables —in the Euromart countries, and particularly in the light of the very positive steps which the Government has taken in connection with the promotion of exports. We recently had a visitor, Prof. Manty of the University of Berlin, a technical university, who stated in very strong terms that the marketing possibilities for South African flowers, to take one example, are virtually unlimited. Sir, the demand for, the turnover in, the consumption of eggfruit, green peppers and pumpkins is increasing by as much as 226% per year.

The opinion of the learned visitor from Germany in this specific case was that, although they are at present attempting to negotiate and liaise with other countries of Africa, also with a view to making specialist knowledge and capital available to them so that they would be able to provide for this very serious need on the Continent today, i.e. the lack of vegetables and fresh fruit, Germany would not be prepared to go further with the negotiations with and capital investments in the developing countries of Africa if countries like South Africa, with whom trade ties already exist, would give attention to this problem. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is a very serious matter as far as I personally am concerned, particularly with a view to the future of our gold mines in South Africa, and the very strong need there has been, until recently, to obtain foreign exchange.

I think South Africa is in this favourable position because of the advantage of its seasons in so far as it has a longer and slightly later season than competing countries in these markets to which I have already referred. This places South Africa in a very favourable position for sound competition, when one views this in the light of our sunshine and space and the scattered distribution of our vegetable producers in this country, this distribution being a significant factor in regard to losses suffered as a result of droughts and frost. I think we are in a very favourable position to be able to develop, but then we must act quickly and on a broad basis. We must not only provide fruit and vegetables for South Africa’s kitchen and for a large part of Africa: we must, in the full sense of the word, supply the Continent of Europe’s kitchen Euromart. I personally view this as a very serious matter. I think we have the farmers and the areas, and now we have the opportunities with air transport to be able to get these products on to the markets of Paris, London, Hamburg and other cities within 24 hours and in a perfectly fresh condition. I think we would be neglecting our duty if we did not take this opportunity.

There is a small group of farmers who have already taken the initiative in this respect and established a co-operative society with a view to the marketing of fresh products in these Euromart countries. Sir, you know yourself that as far as our uncontrolled agricultural products are concerned, we already export on an ad hoc basis, through small local and overseas agencies, to the tune of more than R100 million per year. I foresee in the establishment of this co-operative society a specialist service which could then handle and develop the export of all agricultural products in such a way that the producer and the consumer can have the best possible service and quality. I think the time is very convenient. My friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he and his department, in co-operation with his colleagues, the Minister of Economic Affairs and, in connection with transport rates, the Minister of Transport, should lend a characteristically friendly ear to and adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the producers who are attempting to render a service not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the solutions which the hon. member for Newton Park furnished for our farming problems, and if I take a look at these solutions it becomes clear to me that he has lost all confidence in the South African farmer. He wants the State to support the farmers in every possible manner. Let us take a look at just a few of those things. He mentioned a cost-plus basis. Is that not a motion of no confidence in the farmers?

Are you opposed to a cost-plus basis?

He speaks of a subsidy on railway rates. He also referred to a State-supported insurance scheme. In addition he asked for guaranteed minimum prices which should be adapted from time to time. There are probably some good points in those cases, but I am merely mentioning them to point out that the United Party has lost confidence. I am consequently glad that the hon. member for Randburg spoke about the great possibilities which farmers are latching on to. We still have many farmers with initiative in the country. There are many farmers who are farming progressively.

This evening I want to confine myself, in particular, to the extensive foreign exchange earnings of our farmers who venture into the export market. In spite of the very changeable climate that we have in South Africa, we can say that our farming products are amongst our country’s biggest and most profitable export means. If we think of the export products furnished by our mines, we have to acknowledge that these are vanishing assets. In farming, however, we have an asset which we can build up for the future.

