Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a privilege to introduce the motion appearing in my name on the Order Paper, namely—

Looking at a motion like this one, one comes to the conclusion that the time allowed for a motion such as this is in fact inadequate to cover the whole spectrum. Without wanting to play politics with the matter, I want to content myself by bringing certain facts to the attention of the hon. House.

When one considers the policy of the Government and of the hon. Minister of Labour in respect of the better utilization of manpower in South Africa, it is almost enough to make one wax lyrical. The importance of the two factors, training and labour, cannot be over-emphasized because labour is the mother of life itself, while education is the mother of all professions. That is why these two factors are so important. Furthermore, South Africa is a developing country offering development opportunities to all its people. Under National Party rule, not only has South Africa grown and developed, but in addition, all its people share in that development and growth. There is work for everyone who wants to work. I shall be so bold as to say that there are also training facilities for all those who really want to be trained. There is a shortage of highly skilled labour —no one has ever contested that. But the situation is not one to cause anxiety. Any developing country in the world usually has a shortage of highly skilled labour. Let us take a look at the steps that are being taken further to improve the manpower position. This is being done through the establishment of improved education and training facilities by the various departments concerned, the adjustment of industrial and labour legislation to meet developing needs, the rationalization of work, the reclassification of types of work and professions— for example the engineering professions— —and research in various fields of labour, education and the establishment of industries. This is also being effected by means of the importing of selected know-how and the establishment of employment opportunities for the people. We may test the work being done by this Government, by its deeds over the past 27 years, the period for which it has been in power. Success has been achieved in every respect, and I shall refer to this again shortly when I deal with the growth and the unemployment figure in South Africa. The Government continues to give high priority to the establishment of industries and the creation of employment opportunities. From the time the National Party took over, its aim was to put South Africa’s interests first and to have those industries established in spite of the opposition it encountered. Matters such as these are tackled systematically—not precipitately, but purposefully and with a view to promoting a steady growth and stimulating progress. The ordered labour relations guarantee peace and order within our borders, in the field of industry and labour.

Not only is this motion fair and just, it will also serve to cause those who are blind and deaf to these matters to accept the facts. South Africa is experiencing a period of progress owing to the judicious and systematic legislation and administration of the Government. That is why we have the sound labour situation we are experiencing in South Africa today. This Government attaches great value to the question of labour in so far as it concerns the lot, the conditions of employment, wages, housing conditions, training facilities and so on of the labour corps, in other words the social question in respect of that section of the population comprising wage earners who, owing to modern industrial development, are becoming increasingly autonomous. The welfare of this major section of our population continues to be regarded as a high priority by the Government and consequently their interests, such as the determination of wages, conditions of service and powers of negotiation, are dealt with in an orderly and scientific way. The Government has distinguished itself over the past 27 years as regards guarantees for labour peace and industrial peace and a happy labour corps in the Republic of South Africa. There is tendency for the standards of living of all population groups to rise. Statistics prove this. Productivity continues to increase. In this regard I call to mind the report by the University of the Orange Free State. The ordered working conditions created by the Government in the field of labour are responsible for this. The country and all its people are making progress because all these things are being done systematically.

I now come to the unemployment figure. Looking at this, the only conclusion one can come to is that this motion is not only fair, but ought also to be supported by everyone in this hon. House. As far as unemployment is concerned, I shall now give hon. members the latest period for which figures are available, the country concerned and the percentage of economically active people who are unemployed. In November 1974. 0,3% of registered employees— that includes Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics—were unemployed in South Africa. In comparison with other countries in the world that is a record. In July 1973 1,7% of registered Bantu employees in the Republic were unemployed. In September 1974, 2,9% of workers in the United Kingdom were unemployed. In October 1974, 5,5% of workers in the U.S.A. were unemployed. At the moment the figure is 8,2%. In August 1974, 2,3% of employees in Germany were unemployed and in France the percentage was 0,9%. In Japan, which is held up to us time and again in this House as the model country with a growth rate of 10%, has no less than 1 million unemployed persons at the moment. Unfortunately the figures for the major countries in Africa are not available. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that on 30 June 1973, almost ½ million foreign Bantu were employed in South Africa.

When it comes to training, we must take cognizance of the fact that the top structure in the field of labour creates employment opportunities for everyone in the labour sphere. This indicates to us that training is receiving its proper share of attention. Controlled employment guarantees peace and order and this takes place in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. It is also proof of the proper utilization of labour. The National Party has a long-term policy. It is not an interim policy, but a long-term policy which reviews things in advance and inspires confidence among our people and among foreign investors as well. South Africa’s interests are being served by this Government, because the Government does these things systematically.

Looking at the economic prosperity that is the result of better training and better utilization, then we see that it is a fact that while many countries are saddled with a combination of recession, unemployment, inflation, balance of payments problems and a great deal more, South Africa is a paradise in comparison with those countries. When we consider this, then we see that financially and economically speaking, South Africa is strong and healthy. There must be certain underlying reasons for this. I would say that these reasons are, inter alia, good labour relations, good human relations, systematic training and controlled employment. These are the things that are responsible for this. Looking at the growth rates in other parts of the world, we see that last year the U.S.A, had a negative growth rate of 1,75%, while we had a positive growth rate of 7%. The United Kingdom had a negative growth of 0,5% while Japan had a negative growth rate of 3,25%. Then, too, there were low growth rates such as West Germany’s 1%.

The increase in salaries and wages in South Africa continues to keep pace with the rising cost of living and the standard of living of our people is rising continually. Looking at what the Government has done to achieve this sound, growing and developing situation, we see that unfair and prejudiced criticism is continually levelled at the Government but that the Government has given all its attention to the utilization and training of manpower. As far as legislation is concerned, I only want to mention a few. The Department of Labour has the Apprenticeship Act, in terms of which employees and trade unions are continually giving consideration to the training of apprentices—White, Coloured and Asian. We have the legislation in respect of artisans in terms of which facilities are created for semi-skilled Whites to become qualified as artisans in various fields. We have the legislation in regard to Bantu building workers and in terms of this legislation the Bantu Building Workers’ Advisory Board is continually advising the hon. Minister of Labour in regard to the training of Bantu in skilled building work in Bantu residential areas and in the White urban and industrial complexes. We also have the Manpower Research and Planning Council, the National Advisory Education Council and the Institute for Manpower Research attached to the Human Sciences Research Council. Since 1965 this Institute has completed a large number of investigations. For example, there has been a long-term investigation and talent survey dealing, inter alia, with the quality of manpower that becomes available for year to year. Another is the investigation of the demand for and supply of White manpower in the Republic of South. Africa, an investigation which also provides information concerning the level of education of the various education groups. For instance, this investigation has ascertained the supply of and demand for chemists, physicists, technicians, geologists and mathematicians in the Republic of South Africa for 1980. In addition there is a standing inter-departmental committee under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour that is concerned in particular with provision of employment and the process of rehabilitation. Handicapped persons are not rejected by the Government, because they are continually being reintroduced and utilized in the labour market. Then, too, there is the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for the Promotion of the Safeguarding of Health in the Job Environment, whose activities are aimed at the establishment of healthier and safer working conditions. It, in its turn, had a great deal to do with the progress made in the field of productivity.

As has already been mentioned, there are the manpower surveys by the Department of Labour that are instituted every two years to determine the demand and supply in the various occupational categories. The progress that is being made is clearly reflected in these surveys. It is quite interesting to note that the last survey, that of 1973, brought to light the fact that at that stage there were 11800 Whites, 114 000 Coloureds, 11000 Asians and more than a million Bantu employed as labourers. In the higher posts the rounded off figures were as follows: 1 404 000 White, 488 000 Coloureds, 158 000 Asians and 1 586 000 Bantu.

Thus there are a number of bodies that are constantly engaged in investigating labour matters in this country. There are also, inter alia, the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council which recently brought out its economic development programme for the Republic of South Africa for 1974-’79. This council makes a scientific study in depth of inter alia, growth rate, and development projections, revenue and expenditure for the programmed period, foreign trade and the balance of payments. Labour matters, such as the supply of and demand for labour, and the implications of various targets and growth rates, are analysed therein. The Council reports on its findings and submits recommendations which are considered by the Government. Here, too training and the better utilization of labour are continually being considered. It is interesting to note how small the differences have been in the past between the projections of needs in the field of labour and the actual needs. I specially want to draw the attention of my hon. friend, the member for Maitland, to page 57 of the Economic Development Programme.

The Committee for the Better Utilization of Manpower is continually concerned with this cardinal aspect of labour. The Department of Statistics, in its turn, is concerned with the accumulation and publication of data which is extremely important in determining labour requirements. Then there are the bureaux for economic research at our universities, inter alia, at the University of Stellenbosch. The Government is also continually taking cognizance of the findings of these bureaux.

Looking at the entire spectrum, we note that intensive attention is being given to all these matters and that our manpower is being utilized to best advantage through training and better utilization because progress is being made in these fields to an increasing extent. I could trouble the House with a few figures I have extracted from the manpower survey to indicate how the distribution between Whites, Coloureds and Asians is brought about. However. I shall only mention one of them, concerning artisans. Of these there are 187 000 Whites, 34 000 Coloureds, 500 Asians and 9 000 Bantu. These 9 000 Bantu, of course, operate under the Bantu Building Workers Act in the Bantu towns in White areas. It will therefore be noted that the Government gives attention to the better training and utilization of our manpower at all times. However, I think it is essential that the private sector, too, should search its own heart and, in its own interests, also do whatever is possible the better to train and utilize our labour potential. These are the people who work for them. The Government stands for ordered employment and does everything in its power to create employment opportunities for all population groups. In this regard it is clear that the Government and the Department of Labour in particular, as well as the various education departments—Bantu Education. Coloured Education, Indian Education—have done much to improve the training and utilization of our labour corps. The various education bodies and private bodies which have also made their contribution in regard to the training of people deserve our unstinted praise, too.