Over the past year we have had an increase of almost 34% in the export of farming products. This has ensured an improvement in our balance of payments which has created a basis for the economic boom we have had in the Republic. We see, in addition, that as a result of these foreign exchange earnings, agriculture in this country has also become indispensable as an employer. It is also indispensable as a supplier of raw materials for other export articles and, of course, also as a provider of food. Agriculture is also a good client. It purchases production means, mechanical equipment, fuel and all the other farming requirements. There is a tremendous business potential in agriculture which is being injected into the country’s economy.

During the past 25 years—the period also happens to coincide with the National Party’s period of rule—our agricultural production has increased by 4% per year while the population increase in the corresponding period was 3%. This indicates to me that agriculture is also able to keep pace as far as these essential services to our people are concerned. By means of modern methods and the initiative, which I spoke about initially, we shall also succeed in keeping ahead in future.

In future the emphasis will fall increasingly on greater and better production. This is not a rich agricultural country, but in spite of that I say that we shall succeed in providing what is necessary. We shall also succeed in competing on the world markets. We are already doing so. In this connection I want to refer to a few products. There are our karakul pelts and fruit such as apples which are doing well overseas in spite of high rates. There is also our citrus fruit which has succeeded in competing on the world markets as a result of good advertising. Last year our citrus fruit was sold at an average of R1 more per box than other competitive fruit. By virtue of good quality our maize farmers are creating markets overseas and they are not experiencing any problem in selling overseas when they have a surplus. I am thinking of our wool industry, with its very good organization and its liaison with world organizations, which succeeds in competing on the world markets.

I want to agree with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that we must get away from the idea that surpluses are a danger. Surpluses can be sold and they can be converted into foreign currency.

We have our control boards which link groups of farmers together and which, with effort and good advertising, create new markets for us and build up contracts for us with countries abroad. This is of great value to the country.

However, the State must also do its share, and in that connection I want to refer to the concessions which are, in fact, made by the authorities. There is, for example, the concession made by the Railways as far as export products are concerned. The value of this is estimated at R22 million. Export financing is also taken care of for the industries. I also want to refer to the Reynders report in which quite a number of recommendations are made for benefiting industry. I want to ask whether agriculture would also be able to share in the benefits to the extent recommended for industry in that report. I think it is important that those benefits should also be obtained for agriculture.

I also want to mention the matter which my hon. friend, the member for Randburg, broached in connection with airlines. There is a great potential in export by air. I am glad the hon. the Minister of Transport is present in the House at the moment, because I want to thank him for the concession that was made last year in that the rate for air transport from Cape Town to countries abroad was made equal to that from Jan Smuts Airport to countries abroad. It was virtually impossible for the farmers of the Western Cape to compete on the foreign markets with their strawberries and other products, but then he agreed to air freight rates from D. F. Malan Airport being made equal to those from Jan Smuts Airport. Since it is possible to export products by air, this enables us to produce a greater variety of export products. This also results in our being able to have a greater spread in our seasons and can result in our being able to bring our products to the markets earlier and in a better condition. This could also result in seasonal surpluses being eliminated. In that connection I am thinking, for example, of our grape production, there being certain varieties which we have a surplus of during certain months of the year. If we could get some of those grapes on the market three weeks earlier, we would bring about a better utilization of the product and more beneficial distribution. There are many products for which there are great marketing possibilities if transport by air could be used. In that connection I am thinking of strawberries, sweetmelons, peaches, plums, cherries, egg fruit, green peppers and the tropical fruits such as avocado pears and mangoes, and in addition there are cut flowers and wild flowers. There are many possibilities along these lines and I am glad that our Government is also giving attention to these matters and helping where it is necessary.

Agriculture is not asking for favours. We are prepared to compete on the open markets of the world, because we have the people with the necessary initiative and perseverance. However, we find that other countries’ export industries are protected. I would consequently be glad if the hon. the Minister would also give thought to this. We see, for example, that American citrus fruit is sold at simply any price on world markets. They virtually “dump” the fruit there with the idea that they would thereby be able to maintain a good price in their own country. In Argentinia, for example, export products are classified as “promotion products” and the producers then obtain credit facilities and advances at low rates of interest. These are all methods that are employed to make it possible for their products to compete on world markets. I think it would be a good thing if we in this country were also to make a study of this, continually bearing in mind, in particular, the recommendations of the Reynders Commission so that we shall also be able to obtain the necessary benefits for our agricultural products.