There is not enough time to go into the training of Whites in detail. I should just like to refer to the trade test centre at Olifantsfontein and quote a few figures in this regard. About 350 trades are indicated as regards conditions of apprenticeship, but for certain trade test purposes certain trades are grouped together. During 1974, tests in 161 trades were conducted. Including tests for apprentices, 12 040 tests were conducted in 1969. In 1974, no fewer than 15 724 tests were conducted. The number of registered apprentices has increased from 8 428 in 1969 to 10 393 in 1974. The percentage of apprentices who passed the test has also gradually improved over the same period, from 36% in 1969 to 43% in 1974. Apprentices can also undergo more than one test in the same year, and if we bear this fact in mind, we find that in 1974 more than 50% of the articled apprentices passed their tests. Calculated on the basis that on the average, apprentices who passed, shortened their period of training by a year, this means that the Republic acquired 4 688 additional qualified artisans during 1974—a year earlier. Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about the Coloureds. The employment opportunities of the Coloureds are also, of course, protected by Acts. Here again we are dealing with the utilization of labour, because these people have certainty, security and confidence. They enjoy the protection of 89 different trade unions. They occupy almost 500 different occupations. The unemployment figure for the Coloureds was 0,16% of the economically active population last year. When Coloureds are unemployed they can receive R20-30 per week from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That facility, too, is available to them to encourage them to improve the utilization of their manpower and to provide them with security. As in the case of all other population groups, there are no maximum limitations on the remuneration of Coloureds. Here again it is with appreciation that one must take cognizance of the fact that the Government determines minimum wages solely and exclusively, and not maximum wages. The education budget of this population group has risen by 29% in the past year, while its education is free. There has been an increase of 6% per annum in the number of skilled workers. Salaries have risen by 38% in the past three years. These things, Sir, can be ascribed to the policy of the Government in regard to the better training and utilization of our labour force. In the past 12 years more than 106 000 dwelling units have been made available to them. This is another factor contributing towards the better utilization of our labour.

When we consider Bantu training, we would do well, in order to acquire the necessary information, to refer to motions that have already been introduced this session, and also to make inquiries at the department. However, I just want to mention a few figures concerning the universities, the phenomenal progress which has been made. In 1969 there were 487 students at Fort Hare, while in 1974 there were 1 029. At the University of the North there were 671 students in 1969, while in 1974 there were 1 512. At the University of Zululand there were 428 students in 1969 while in 1974 there were 1 004. The total for 1969 was 1 506, as against a total of 3 545 for 1974. Consequently this number has more than doubled.

I must just say that in the Bantu homelands there are no limitations on the utilization of labour. In other words, even the highest posts there may be occupied by Bantu. There is no limitation as regards training there either, while in the White area we feel that we have to protect the Whites. Sir, once again it is with appreciation that I want to take cognizance of what the Government is doing and what the hon. the Minister is doing to encourage and improve training in our country, ’ and to utilize our manpower in South Africa.

The hon. member for Hercules introduced his motion here in his customary calm manner. He made a few points to which I should like to come back, but before I do so, there is just one point which I want to state very clearly. When we conduct a debate on the labour conditions in South Africa, we are often accused of saying that the Government is doing nothing. Now I want to say at once that we are not conducting a debate here on this matter against the background of the question whether the Government is in fact or is not doing anything. That is not the test. We say the test is whether the Government is doing enough, and it is this test which we apply when the issue is policy and realities in South Africa. Having said that, I want to say at once that in all labour debates—I do not know why—we and hon. members opposite seem to be on different wavelengths. I listened to the hon. member here, but do you know, Sir, apparently he and I are not quite in the same world.

We are not, you are not of this world.

That may be so, because our points of view are diametrically opposed. The hon. member boasts about the economic situation in South Africa. I myself am grateful for this, but in boasting about it, he totally ignores the contribution towards that progress that is being made by 70 to 80% of the labour force of South Africa. He ignores it almost entirely, as if the Black worker really does not exist in South Africa. But there is another fact which he fails to see. While on the one hand we have the serious labour shortage to which I shall refer later, on the other hand we have thousands of people who want to work but do not have work. This is the great ambivalence we have in South Africa.

Where are those who do not have work?

Does the hon. member for Sunnyside really want to tell me that such people do not exist?

Surely I provided the figures.

Do you know, Sir, this is something that I find so tragic. Does the hon. member for Hercules really want to accept the figures he gave us here as the true figures for South Africa? I say that he can only accept this figure as the truth if he totally ignores the fact that between 70% and 80% of the labour force of South Africa is Coloured. That is the only basis on which we can accept that figure, that it ignores totally the existence of those people. The true situation is that there is a labour shortage on the one hand, and unemployment on the other, and no one will deny it, and if the hon. members ask me where I get that from, then I say it is high time that the Government starts finding out what the position is as regards unemployment among the Black people in particular. I remember the hon. the Prime Minister saying that he would have sleepless nights if the Black man did not eat.

It is on this point that I agree with the hon. member, viz. his statement that labour is the mother of all development, development which we in South Africa need urgently, precisely in order to create a situation of stability, peace and progress in this country. There I agree with him entirely, but let us take a look at the facts as I see them as far as the labour situation in South Africa is concerned. If hon. members opposite do not want to agree with me, they must tell me where I go wrong. I want to say at once that in South Africa, in spite of what we hear, there is no such thing as a true labour shortage. What we do have is an artificial labour shortage resulting from the implementation of certain political ideologies in South Africa. That is what we have. What we do have in South Africa is not “a shortage of manpower, but a shortage of skills”. We have a shortage of skills, and that is where our biggest problem lies.

Now the simple question one should ask oneself is this: To what extent has the Government met the labour needs of South Africa? Here I am reminded of the hon. the Minister of Labour in his other capacity as the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. A few days ago, this hon. gentleman stood up in this House—his words are still hanging in the ether—and without a blush devoted a very large part of his speech to the acute shortage of trained people in the Post Office. Now I ask again: To what extent has the Government met the needs of South Africa in regard to labour? To what extent does it utilize the labour that we have? If I am to believe the Press, there is a Mrs. Van der Spuy who submitted a petition yesterday containing 11 000 names of women who refused to work because the Government’s income tax legislation is such that it does not pay them to work. In a country in which we need trained labour, how is it possible that women who want to work are forced into a situation in which it does not pay them to work? Is that proper utilization of labour? Of course not! The hon. the Minister of Labour, who ought to know what is going on in the labour market, should surely talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance and say that he needs the labour of those people. They must not be discouraged. The percentage of economically active women among the Whites in South Africa is about the lowest in the Western world, not because the White woman in South Africa does not want to work but because in terms of the tax legislation, her position is such that, as they themselves say, it does not pay them to work.

Let us go further and consider to what extent labour is being properly utilized in South Africa. We had the Railway debate last week. What were we told in that debate? It was said that the two shift system in the harbours was now being applied for the first time in history. Do hon. members know why the system had never been applied before? Because it was said that we could not get the labour. However, there are thousands of people who would jump at the chance of working in the harbour if they were offered the job. What, however, are the consequences of the existing situation? There is over-spending of capital. There are dozens of ships which are or were lying outside the harbour. The mere fact that a double shift system was introduced solved that problem. If we wanted to use the labour at our disposal and introduce a three-shift system for our harbours, the problem of congestion in our harbours would fall away entirely. We invested R200 million in a harbour machine and that machine works eight hours or 12 hours per day and for the rest of the time does nothing. If one is to use one’s head, one must have that enormous machine operating 24 hours per day. The fact that it does not operate 24 hours per day is ascribed to a labour shortage and that in a market where there are thousands of people who want to work and are not given the work. It can be said that the people are not being trained. Whether a man is White or Black, he cannot operate a crane if he has not been trained. What I want to ask, is this: To what extent has the Government done its duty in South Africa as far as labour is concerned. It has not, and why not? We know the history of the matter. We have had the story in this House innumerable times. The reason is that the Government does not see the labour problem purely as a socio-economic problem. The Government also sees it as a political problem. This is a Government which for years has been blind to everything but the phantom of 1978. After that, the stream of Black people will return to their own countries. Because that is so, the Government did not want to train the people. Surely there is no doubt in that regard. After all, we know the history of the matter Now the hon. gentlemen come along and tell us that they are prepared to train the people for skilled labour in the Bantu homelands. That is all. What is the position in the metropolitan areas in White South Africa? What is the position in the urban complexes of South Africa which will have to provide all the impetus for all economic development for many years yet? After all, we know the facts. Is there sufficient labour? The hon. gentleman never questioned the figures that were repeatedly given to him. We told him that by 1980 there would have to be close to 10 million economically active people in South Africa of whom four million would have to be skilled or trained. The Whites cannot even provide a maximum of two million of this skilled labour. Where must the other two million or more labourers come from if we do not train Black labourers to work in the focal point of our economic development, namely the urban areas? They must be taken …

What do you say?

I say thank the Lord for South Africa’s sake; we have the people. They must be taken from the ranks of our Black workers. That is where the hon. gentleman must go and find the people. We in South Africa must no longer allow ourselves to be restricted by ideologies which we know are dangerous and which are lying in ruins. After all, we know this. We remember that a few years ago the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place that he did not want to train the Bantu in White South Africa because he thought that it would lead to political problems. The Government is now allowing Coloureds, Asians, and Bantu to be trained, in the Post Office and in the Railways, to do the work of operators, which requires semi-skilled labour. The Government will allow those numbers to increase; in fact, it has no option. The number of non-White workers in the Railways and the Post Office will have to increase progressively if those machines are to be kept in operation. Five years ago the hon. the Minister was afraid of the political implications. I want to know what has become of his fear now. Of course it is ridiculous to believe that a situation like this will cause a political upset in South Africa. That is not true. We must continue and the Government will simply have to do so.

If the hon. gentleman’s motion can be of any use, then it is that we should use it this morning to repeat to the hon. the Minister of Labour that to date, as far as the training of labour is concerned, he has only scratched the surface. As far as so-called White South Africa is concerned, he has not even made a start. We must make another appeal to the Government to get away, for once and for all, from the political chains with which they are continually burdening and fettering the issue. We must continue with the training and the provision of the necessary labour for all branches of the economy in South Africa. There is not a single facet of our economic life which does not suffer from a shortage of skilled labour. This is something that is found in the Railways, in the Post Office, in every Government department, in agriculture, in mining, in industry; in fact, it is everywhere. Then the hon. member still comes along and thanks the Government for the better training and the better utilization of labour.

Of course.

The word “better” is an interesting word. What does the hon. member mean by “better”? Better than at what stage? Better than five years ago? Better than at what stage? Is it better than it was when the previous Minister was responsible for the portfolio? The fact is that as far as labour conditions in South Africa are concerned, 25 years have elapsed, 25 lost years. At long last, because the date 1978 is blurring into a totally unrecognizable figure, the National Party is realizing that they are being forced by economic conditions to the point where they have no option but to accept, slowly but surely, the point of view, approach and policy of this side of the House in regard to labour. I am not using this opportunity this morning to quibble and to fight, but …

To talk nonsense.

If that hon. member were only to think back to his speeches on finance now and again, he would use the word “nonsense” with great circumspection.

You cannot understand it.

That hon. member is of course the one-eyed king. The fact of the matter is that we in South Africa have reached the point where we have a serious situation on our hands. I am grateful that we are able to say this morning that the Government has changed. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Labour that he must not allow the tempo of change to be so slow. In a continent in which production and food have become power, I believe that as far as the feeding of tens of thousands of mouths is concerned, South Africa has a wonderful future …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Sir, I believe that South Africa has a wonderful future, if we can only succeed in utilizing all our labour to the full and to get rid, for once and for all, of the shackles of National Party ideology which have caused us to lose 25 years, years which could otherwise have been such good ones.

I am unable to wax lyrical about the hon. member’s motion. Nor am I able to wax lyrical about the hon. the Minister of Labour’s approach to labour issues or to the Government’s viewpoint in that regard.

And the White workers are not able to wax lyrical about the United Party.

That is why I want to move as an amendment—

Just recently I again heard the suggestion that we only talk about the Black people. Unless the Black man in South Africa can also make a living, the White man has no future in this country because this would lead to instability and friction and everything that that involves. When I plead for a vision that will embrace the entire economic picture and which will regard each labourer simply as a labourer, then I am in fact pleading for the Black man, and when I do so, I am actually pleading, in the first place, for the White man in South Africa. Unless we accept that, the hon. member’s argument, and all the sincerity we talk about, mean absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this motion that was introduced here today by the hon. member for Hercules. I want to associate myself with the thanks he conveyed to the Government for the steps taken by the Government to improve the training of the manpower in South Africa, in the first place, and in the second place, to utilize it better. I shall deal later with the statement by the hon. member for Maitland to the effect that this side of the House and the Government should get away from certain shackles that are supposedly binding it.

It is very interesting to note—and the hon. member for Hercules referred to this —that we in South Africa still find ourselves in the position that every citizen of South Africa has the modest privilege of sharing in our economic growth and prosperity, whereas so many other people in other countries do not have the privilege of sharing in anything of the kind. One asks oneself why our country finds itself in this position. There can be only two answers to that question. The first is that the National Party Government has provided for proper educational institutions, in other words, has passed the laws in terms of which the manpower of the country may be properly trained and educated. In the second place it is ascribable to the National Party having placed labour laws in the Statute Book enabling our labour to be properly utilized and trained. Provision has also been made in these labour laws for the vocational training of our labour force in the country. How does this compare with the rest of the world? The rest of the world is bowed down by unemployment; strikes are on the increase; lawlessness is rife; and in many of these countries there is low productivity and bankruptcy. There is unrest and some countries have reached a point of no further growth. We in South Africa, on the other hand, have peace, prosperity and development. Now I ask why we have all these things. To me, the answer is implicit in the industrial peace we have here in South Africa. This is a factor contributing to the proper utilization of our manpower. If we have friction among our national groups, then we must expect there to be low productivity. That is an irrefutable fact. I shall make so bold as to say that South Africa’s labour force is probably one of the happiest in the world. There is no other labour corps like it. The hon. member referred to the steps taken by the Government in respect of the training of the Whites, the Coloureds and all other national groups. I want to come back, in the third place, to our labour laws that enable us to utilize labour properly. It is these laws that give every worker in South Africa peace of mind, particularly in that we have a multi-national structure in this country and are dealing with White. Coloured, Indian and Bantu labour. This industrial peace derives from the fact that the National Party had the courage to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act in 1956. What does this Act mean to us? It is the key to industrial peace and order. In this first place, it creates the opportunity for employers’ organizations and the trade unions to register themselves. Furthermore, it provides for industrial councils and conciliation councils. We have over 180 industrial council agreements, in terms of which the worker himself may sit at a table—on an employee to employer basis—and negotiate his wages and conditions of employment That is what this Act establishes and this brings about peace and order. It also brings about a good relationship between employer and employee and to me this is a very important point. It also affords the South African employee a say in his own management and continued existence. Another very important point is job reservation. I want to know from that hon. member whether he sees job reservation as a shackle that restricts labour utilization.

For the White man, yes.

Yes, you therefore regard job reservation as a shackle. The hon. friend acknowledges that he regards job reservation as a shackle that binds the Government so that consequently we are unable to utilize our labour properly. I shall come back to that later and prove the opposite to you.

We shall too.

In the first place, job reservation implies for us the prevention of unnecessary competition between the various national groups. It is a protective clause.

For whom?

This arrangement is not only there to protect the Whites. Job reservation protects all labour groups, and I shall substantiate that. The Opposition accuses us by saying: “You don’t utilize your labour force; remove the restrictions.” These supposed “restrictions” are, inter alia, influx control and job reservation. That is what the hon. member calls “shackles”. Last year the hon. member for South Coast made the reprehensible statement that: “Job reservation protects the lazy Whites.” That is a reprehensible statement. When one makes such statements, does one expect to Cultivate good race relations? When one makes such statements, does one not expect to create friction between race groups? When one adopts that premise as one’s stand-point, then surely one must cause friction between one’s various race groups. I ask: Can we utilize labour in South Africa properly if we make such statements? Those are the questions they must reply to.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time; my time is very limited. I shall show them what job reservation, that so-called shackle which, according to the hon. member, binds us, is …

Handcuffs!

If we had not applied job reservation in the Western Province—there are about 25 or 27 determinations here—then I want to put it unequivocally to this House today that the Bantu would have dislodged the Coloureds from the industries of the Western Cape. Between the years 1968 and 1973, the number of Coloureds in the furniture industry rose by 21%. The number of Coloureds in the building industry rose by 73%. There, too, job reservation determinations were made. In the clothing industry the number of Whites dropped by 43% and the number of Coloureds increased by 40%. I am telling you now: If it were not for influx control, if it were not for the implementation of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, then the Coloureds would have been driven out of these industries today. I want to ask the hon. member for Maitland whether he thinks that there would then have been peace and order here in the Western Cape. No, Sir. We should then have had an angry Coloured community, because they would not have been content with that. We know the old cry of the United Party that the Whites enjoy the privileges, because for them there are White trade unions while the Blacks do not have them. We know the standpoint of the United Party and that of that small appendix, the little group that sits next to them. What is their standpoint? From time to time they hold up job reservation as the bogy. That is what they do. I say that job reservation has resulted in peace and order. Those people are forgetting that there is also a White labour corps here. They are blinded to everything except Black trade unions and job reservation.

†Unfortunately the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not present at the moment. Last year the hon. the Minister invited him to negotiate with the 14 trade unions on the mines in order to get rid of job reservation in the mines where they are 85 000 White employees and 641 000 Blacks. Those trade unions should have been consulted with a view to removing job reservation, this so-called “barrier”. I want to give him the assurance that should job reservation be removed, there would not be one White employee left on the mines. Are those hon. members prepared to remove job reservation? Are they prepared to have discussions with the trade unions to that end? No, they are not.

Where do you stand?