However, I am not asking for protection where it is not necessary. I am only asking for it where it is necessary for us to compete and develop new markets. I am also requesting it in the light of the possibility that we shall encounter boycotts, “dumping” and disproportionate rates in certain markets for political reasons. I have in mind, for example, the E.E.C., which has virtually established a prohibitive import right on apples of R2-15 per carton. It would have been completely impossible for our apple farmers to have continued with the export of apples if it were not for the very high prices we happened to obtain overseas. I think we should also give attention to this.

If we look at the various advantages recommended by the Reynders Commission, I think it is a good thing to focus attention on the fact that the following advantages, inter alia, are being recommended for the industry: reduced railway rates, concessions on interest on the shipment of products and on the advance payment of fees in that connection, reduced rates for the transport of raw materials to the harbours and a State contribution of 40% for market research. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset of his speech the hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about creditworthy farmers and said, quite rightly, that there were many creditworthy farmers in our country. I agree with him wholeheartedly. There definitely are many creditworthy farmers in South Africa today; but there are also many farmers in the country who are not creditworthy.

†Now, Sir, what is the solution to this problem? I want to suggest that we must see to it that those farmers who are creditworthy are kept creditworthy in South Africa. The farmers who are not creditworthy must be kept on the land, I would almost say, at all costs, in order that they can continue producing more and more food for our ever-growing population. There is a growing shortage of food staring us all in the face. Having said that, how do we go about it? I do not make a habit of offering the Government solutions, but I want to suggest a few points which I believe need careful consideration.

We want, first of all, a long-term rebate in order that farmers can build up their own fodder-banks for the next drought, which is coming. If the feeding loans can be frozen over a period of, say, five years, farmers can reduce their local debts first. The feeding loans are increasing with accumulated interest rates. Or I suggest that the feeding loans be paid off over a period of 10 years at 2½% interest, making loans available at a lower rate. Other institutions also get loans at lower rates than the farmer is paying on feeding loans at present. Why should the farmer not enjoy a lower rate of interest? These loans should, as I say, be frozen for 10 years.

Then I suggest an insurance scheme to cover feeding debts. It can be on a voluntary basis. If we have an insurance scheme to cover feeding debts, a farmer’s family will not be left embarrassed with a drought-feeding encumbrance should he pass away. I believe this is something, too, which we should seriously consider. There are still many farmers experiencing a very difficult time. I know that they will not be able to redeem their drought feeding debts in the very near future either, because there are still large areas of South Africa suffering under a severe drought.

Now, Sir, I just want to touch on the stock reduction scheme which we on this side of the House have always supported. I believe it is a wonderful scheme, and it will be a sad day when the Cabinet decides to do away with it. I sincerely hope there is no thought of that. I know the problems facing the hon. the Minister and the department in this regard, but I do make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to carry on with this scheme as long as he possibly can. To me it is a strange thing that when a farmer qualifies for the stock reduction scheme because his farm is situated in a scheduled area, he invariably is not interested.

*Then many farmers say, “No, I do not want the Government to tell me how I am to farm; I am master of my own concern.”