I stand by section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. We took steps to enable the Bantu to regulate the labour affairs which concern them in terms of the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act. In terms of that Act, there are works and liaison committees that form the channels through which he may negotiate. Just like the Whites, therefore, he has his own negotiating machinery which he can utilize in order to exercise control over his own affairs. Within a short period we established 1 813 works and liaison committees which promote the interests of more than 500 000 non-Whites. It was the United Party which was unwilling to give that Act a chance and which stated that the Act would not work. However, within a short period we have proved what success may be achieved by means of this Act.

Last year the hon. member for Pinetown asked how many strikes had taken place from 1973 to the middle of July 1974. The reply he received was to the effect that 300 strikes had taken place and that in 281 of the cases where strikes had taken place, there had not been works and liaison committees. Just recently, during the last week or two, he again put a question. This time he asked how many strikes had taken place during the second half of 1974. The answer was 135, 125 of which had concerned wage demands. Once again it has been proved irrefutably that the works and liaison committees are a success, because in that period, of all those firms where strikes took place, only eight of them had liaison committees and only four had works committees.

Already, during an earlier debate, I referred to the fact that the University of the Orange Free State investigated the system of liason committees. They asked industrialists how these committees functioned. They sent out 326 questionnaires in this regard to some of our biggest industrialists, at whose concerns 41,1% of the works committees are operative. What was the reply? Their finding was very clearly that labour was utilized far better as a result of the establishment of the system of liaison and works committees. Their finding was that productivity rose by 39% in those industries. As far as grievances are concerned, their finding in those cases which they investigated was that there had been a reduction of up to 82%. In 97% of the cases communication had been improved while 82% of the employers were satisfied with this system of liaison committees. Almost 60% of those employers’ organizations stated that they were not in favour of Black trade unions. A negative finding was that 62% were not prepared to assist in promoting the education of the Bantu in their service. And then a finger is pointed at the Government! Why does that 62% not perform its rightful share in regard to the training and education of these people? What does that hackneyed cry that trade unions bring peace to the world, look like now? What do the European countries which have trade unions, look like? There is unrest; there are strikes, there is misery. Last year the hon. member for Edenvale had doubts because only ½ million of the 2½ million economically active Bantu enjoyed protection under these liaison committees. Only one-third of one’s Bantu workers in South Africa are members of trade unions. That argument, therefore, holds no water. In the first place this Government believes in ordered employment. We believe in co-operating with the trade unions when it comes to the switching of posts. Then one has peace and order. To a large extent we have achieved success with what we have done in recent years. I say that the workers are grateful. They have taken cognizance of the fact that this National Party Government will not leave them in the lurch.

I now want to deal with the Bantu Building Workers Act. This is an Act placed on the Statute Book in 1951 providing for the training and registration of Bantu building workers. Thanks to this Nationalist Government, almost 7 800 Bantu building workers are registered today. These are people who build their own houses in their own areas. If we think of Soweto and Sebokeng, then we know that if it were not for those Bantu building workers who were able to construct those buildings, that task would have rested on the shoulders of the Whites in South Africa. I say that such opportunities have been created by this Government. When this Act was introduced, the Opposition opposed the Third Reading. In the Act, the training period is laid down as four years, but as is the case in regard to the Whites, that Bantu building worker may undergo a trade test after one year. If he passes it, he gets his trade diploma. Those people have the same facilities as the Whites have in their sphere. This Government went further. A year or two ago this Government introduced a scheme here in Cape Town in terms of which Coloureds are trained as motor mechanics. The grants which those people receive are precisely the same as those received by Whites. Is this not a duty which the Government has performed? The Government has also come up with the inservice and pre-service training of Bantu. This will be dealt with by the hon. member for Brentwood. In 1970 the Government amended the Industrial Conciliation Act to provide for training schemes for adults. Adults are also trained in terms of these training schemes and the schemes are handled by the Industrial Councils. These are things created by this Government.

I also want to refer to the scheme for the training of adult artisans. In 1951, when the Whites were driven from the platteland owing to economic conditions, owing to droughts, when many of those people had to seek their salvation in the cities and in industry, those people did not possess any training in a trade. They did not have that privilege. This Government created the opportunity for those adults who had come to the cities to be properly trained. For example we have a training institution like the one at Westlake, for example, where adults take an intensive course for a year and six months. After their training they are placed in the service of employers, and even those people may undergo a test of skill, and if they pass that test, then they obtain their trade diplomas. Sir, that Act even provides that the registrar of apprentices may issue a certificate to an adult person if he is satisfied that an applicant has had sufficient practical experience and training during his career. The Act further provides that those people may undergo trade tests. Thanks to this National Party Government, 13 000 adults in South Africa have had the opportunity during these years to obtain a trade diploma; to achieve artisan status. Does that constitute neglect? Is that not reason to be grateful towards the National Party Government? Sir, it costs the State up to R3 400 to train one apprentice; that is what the State is prepared to do. My hon. friend referred to legislation dealing with the Training of apprentices. I want to tell him that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the National Apprenticeship Board which, through the years, has continued to review the old Act and has come up with recommendations, with the result that today it is no longer necessary for an apprentice to be trained for five years in order to acquire artisan status. They have come up with recommendations from time to time as a result of which the Old Act has been overhauled. The National Apprenticeship Board is composed of representatives of the employees and of the trade unions, in other words, of interested parties who are directly involved with this matter and who undoubtedly know best. They have recommended, inter alia, the selection of would-be apprentices; they have recommended that they should undergo aptitude tests to avoid their being employed in the wrong field. Sir, we also call to mind, inter alia, the accurate job description relating to certain facets of various trades for which they were responsible. In addition, they overhauled the apprenticeship system by laying down that an apprentice with higher qualifications should start at a higher scale than a person with lower qualifications. They also amended the system of class education. They prescribed for the apprentice a percentage of the wage earned by the artisan. The apprentice’s wage increases in accordance to that of the artisan increases. Sir, this is what we have done to promote the training of apprentices. The hon. member for Hercules pointed out how the number of apprenticeship contracts has increased over the years. What I find very important is the quality of apprentices we are getting today. In 1964, only 540 apprentices with Std. 9 and St. 10 qualifications were registered; in 1974 there were 2 447. In 1970 there were 4 160 apprentices with Std. 8 qualifications and in 1974 there were 5 050. The hon. member also pointed out how the percentage of successful candidates in the qualifying test had increased. Sir, the National Apprenticeship Board is continually investigating technical training and making recommendations in this regard. I say that we can rightly be proud of this department and the National Party Government. I want to make an appeal to those people who talk about “lazy Whites who are protected by job reservation”. I refer to those hon. members on that side who are blind to everything except the Black labour force in South Africa and who are continually inciting the Black man against the Whites in South Africa. If they want to serve their country, then I want to make an appeal to them to stop that nonsense and rather to make a contribution towards the better utilization of our labour in South Africa. Sir, the White workers in South Africa can rest assured of the fact that where a White is replaced by a non-White, it will take place in an orderly manner and that it will take place with the full co-operation of the trade unions. In conclusion, I want to make an appeal to private enterprise. Sir, they, too, have a bounden duty as far as the training of White and non-White workers in South Africa are concerned. They must not simply point to this Government all the time and ask what the Government is doing in this regard; they must search their own hearts and ask themselves what they are doing to improve the training and utilization of our manpower.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I believe that at any rate what he must be doing is looking through rose-coloured spectacles. I am not even sure whether he does not have patches over both eyes, because the way he looks at the labour situation in South Africa and the way we on these benches look at the situation are totally different. I think we can do without his advice as to how we are to serve South Africa. He referred to us as an appendix, but I can only say to him that the labour policies of his Government are a cancer on the face of South Africa and are destructive of our prosperity as a country. We in these benches just cannot support this motion. We cannot express appreciation to the Government for the steps it has taken for the better training and utilization of our South African manpower. It is our view that this Government has hampered the reasonable utilization of our labour resources because of the restrictive legislation it has placed on the Statute Book, thereby doing immense and immeasurable harm to the wellbeing and the prosperity of all South Africans and to the wellbeing and prosperity of our economy. It has adversely affected our prosperity. The philosophy and the approach of this Government have been such that the enormous opportunities offered to us because of our tremendous labour potential and our tremendous labour resources have been frittered away and wasted. Numbers of restrictive practices such as entrenching job reservation and the industrial colour bar, have done incalculable harm to our economy. But our economy has managed to flourish in spite of these legal restrictions, and the fact that it has, is a tribute to the resilience of our industrial and commercial communities in South Africa. It is a tribute to their ingenuity and to their acumen in continuing to build prosperity in the face of an unbelievable mess of restrictive legislation. Sir, I should like to detail some of this restrictive legislation. When we have a look at our Statute Book, we can see just what is happening to our country as a result of that legislation It is astonishing that in the face of all this South Africa has managed to stand where it does, but this is in spite of Government labour legislation and not because of it.

Let us take a look at the Industrial Conciliation Act, at the infamous job reservation section, section 77, which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says he stands right behind. If this Government is really going to make a contribution to the wellbeing of South Africa, this is one of the first sections which should be scrapped. In many ways the Industrial Conciliation Act is a very advanced piece of industrial legislation, but one of the things that have to be changed, Sir, if we are to advance, is the definition of “employee” which must be amended to include Bantu, so that they will become people instead of non-people. This is one of the things holding us back. It is also highly discriminatory, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark how he feels about that in view of the implied intention of the Government to get away front discrimination. What does he call section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act if it is not discriminatory?

What has happened to him now?

Well, he is still there, but he is not listening. I suggest that he should listen. His usually vociferous and impassioned speeches in this House could do with a little common sense behind them instead of emotionalism. One looks at other legislation, Acts like the Mines and Works Act, which is totally outdated, and the Building Workers’ Act. Sir, I have spent a lot of my life in the building industry and I know just how the building industry has been bedevilled by the Building Workers Act, and how ridiculous this is; how still today, in spite of the many pressures on the building industry, a Black man in the Transvaal is not allowed to hold a screwdriver. He is allowed to hold a paint brush as long as he is only putting on an undercoat. It is quite remarkable how many undercoats go on to buildings and how few topcoats! It is remarkable, too, how many nails are hammered in when it is illegal for a Black man to hold a hammer in the Transvaal. This is the sort of legislation which the motion of the hon. member for Hercules suggests is a good thing. He is slapping the Government on the back and congratulating them on this sort of legislation. There is the Apprenticeship Act. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark talked about how much is being done as far as apprentices are concerned. May I ask the hon. member whether he knows how many apprentices there were last year in the building industry? There are so few that one cannot begin to cope with the shortage of skilled manpower in the building industry.

Get him to answer yes or no.

I don’t even offer him that opportunity, because I do not think he even knows. He eulogized the Bantu Labour Relations Regulations Act which sets up works and liaison committees and castigated the hon. member for Pinelands for asking how many strikes there had been. He pointed out that the vast majority of strikes had taken place where there were no works or liaison committees. This side of the House has always said that works and liaison committees are a necessity in any happy industrial state, but they are no substitute at all for trade union rights and they do not begin to be a substitute.

You have no grounds for stating that.

I want to give the hon. member a warning at this stage. Unless trade union rights are given to the Black people in South Africa, I can foresee nothing but trouble in our industrial future.

Do you want to instigate it?

For a long time we have stood for trade union rights, and the suggestion that we are trying to instigate and foment that trouble purely and simply because we are asking for the machinery of trade unions, is a disgraceful suggestion. It is just what I would expect from that hon. member.

Anna Scheepers is doing it for us.

Yes, that I do believe.

One looks at the jobs which entrenched the migratory labour system. The migratory labour system has possibly done more harm to the economy of South Africa than anything else I know. I refer to such things as the pass laws, influx control, the Bantu Urban Areas Consolidation Act, the Bantu Labour Act, the Physical Planning Act. All these were Acts introduced by this Government or are supported by this Government because some of them are pre-1946. They have done immense harm to our economy, and yet the hon. member for Hercules comes along and congratulates the hon. the Minister on this sort of thing. One can imagine what this country could be like if we did not have this mess of industrial legislation. Our technical education opportunities in this country have also been lauded and eulogized. I want to tell both those hon. members that this education is totally inadequate. We do need a crash programme of technical education. We are entering a phase in our economic history where fundamental changes are occurring in the composition of our labour force. We need the workers and we are faced with escalating economic integration. It is, however, vitally important, if we are going to have this economic integration, that we should have adequately trained people to cope with it. The training of workers right now is very important. We need the education of workers and the education of children. One has to start with basics. If one has free and compulsory education for all children, one is starting off with what basically is needed for the labour force of our economy. From there one goes to vocational and technical training or higher education of other sorts. However, we are slipping up right now in that we are not educating fast enough. The people who are not being educated today are still going to be workers in 50 years’ time. South Africa is going to pay the price, and it is going to be a very heavy price. We are paying the price already for the neglect of the past 20 or 30 years. We simply have not got these skilled workers. If we had started 20 or 30 years ago training our people to take their place in the industrial and commercial life of South Africa, we would by now be far advanced. We would be far ahead of where we are at the moment. The Government keeps on talking about our present stage of prosperity and taking all the credit for it. Here we are in a situation where the lifeblood of our economy, gold, has increased in price to a terrific degree in the past couple of years. The man in the street, however, is not enjoying any added prosperity, in fact his standard of living is probably going down.

That will be the day!

That hon. Deputy Minister’s standard of living may not be going down. Let me suggest to him, however, that there are many people in South Africa who are not living as well as they used to.

Their standard of living is going up all the time.

It is not going up all the time There are many people whose standard of living is going down at the moment in spite of the enormous increase in the price of gold. The reason for that is that the Government has been unable to order its labour policies in such a way that South Africa can take advantage of the many factors—specifically our labour potential for the purposes of this motion —which are in our favour.

As far as the question of education is concerned, it is probably not a bad idea to look at the situation in Japan. We are all familiar today with the extraordinary economic performance of Japan and the famous high quality of the Japanese labour force. The growth which they have maintained over the years is quite spectacular. Japan introduced universal education towards the end of the last century and set out to make her whole population literate. She then went further and extended as far as possible and as an absolute priority education in the higher grades. Today all the Japanese complete the equivalent of our Standard 8 and it is not unusual for factory workers to have an equivalent of our Standard 10. If we had had this sort of situation in South Africa, if we had tried to bring this sort of situation about some 20 years ago, where would South Africa be today!

I can tell the few hon. members on that side who have bothered to attend this debate—I noticed that the inspired support given by that side to this debate comprised at one stage 15 members—that the Japanese today have a highly educated labour force. Over the years the result has been a fantastic growth rate for Japan. If we could be in this situation, if we saw as a priority the training of our labour force, the training of our people and the education of our people, we could be far more prosperous than we are at the moment. This could be the case with all our people, Black and White. The whole philosophy of this Government is to separate.

We in these benches believe that When you have an integrated economy—and we have an integrated economy—it puts unreasonable strain on people when their social and political situations are separate ones. We believe that we shall never have an effective labour force when people are subjected to the strains of being integrated on the one hand—in the field of economic relationships, industrial relationships and in commerce—and on the other hand are supposed to keep themselves separate. We foresee a future for South Africa where people work together in every aspect of their being. If we expect people to work side by side with us we must also decide to give them the same opportunities as we are enjoying ourselves in every possible way. Merit should be in the measure. At one stage the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark addressed a question to these benches. He asked us whether we want to do away with job reservation on the mines. The answer is unequivocally “yes”. We do want to do away with job reservation on the mines because we believe that it is in the interests of all South Africans.

We believe that everybody should be allowed to rise to the limit of his ability. What a person merits he should get. If a Black man is able to hold a skilled position, he should be allowed to do that. When the Government does not allow him to do that, the Government is holding South Africa back and doing South Africa harm. I have heard much talk from the Government benches that increased productivity is the key to controlling inflation.

I want to tell hon. members opposite that they will not get increased productivity under present labour legislation. When people are expected to collaborate on the work level it puts excessive strain on them when differentiation—to use their word as it is applied in other respects—is applied. When these strains are felt, and this is put forward in many scientific treatises on this subject, many things happen which have a deleterious effect on productivity. You get high absenteeism and a high labour turnover rate. Our migrant labour system induces this enormous high turnover rate of labour. It can only be inefficient and is, in fact, totally inefficient. How our industrial people can possibly be expected to raise productivity in the face of laws which induce a high labour turnover rate, especially laws which promote the migratory labour system, I just do not know.

I do not believe that they themselves actually think that the migratory labour system can promote this. I am sure that most of the members sitting in those benches know full well that the migratory labour system is highly inefficient and that it will cut down productivity. I notice that they are all absolutely quiet at the moment. They believe for ideological reasons that it is necessary to keep the migratory labour system going. Hon. members on the other side must just understand that when they follow ideologies of this nature they cannot expect South Africa to advance and to reach its full economic potential. Until you have workers who can live happily with their families where they are working you will never get top productivity. But hon.. members? opposite do not seem to care. They just sit there with blank looks on their faces.

It does not mean that we do not care if we do not react to you; we are just tired of you.

Hon. members might be tired of me, but I can tell them that there are hundreds of thousands of migratory workers in South Africa who are sick to death of living the way they do. All they want out of life, and this they should be given, is the right to live with their families next to their work. [Interjections.] I can hear a “getjank” from next door …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member extend this principle to migratory labour coming from foreign countries such as Mozambique, etc.?

The hon. member knows full well that this is a totally different situation. [Interjections.] This party has over a number of years, since its inception, stood foursquare on the basis of giving South Africans priority, of encouraging South Africans to work on our mines and giving them stable conditions on the mines so that they can work perfectly happily. When it comes to the unrestricted influx of foreign families, this is a totally different question. The hon. member can pull every red herring he likes across the path, as he is trying to do at the moment, but neither he nor any other hon. member on the other side of the House has as yet answered my question, viz.: Do they or do they not believe that the migratory labour system is conducive to increase productivity? They know perfectly well it is not.