†I know this is said, and it is wrong. On the other hand, there are many farmers who would like to subscribe to the scheme, but because their farms are not situated in a scheduled area, they do not qualify. But it is a great pity that there should be so many farmers today who are not prepared to volunteer to go in for this scheme at all. Ever since the scheme started, I and many of us on this side have tried our best to persuade some farmers to consider going in for this scheme. Now, how do we encourage them? Surely, there must be a way of encouraging every farmer to go in for this scheme? I know it is a difficult proposition to these farmers who are so stubborn and will not entertain this scheme. Of course we agree that the scheme is not a short-term money spinner at all. This scheme was not introduced to bring money into the agricultural industry. In very many cases we find that the subsidies paid out under the scheme barely cover the interest which many farmers have to pay. But nevertheless, despite all this, as a long-term policy it is an excellent scheme. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has any ideas as to how we can persuade more farmers to consider the scheme, but I would suggest that the Government tell the farmers that it will be very sympathetic towards those farmers who subscribe to the scheme when the next drought hits them. Those who have concentrated on this scheme will enjoy the Government’s sympathy. I do not say the Government needs to commit itself in regard to those who refuse to join the scheme, but it is comforting to know that if you subscribe to the Government’s scheme and the Soil Conservation Act, you will always enjoy the support and the sympathy of whatever Government is in power. This is something which I think we should exploit. While dealing with this scheme, I want to say as my colleague, the hon. member for Walmer, mentioned, that there is a great shortage of extension officers. There must surely be a reason for all the vacancies in the Service. Of course it is a matter of rands and cents. Why do so many of our young extension officers, with a B.Sc. (Agric.) qualification, work for a short while in this country and then settle in Rhodesia? Obviously they must be paid more in Rhodesia. I am not suggesting that we must raise the salaries, but it is quite evident that they regard the salaries as not good enough. I would suggest—I know it would meet with the approval of many of our men in the Service—that when they want to acquire a house to live in, money should be made available to them to purchase the house at a lower rate of interest. They should receive some concession. This would not have an inflationary effect. I believe it would stabilize the cost of living to a certain extent and keep many of them happy. This, I believe, is one reason why they are leaving our country. They leave the country because they believe they cannot come out on their salaries. I know that some of them cannot, but if the Government would consider making this concession to them, I believe we would keep far more of them happy in the service of soil conservation. We all agree that they are doing a wonderful job. We could never do without them. We have far too few of them in South Africa. But at the same time I want to suggest to many of my friends in agriculture that they make more use of the services of our extension officers. They are qualified men; they know what they are talking about, and it is a great pity that more of us do not accept their sound advice.

Mr. Chairman, several hon. members on this side of the House have come along this afternoon with very good arguments and proof to the effect that farmers, producers and the Government are not always to blame for the increasing living costs or the increase in the prices of agricultural products. I should like to discuss here for a moment an agricultural product in the Boland, i.e. wine. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister —and I want to say immediately that I am speaking here on behalf of 6 000 or 7 000 producers—how there are bodies who take tremendous advantage of this agricultural product of ours as far as prices are concerned. I want to try to prove this. I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not to blame, because he does not control the price of this product. We know that he is certainly the best Minister of Agriculture in the world …

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

… and therefore I know that he will give attention to this matter. I want to invoke his help in this connection. I must just say quickly why he is saying “hear, hear” so loudly. He “threatened” me with the fact that if I did not say so this afternoon he would not grant me any more interviews in future. I am just mentioning this little joke. This wine industry forms the basis of the economy in the Western Cape, and this industry is being threatened as a result of what the K.W.V. and the Liquor Board and other bodies call the excessive profits being made on this product. I should like to give one or two examples, and then I want to ask to be permitted to give reasons for why this is taking place, in my view.