As I said at the beginning, we in these benches cannot support this motion. We believe that this backslapping operation, this eulogizing of Government policy, should perhaps be restricted to political platforms when they are talking to the converted. Perhaps then they will find some people who believe them. But these protestations that they are doing so well in the field of labour relations is, I believe, bad for South Africa and ridiculous for this House to consider. We in these benches will certainly oppose this motion with everything we have.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Party has through the hon. member for Orange Grove, who also referred to diseases, reminded me of something. The Progressive Party reminds me of a parasitical plant. They are like the little seeds which are distributed by the birds or the wind and which grow wherever they are dropped. I want to ask the Progressive Party pertinently to explain to me in which direction they are moving as far as this matter is concerned. Are they a socialist party or are they a capitalist party? They cannot keep on blowing hot and cold. They cannot speak here as socialists, with the support of the hon. member for Johannesburg North who is a capitalist. [Interjections.] I am a Nationalist. The hon. member for Maitland accused the Government of creating artificial labour shortages. I now want to go back a little into the past. As we all know, we come to this House as young members and at first we are very modest. Only later do we participate in a debate. However, in 1969 the hon. member, who is yawning with such pleasure now, did not introduce a humble motion in this House. The hon. member introduced a Bill on manpower training in this House, which dealt with this very subject of artificial labour shortages. The hon. member wanted to hit out at us with that Bill. The hon. member should remember that no vote has been taken on a private motion since I became a member of this House. However, we had to vote on this thing; we had to debate it.

It was not a motion; it was a Bill.

It was a Bill instead of a motion. On that occasion the hon. member advanced two arguments—in the first place, that the training which was undertaken at that time was of a sporadic, pragmatic and unco-ordinated nature. The second argument the hon. member advanced, was that the State should make a financial contribution to the training in every case, a contribution which, according to the hon. member, was a nominal one at that stage. What the hon. member asked for by means of this Bill, was a manpower board and 15 advisory boards, as well as an appeal board in case confusion should arise because of all these boards. The hon. member suggested that all these boards should be established, and I should like to know what the position would have been now had there been a recession in the country with an unemployment figure of 6% or 7% while we still had all these boards. [Interjections.] In any case, we voted against it, but the important thing was that he succeeded in mustering only 23 votes from his own party in this House on the matter. Not even his own people were interested.

You are really struggling today.

But what he is speaking is true.

What is, in my opinion, an important aspect of this sound development in our economy, is our labour legislation. As a result of a report which the hon. the Minister asked from the National Apprenticeship Board as long ago as 1967 an important amendment was effected to the Industrial Conciliation Board. That was Act No. 1 of 1970. As we all know, these amendments are based on the White Paper on industrial decentralization. I just want to remind you, Sir, of paragraph 18 and of certain other facets of that White Paper on which our legislation is based. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper reads—

Paragraph (d) contains a reclassification, in conjunction with trade unions, of artisans’ work in order that the less skilled operations of the work may be undertaken by semi-skilled workers and with a resultant improvement in the status of the artisan. Then we also have the upgrading of semiskilled White workers by means of training within the industry itself. Then I also want to mention paragraph (h). This is equally important, because it is stated in the motion that the Government, and not only the Department of Labour, should undertake the training of Bantu in the homelands for employment in the homelands and in border areas. This was the basis on which the Government proceeded. In 1970 legislation was introduced by the Minister in order to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act. The amending legislation of 1970 was aimed at empowering the industrial councils to establish training facilities and schemes. At present we have 103 of these industrial councils. Furthermore, the necessary authority was granted for industries which do not fall under an industrial council, to be brought into the matter in a similar way by means of a levy and training fund.

I want to indicate briefly what has happened so far. Such training schemes have been introduced in the motor manufacturing industry, as well as in the engineering industry and in the building industry, where 12 training schemes such as these exist, as has already been mentioned. Training schemes have also been introduced in the footwear division of the leather industry, in the retail industry, in the chemical industry, in the motor transport industry on the Rand and on the Free State gold fields, in the civil engineering industry, and so on. All these schemes for further training are already in operation. After all, this is basically what the motion is about.

The second facet which I have mentioned, is the reclassification of aritsans’ work based on the White Paper. This is constantly being done in the mining industry, the motor industry, the engineering industry, and so on. I want to mention the motor industry as an example. On 1 June 1974 a new agreement was concluded in terms of which operators and semi-skilled workers were allowed to do certain artisans’ work. By virtue of this agreement operators and semi-skilled workers are now allowed to become radiator repairers, vulcanizers, strippers, chassis shop assistants, repair shop assistants, and so on.

I have already referred to paragraph (h) in which it is requested that training should also take place in the Bantu homelands and in the border areas. This matter actually falls under the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and he is in a position to report on what has already been done in this instance. How many Whites are not involved in this as instructors! They assist with the training of Bantu there so that they will be able to serve their own people one day. Of this we find an excellent example in Bantu of March 1975, because there we read of a motor assembly factory in Brits which was opened by the then Minister of Finance. This is a step in the direction of the implementation of the policy of the Government to train the Bantu in the homelands in order that they will be in a position to help themselves. They should not only be trained there, however. In the latest Budget R3,2 million was voted for training centres in the urban areas. Eight such, centres are in the process of being established and are being administered by the Department of Bantu Education. I believe one has already been completed.

No, there are three.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says there are three which have been completed for the training of Bantu in the urban areas.

It took you years to achieve that.

In conclusion I want to say that we should look further. We have had a White Paper in which the Government set out its entire framework for the next five years. If one looks at the Economic Development Programme for the Republic of South Africa for the period 1974 to 1979, I should like to refer to paragraphs 161 and 162 dealing with this very question of the proposed growth rate of 6,4% and in which way this is going to affect the labour pattern. Paragraph 161 reads, inter alia, that it will be possible to overcome a shortage of Whites by employing the non-Whites within the framework of government policy, by means of improved training and better utilization and by entrusting to them more advanced work, by the incorporation of more Bantu into the production process and by channelling more activities to centralized areas in the homelands. We have already devised plans to progress in this direction. We also know that, in view of this 6,4% growth rate, there will be a shortage of 120 000 workers. The Whites are unable to supplement this shortage. In this projection it is accepted that, in this process, 30 000 Bantu will have to do the work presently being done by Whites. This is the case in all the departments.

In conclusion I want to appeal to the private sector also to contribute their share, like certain bodies which make available facilities to certain universities. A labour relations faculty has recently been established at the University of South Africa, and I think it is high time that companies and private bodies should make a greater contribution so that we can gain a better knowledge of our labour legislation and bring it to the notice of everyone. The time will come when people from other countries, students and others, are going to come to this country to see in which way labour is being utilized here.

Mr. Speaker, we agree to a very large extent with the speech made by the hon. member for Brentwood, as the hon. member for Maitland has just said. We do not deny the fact that the Government is in fact doing something in connection with the training of manpower. The problem is only that they are not doing enough. The hon. member for Brentwood touched on a few matters which I think are very important.

†Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have to realize two things when we approach the South African labour situation. The first is that we have one labour force and the second is that we live in one economy. To attempt to encapsulate into various categories various aspects of our economy is futile and also very stupid. The hon. member for Brentwood touched on the problem of the fragmentation or disintegration of jobs. If we accept the fact that we are one economy and one labour force we have to accept a further corollary from that. This is that we are going to have White and Black artisans, skilled workers, most probably working in the same factories. Whether we like it or not, this is a fact of South African life. The days in which we could see South Africa as a multi-storied building in the labour field with the White storey at the top keeping out all the Blacks, and with the Indian storey and the Coloured storey doing the same thing, are gone. Already a process of osmosis is going on between each layer of the structure of the South African labour situation. We have to accept the fact that to an increasing rate in the future there are going to be not layers in the structure of our labour situation but rather people who are integrated together in the same economic activity. Once we have accepted this position, we as the people who are responsible for the Whites and also for the Blacks, have to say how we are going to protect the White worker in that situation. If we are going to fragment every artisan’s job, every career, so that instead of our having a properly qualified carpenter we have a man to make table and chair legs, a man to make door-frames, a man who puts up shuttering and another man who does the roofing, we are going to kill the trade. We are going to kill the carpentry trade. Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do in 20 years’ time when that trade has been completely fragmented? Are we then going to bring in job reservation; are we going to say that the making of claw and ball legs is the responsibility of a White, but that the erection of shuttering is the responsibility of a Coloured, and that the erection of roofs is going to be the responsibility of a Black man? No, Sir, the only way in which we can do it is by paying the rate for the job for the same responsibility, because that would protect your White lorry driver from competition from the Black lorry driver working for a lower but still economic wage for him. We must realize that our labour force must be approached socio-economic ally and not politically or racially; then we will be protecting the White man. This Government, however, because it has a shortsighted policy, is in fact undermining the very position of the skilled White worker. Furthermore, Sir, the percentage which the skilled White worker is making up in the South African labour population is decreasing all the time, which means that his bargaining power is becoming less and less. This makes the whole structure of the Nationalist approach to the labour situation a dangerous one.

Sir, we all know from a very simple knowledge of economics that labour is one of the four primary factors of production in any economic society. When we consider this fact, we must remember that there are two aspects to it; one is the quantity of labour—we must have labour available—and the other is the quality of labour. This debate is about the quality of our labour in South Africa, and we are all very much concerned about what is going to happen to it. I believe, Sir, that one of the most important factors militating against an improvement in the quality of our labour is this whole system of migratory labour. I am not so stupid as to believe that migratory labour does not sometimes have an important economic function in a developing society. It is very interesting when you study migratory labour in parts of West Africa to see how in a country like Nigeria, which is developing, migratory labour has an important economic function. But I believe that in South Africa we are passing out of that phase. Let us remember, Sir, that the Glen Grey Act of Cecil John Rhodes was the thing which introduced migratory labour on a large scale in this country. I believe that this whole issue of migratory labour must be dealt with as a labour issue and that we must try to take it out of the political sphere. Sir, we realize that you cannot hope to have good quality labour if first of all it is not readily employed and settled; secondly it must also have an incentive to further training, to reliability in work and to improvement. Until the Minister of Labour is prepared to appoint some form of inter-departmental committee to move right away from the structure of migratory labour for South African Bantu, we will never really solve our problem and improve the quality of labour in South Africa.

Sir, we have an interesting problem in improving the quality of our labour. Those members of this House who take the trouble to study the publication of the Human Sciences Research Council’s Institute for Manpower Research will see that the White population has virtually reached saturation point in terms of formal education— that every White man who can be educated and wants to be educated can be educated to the maximum of his ability today. Of course, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned, we have institutions such as those at Westlake and elsewhere, which the United Party Government introduced, to make the maximum use of adult White labour, but our problem is that our Black population is not being adequately used, and that also applies to our Indian and Coloured populations. I believe that in this House we must regard our Black population as an untapped source of wealth for our country and that we must not adopt a negative attitude towards them, but rather a positive attitude. We must realize that within the next 20 years our mineral production is possibly going to exceed R5 000 million. This country is going to become a colossus industrially. This means that every Black man, Coloured man and Indian man can become a successful person, materially speaking, without his having to deprive other groups, including the White group, of what they enjoy materially. By making bigger and better cake, we can all share in it.

There are two or three points I want to mention very briefly of what I believe ought to be done. First of all, administratively the whole matter of the training of non-Whites is, to use a common term, an abortion. There is the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Labour, the Bantu Administration Boards and the Department of National Education which are all involved. I believe that this position should be looked at and that we should try to sort it out so that we know who is training our labour. To say that the Department of Bantu Administration has to deal with all labour affairs, is nonsense. Secondly, I believe that the hon. the Minister of National Education, who is not even attending this debate, ought to make sure that the technical colleges and advanced institutes of technology get on with the job. They should see if they cannot introduce night schools to cater for the African, Coloured and Indian people, and expand their activities in our urban areas. Finally I want to mention the fact that our mines have vast labour training facilities because they are faced with the awful problem of having to train people afresh every six months. For this reason I believe the mines should be drawn as vigorously as possible into some adequate training system.

Mr. Speaker, I am faced with a difficult task in the few minutes left to me. I want to congratulate the member who has just sat down with his very constructive speech. Unfortunately I missed a lot of the other speeches, not knowing that the House was going to start early with this motion. I apologize that I cannot reply to the particular members whose speeches I missed. What I have heard so far has been very good. Particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove put a practical proposition to the House. I myself, although not a political friend of his, would like to underwrite a lot of what he has said because it makes good sense. I am also a practical man and consequently I do not want to enter into the ideological or political aspects of this matter. I would like to stress one practical aspect here, an aspect which was touched on briefly by the hon. member for Pinetown. We as South Africans do not really know the difference between a skilled worker and a semi-skilled worker. I think we have been remiss in not concentrating sufficiently on the training of skilled men. Much is being done in regard to the training of semiskilled men and operators, but the shortage in South Africa is a shortage of skilledmen. Mr. Speaker, you may ask what a skilled man is. A skilled man is one who not only knows all the facets of the trade with which he is connected, but who knows how to draw the materials, how to lay out a job, how to make the particular article he is involved with, how to repair articles connected with his trade, how to pinpoint the cause of failures in his particular trade, how to take steps to prevent wear and tear on that article, how to modify articles or parts to prevent failure and how to improve the performance of the particular article. In connection with all these things he has to make decisions off his own bat. He does not have to take orders from anyone else. Only a skilled man is capable of meeting these requirements. We are fragmenting our trades into skilled and semi-skilled operations. The man who has to lay out the work and who has to be responsible for the training of labour is precisely the man we are failing to train. The hon. member for Brentwood spoke of the apprentices being trained in South Africa. Does he know that each year fewer apprentices are being attracted to the various trades? It has been estimated that by 1980 we shall be short of 110 000 apprentices in South Africa. The resultant shortage of artisans will bring the whole industrial machine to a standstill.

It is very easy to find the reasons for this shortage. It is a fact that the tradesmen in South Africa earn high wages and are virtually a privileged class. Tradesmen in this very city are earning R750 per month. Why do men, however, dislike taking on the work? Firstly there is the prejudice against hard work and dirty work. There is also the dislike of extra study, of going to night classes. There is the fear of encroachment. When jobs have been fragmented, men begin to fear that their jobs will eventually be taken oyer by semi-skilled persons. The fragmentation of jobs is also doing away with a lot of the work which has been done by tradesmen in the past. The solution, of course, is to draw more heavily on the available labour and that means Bantu labour. We are drawing on the Coloureds and the Indians, but we must also draw on the Bantu and bring them into the skilled ranks. Why are we not able to do this? Apart from political considerations, we cannot do so because the basic education of the Bantu is too low. A good tradesman needs, at the very least, a Std. 8 education. How many Bantu are there who have these qualifications? If we do not give them basic education, particularly technical education, we can never hope to have a reservoir from which to draw in order to establish Black tradesmen. There is also the fear on the part of the unions. The unions fear Black labour because they feel that Black labourers are going to take over the work of the Whites. The Government, however, can remedy this position because the Government has the power. The Government must educate the unions, the way the General Manager of Railways is doing so successfully with his own unions. He is showing them that they have nothing to fear from Black or non-White labour which comes in and does the work which White labourers cannot do because there is not the manpower. I always told apprentices when I taught them that the White man has nothing to fear in South Africa because he will always be the leader in any sphere, particularly in the labour sphere. He is the one who will be the supervisor, the instructor and the employer. The White man has no need to fear.

The remedial steps, as I see them, are technical high schools in the urban areas where the Bantu can be given a basic technical education, or trade schools for such Bantu. We do not want something like the Adams Mission which I have been involved with on the South Coast. I know of a Bantu woman who sent her son there to learn a trade as bricklayer. It cost her more than R130 to enrol the boy. This is not the way to tackle the problem. There are very few black people who can afford this kind of outlay. If we do not do this we are only going to get more and more fragmentation and higher repair costs. This must happen. As a trademan’s wages go up, so the cost of all repairs must also go up. We are going to have higher costs in relation to services. There is going to be a deterioration in workmanship. If there is no competition, men are inclined to become careless. There is a shortage of supervisors because there are not enough White supervisors to go round. There will be higher production costs. We are going to be priced out of the market. Overseas and everywhere else we will not be able to compete as an industrial nation if our costs go up. There are going to be failures in industry. When one has bad workmanship, one has failures and failures will completely ruin our industrial machinery.

I want to stress that I am not touching on the political aspects of this matter. I am only touching on the practical aspects and I am asking the Government to give this matter their top level consideration. We need tradesmen and it does not matter whether they are White or Black. We must have the hands to do the work if we are going to become an industrial giant as we plan to be. We have every reason to be confident that this country can become the leading industrial nation in the world because we have the resources and the material. If we can only utilize the labour and take advantage of it now, we must become a great industrial nation.

Mr. Speaker, because a realistic approach towards the question of the training and the utilization of our manpower in South Africa is so important to us, as a multi-national country, it is a very good thing that this House has set aside time today to discuss this matter. For that reason I want to convey my sincere gratitude to the hon. member for Hercules for the very thorough and well-elucidated motion on this matter. Thanks to this motion, we are able to discuss this matter today. Of course, we expected that the Opposition in its various guises, as we see them before us, seize upon this subject under the pretence that “the Government is not doing enough”, in order to advocate their policy of surrender in relation to work reservation and the influx of Black labour into traditional White employment. The pleas we have had from them today were, therefore, nothing new, but are quite in line with their nature and their approach. We have had cries from the ranks of the joint Opposition to the effect that the training and the better utilization of manpower are being barred by ideology, political shackles and political restrictions.