We have here an agricultural product which unfortunately does not fall under the Minister of Agriculture’s control. This is consequently something I also want to advocate, something to which he must give attention. The farmer produces wine, natural wines. Those natural wines have various qualities, of course, depending upon the grapes and the type of preparation. Let me mention two examples. There is the popular kind of wine. I do not want to call it cheap, because this noble product can never be cheap. We in the wine industry detest anyone who abuses this agricultural product. In asking for the protection of this industry, we do not in any way want to imply that we are advocating that people should drink more—we are advocating that they should use this noble product in a civilized manner. There are certain light wines which are supplied by the wholesaler to the retailer at 20 cents. Then that same bottle of wine is sold by the retailer at 90 cents, in other words, at a profit of 450%. There are more expensive kinds of natural wines which are supplied by the wholesaler to the retailer at R1-06 and which are then sold by the retailer at R2-95 per bottle, a profit of 248%. A well-known type of wine, Vermouth, is supplied by the wholesalers to the hotel industry at 85 cents per bottle. If one buys that wine in an hotel at tot prices, one is paying R7 for that bottle. A bottle of brandy costs R2-81. The farmer gets 20 cents of that R2-81, the State gets the share it requires, the wholesaler gets 37 cents and the retailer 63 cents. But if one drinks that bottle of brandy in an hotel this evening by the tot one is paying R13-50 for that bottle of brandy. I want to say again that the farmer only gets 20 cents of that amount. When these bodies, who are making these profits, were spoken to, they said two things. They said, firstly: “It is not in the interests of the public to know what we make. This is trade information.” They also said—and now I am actually speaking of some hotel owners—that the State obliges them to incur heavy expenditure in connection with the classification of hotels. I think the time has come for us to tell those specific hotels that they cannot only count on the big profit they make on the liquor which they sell there, but that they should also provide meals and services and also try to make their profits on those. I think the solution to this problem is—and here the hon. the Minister of Agriculture must help us—for us to convince the Liquor Board that the freer distribution of our light wines is absolutely essential. In other words, if someone wants to have a meal in a restaurant, that restaurant must be allowed to serve that person this agricultural product, a glass of wine, with his meal. This is not allowed. I think that is the solution, i.e. that the Minister must help us to make it possible for an agricultural product, which must be used in a civilized manner, to be used in selected restaurants. Before a restaurant can obtain a licence at present it must virtually offer a five-star hotel menu and comply with other prescribed conditions. This matter is important to us, because only when one has freer distribution of our natural wines can one reduce the price of that liquor, and this will ensure the extreme gratitude of millions of consumers, and it will ensure the gratitude of our producers. Today in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg one can buy a tot of brandy for 45 cents. On can buy a cup of coffee for 55 cents in that hotel. If you do not want to buy that coffee, you could walk around the corner to the first restaurant, a very decent place, and also get a cup of coffee there for 20 cents or 15 cents. Why is it not also possible for us to have this agricultural product—and I emphasize “agricultural product”—with our meals in restaurants which could be selected so as to try to reduce this high price structure.

Mr. Chairman, it is only a die-hard, such as a Free Stater, who could keep on with such a debate. If it were not for the Minister sitting here on my left and having such a lovely time eating biltong and giving us nothing, I would perhaps also have left already. I sat here full of expectation, but I get nothing. But look now at the hon. members on the right. If only one of them had stood up and said that the Broederbond should take over agriculture, we could at least have got somewhere with something. But just look how they are sitting there at the back: an old Railway pensioner, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and old Police pensioner, the hon. member for Umlazi, a person who has to walk ahead in the funeral procession, the hon. member for Constantia and the chap at the back there who usually knows more about what is going on in any other man’s constituency than in his own, the hon. member for Benoni. Then there is one farmer who is unfortunately sitting in Port Elizabeth, the hon. member for Walmer, and the only farmer amongst the lot who represents a farming constituency, the hon. member for Albany, does not even want to give them a turn to speak. Then there is the hon. member for North Rand who has so much difficulty with his provincial farming in his constituency. Matters are such that we have really come to the stage where we look forward to the agricultural speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. That is really something to get nostalgic about. One consequently asks oneself whether one has done the country any good by getting the poor U.P. men to the point where one lands up in a debate like the one this afternoon. To have sat and listened three times in succession to the hon. member for East London, is surely murder! And now he is also gone again.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak about a few small things in the part of the world in which my constituency falls, things which are very dear to my heart. I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just returned; he is the first farmer. In the dam basin area of the P. K. le Roux Dam there is still a considerable area that consists of land which is superfluous and has been bought up by the State for the State water scheme. We in that area are anxious for those lands to be divided up as quickly as possible, for them to be cut up and allocated to farmers who have to settle themselves in that area so that farming may proceed there normally. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in connection with this area.

Then I want to broach a second matter here, and this concerns a new product which is now taking shape at the confluence of the Riet and Modder Rivers under the Kalkfontein and Krugersdrif Dam schemes. I am referring to the allocation of more than 200 wine quotas, the kind of thing my friend, the hon. member for Worcester, wants to sell in a café.

In good restaurants.

I am referring to the wine industry which is developing there.

As long as there is no mud.

I do not know yet, because the vines are still growing. There is one matter that worries me. These people are planting the vines there without specifically knowing what the results are going to be.

Those will be sour grapes.

No, since you have left that area, we no longer have any sour grapes. I want to express our great thanks, on behalf of those farmers, firstly the K.W.V., not so much for the quotas but for the very specific assistance which those farmers have obtained from the K.W.V. I also want to express my thanks to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the assistance they gave there to the farmers by way of the wine Research Institute. But I do not think it can be said with certainty that the varieties being planted in that specific area are going to be completely successful. We hope so, but that necessary research does not exist yet. I believe it will come, and we are looking forward to it.

This brings me a little closer to the point I want to raise in all seriousness. If one travels by air from Cape Town to the north it is remarkable how the canals from the Vanderkloof Dam or the P. K. le Roux Dam are taking shape towards the Free State side. This induces one to wonder what the farmers in this area are going to plant.

Maize.

One wonders what the farming pattern is going to be, what the size of the plots are going to be and what the Minister is planning for that area. The whole of South Africa looks forward to the development of that area. One also wonders if the time has not also come to do research on an intensive scale in connection with what must be planted in that specific soil. We cannot afford to begin with the cultivation of vegetation in that area which firstly does not do well there and which, secondly, South Africa has an over-abundance of, and, thirdly, which would therefore not be economical. I therefore think it is extremely essential for us to begin to do intensive research in this area and for us to begin already to determine what products must be cultivated there. I know there are many farmers in that area who are already planting citrus on a large scale. The oranges from that area are some of the nicest oranges imaginable, but I am not sure whether their cultivation will be successful. The same applies to the question of the planting of grapes. I am thinking, for example, of the planting of high protein foodstuffs. The hon. member for Lydenburg also spoke about that, and he specifically referred to soya beans.

Peanuts.

Yes, peanuts as well. What is the potential there, where are we heading and exactly what are we going to do? There is already a plot in the Riet River area which belongs to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The plot in the Riet River area is not far from this area, because a large portion of the irrigation water is going to be supplied to the Riet River area. This plot is lying unutilized at the moment. One wonders whether it is not possible, and whether it would not be a good policy, to appoint extension officers in that area. I would prefer extension officers to be appointed in every area. We ought to give extension officers the opportunity, particularly in irrigation areas, to carry out local experiments with various kinds of vegetation. This can be done, and it must be done under the guidance of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I think that the University of the Free State could also furnish many valuable services in this area which is under discussion at the moment. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would think along these lines and if he would give the matter his consideration.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Fauresmith had listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Walmer, he would have known that there is indeed a shortage of these extension officers for whom he is asking now. During his speech this hon. member went into such detail about my qualifications and those of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House, that I began to wonder whether he might not have imbibed some of that civilized agricultural product the hon. member for Worcester referred to. We are fond of that hon. member …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that insinuation.

No, we like that hon. member, but I shall withdraw it. However, I must say that I did not mean to be offensive. I want to come back to the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to refer in particular to the shortage of veterinary surgeons. When one refers to page 149 of the annual report one reads the following in chapter 7, “Veterinary Services”—

During the year under review a number of posts in the stock-inspecting branch of the division were abolished and transport allocations curtailed. This created great difficulties in maintaining the efficiency of the all-important function of keeping a watchful eye on the stock disease position throughout the Republic.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.