Let us now consider to what extent the better training and the better utilization of the manpower in our country are being barred by the ideological aspects of the policy of this Government. Let us consider this matter in a proper manner and let us consider whether there are any grounds for their contentions that we are not doing enough in this regard and that their policy of surrender should rather be applied. Let us consider this matter critically now. Let us consider whether or not this Government has done anything spectacular recently with regard to the training and utilization of our manpower. Let us consider whether the Government is, in fact, guilty of failure as is being suggested by the Opposition. When the Government announced on 26 February of this year that it regarded as realistic the target rate of 6,4% per year in our gross domestic product for the period 1974 to 1979, the Government stated in the same announcement that it regarded the training of our manpower in a particularly serious light. In that statement, in which the target rate was announced, the Government also declared that it would give special attention to matters relating to our manpower. Fortunately not one sensible person in South Africa today asks whether our manpower should be properly trained and developed. That this is, in fact, being done is, fortunately, being accepted as the obvious thing. This is accepted by private bodies, and the Government regards it as absolutely essential. In order to be meaningful, any training has to be thoroughly planned and has to take place on an orderly basis. If training is not planned and does not take place on an orderly basis, it really cannot be meaningful to us in this country. In this connection the State is playing a very definite role. Of course, it is essential that priorities should be laid down with regard to the training of our manpower, because without this being done we would really be wasting money and manpower in the training process. For that reason we have to accept that if we were to employ an increasing number of people in future, we would have to have, in the first place, a very well-trained management cadre. That is the most important prerequisite.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Before the adjournment I emphasized how essential it was that we should have a very well-trained management cadre for the utilization of our manpower. As you know, key personnel are very scarce throughout the world. South Africa also has its shortages in this respect, and these shortages are being felt in more than one sphere. It is being felt, among other things, in connection with the training of more Black workers, and this remains an oppressive factor whether in the Post Office or in the private sector. But fortunately, according to the latest manpower survey of our department, there are gratifying indications as far as the availability of Blacks in this capacity is concerned. As far as supervisors, for example, are concerned, the latest manpower survey indicates that 82 000 Blacks are already being employed in these posts in the country, and as far as management, executive and administrative posts, plus those in professional and semi-professional and technical posts are concerned, there are already about 96 000 in the country. This is definitely important in so far as this enables them to do their share to assist in the training of their own people. But it is a fact that we have a general shortage of key personnel, and our only alternative therefore is to try to do as much as we can with the few we have at our disposal. We try to supplement this shortage by means of immigration wherever we can. Hon. members are aware, however, of the situation with regard to immigration figures. For that reason one simply has to fall back on one’s own resources and that is why a matter such as this, which is being discussed here, is of the utmost importance for a country like ours. There is another aspect I wish to refer to, and this is that one is constantly faced with new processes in this process of industrial development in the world, and not only in our own country. One is faced with new manufacturing processes—in fact, new professions —all the time and these demand constant re-adjustments and retraining. On a recent visit abroad I learned again what enormous task people have continuously to retrain workers because certain jobs or spheres of employment have become obsolete. In other words, people have to be retrained all the time and it is in this respect that I really want to make a serious plea to our employers today to afford all their employees the opportunity of obtaining retraining in the present phase. While emphasizing this aspect in particular, I want to address this plea specifically to the White employees. Strange enough, the Opposition is so obsessed with the Black workers that I want to single out the White workers in this respect, and I want to indicate why I am doing so. As you know, Sir, and as has been indicated by previous speakers on this side of the House, it is surprising how much is being done in South Africa for the training of Bantu, Coloured and Indian people. An enormous amount is being done for their training. These important things which are being done for them, has this disadvantage at the moment that the impression is gained in certain White spheres of employment that only Black training and retraining is concentrated upon and that they, as Whites, are being forgotten or neglected in this process. I am afraid that this impression which exists among certain Whites is strengthened by the nature of the debates conducted by the Opposition in this House. However, we have to take note of this situation, because it would be a sad day if the goodwill of the White workers in regard to the progress of the non-Whites were to be detrimentally affected because of an impression of this nature. Fortunately I am able to say here that the majority of employers in our country—as I have ascertained in discussions I had with them recently—are quite prepared to make available the necessary facilities for the retraining of their White workers who are either absorbed in a different position or would like to better their position. For that reason and for the sake of the maintenance of sound labour relations, I want to ask, particularly in these times when we are giving so much attention to the training of non-Whites in the country, that the Whites should not be forgotten in this process, because without their goodwill we shall not be able to carry out this major task successfully.

When one considers the manpower position as a whole, one finds that this Government has done an enormous amount in the sphere of training and the utilization of labour. Allow me to single out the case of apprentices to which previous speakers on this side of the House have referred. If one bears in mind that apprenticeships exist in 350 different trades and in 18 industries today, if one considers what the Government has done by means of the appointment of inspectors to see to it that the training takes place in a proper manner, and if one considers what is constantly being done to reduce the duration of apprenticeships, one realizes that we are tightening up and improving this system all the time, as is also evident from the fact that that pass figure of apprentices has increased by 200% because of the fact that they now have to attend full-time classes for 13 weeks per annum. This has had the good result that we have 37 000 registered apprentices in the country today. To this is added the good work done by the Building Federation at Baragwanath, which I am unable to refer to in the short time at my disposal. To this is added what we are doing here at Westlake in order to train White adults. A total of 2 200 have already been trained and if you tell me, Sir, that this is only a few in number, I want to agree with you, but do you know why there are so few? It is because there are so many employment opportunities for young people and adults in our country, that the adults, for whom this institution is intended, simply do not feel like going to Westlake for retraining. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, the United Party and, indeed, the entire joint Opposition adopts the attitude that our ideological approach stands in the way of non-White training and the proper utilization of their labour. They keep on telling us that we could become a second Japan if only we would provide the non-Whites with additional training, as was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House a few years ago. We are no longer hearing this Japan story so often these days; I do not know whether it has anything to do with the unemployment figure there, but, in any case, we no longer hear that story. Sir, what is the position in regard to the training of Blacks in this country? As far as Bantu building workers are concerned, the present position is that approximately 13 000 Black building workers are being employed, who were responsible for the construction of Bantu townships, which have sprung up like mushrooms. They have built the houses themselves, the schools, the clinics and everything that was constructed in those townships. For that reason it is nonsensical to say, as was said here by the hon. member for Pinetown today, that the Government adopts a negative attitude towards non-White training. On the contrary, the establishment of eight centres in the urban areas for the purpose of training Black workers, is everything but negative action. This is a positive deed which is going to do a great deal to alleviate the situation. If one adds to this the fact that there are numerous training facilities for Blacks in our technical and trade schools, one comes to the conclusion that this Government is providing training for Blacks in this country on a wide front and in a very meaningful way. As far as the private sector is concerned, it is a fact that the utmost responsibility still rests on their shoulders in this connection. The Government is unable to train millions of Blacks in this country for better employment. The private sector has an enormous task in this connection. I am grateful that large sections of them are, indeed, fulfilling their duty in this regard. The major concerns in particular are doing their duty exceptionally well in this regard.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry; I have only a few minutes left and I still have quite a number of matters to deal with. The position is that we have 378 000 Black operators and semi-skilled workers in the country today; we have more than one million Black labourers. This is a sphere in which the private sector could provide these people with better training. This Government with its ideological policy, as hon. members opposite describe it, does not stand in their way to doing so. On the contrary, we say: “Get on with the job; provide better training for those people; utilize them and pay them better wages.”

Mr. Speaker, what is required further for this process to make better use of the Black workers, is that we should continue with the sound arrangement which exists between trade unions and employers to modify wage agreements constantly in such a way that the Black workers are afforded the opportunity of performing that work, in order that this may be done in an acceptable and orderly manner. But in this debate we have heard about political fetters, as the hon. member for Maitland described it with reference to job reservation. We have also heard of that which is barring the way as far as we are concerned. Allow me to tell hon. members opposite that if we want to continue, as we shall do, with this process of having work reclassified in order that Blacks may perform this work to an increasing extent, it is absolutely essential that job reservation should exist in South Africa. Without job reservation our country would not have enjoyed the present labour peace. Without job reservation our White workers would not be prepared to have their work reclassified in order that it may also be performed by Blacks. For that reason and since the hon. member for Orange Grove stated that the Progressives are in favour of abolishing work reservation, or, alternatively, the colour bar, on the mines, I should like to know from the hon. gentleman on whose behalf he is speaking. Is he speaking on behalf of the 61 000 White mineworkers? Is he speaking on behalf of the 600 000 Black workers, of whom 80% are foreign workers, or is he speaking on behalf of Anglo American? [Interjections.] Sir, the problem we are dealing with as far as that little party is concerned, is that they are not speaking on behalf of the broad cross-section of the workers in this country. They simply speak on behalf of a small business group in Johannesburg. That is why the contributions they make have no real value as far as South Africa is concerned. With regard to job reservation, I want to make it quite clear today what the standpoint of the Government is.

With a view to the maintenance of sound labour relations in this country and with a view to the better utilization of Black labour, it is absolutely essential that work reservation should be maintained in this country. For that reason I want to give the assurance that this Government will continue to maintain work reservation and the colour bar because we consider this to be in the interests of sound labour relations in South Africa.

In conclusion I want to say that it is essential for the progress of our country, that we should develop the talents and abilities of all our people. It is essential that we should develop the abilities of all our people, and for that reason I want to ask that everyone, from those who are performing the most menial tasks in our country to those handling the biggest scientific projects in this country, should be fully trained for their task. In other words, Mr. Speaker, skilled workers who have obtained their skill at great sacrifice and expense, should not be allowed to waste their time doing routine work. We should see to it that people who have the required skill, use their talents and their training in a proper and judicious manner, in order that the limited labour corps we have can be used in the most productive way, everyone according to his skill. With regard to those spheres of employment which do not require the same amount of skill, work which has up to now been performed by artisans, the trade unions and the employers could negotiate in this country, according to the policy of this Government, to reclassify such work, which has traditionally been performed by Whites in the past so that an increasing number of Blacks will be able to perform such work. In this way a positive contribution could be made in order to alleviate the pressure on our skilled labour corps. In this way we will be able to use these people as instructors and supervisors to train others. I want to express my gratitude to those employers and trade unions for the co-operation we receive from them in this respect. One is very grateful for the considerable understanding and responsibility one finds on the part of our White trade unions in South Africa in this regard. I want to express my appreciation to our trade unions for the understanding they have in this respect. But, Sir, those people have that amount of understanding and they are prepared to participate in this reclassification because they are certain that they are being supported by means of the policy of this Government. If they did not have that support, these trade unions would not have been prepared to consider this important re-classification of work.

Today our workers see their way open, when negotiating with their employers, to bargain for the waiving of certain of their spheres of employment, because they know that the policy of the Government is designed to see to it that their position will be protected. Fortunately our workers can move with confidence along this road of the re-allocation and re-classification of spheres of employment, which means that an increasing number of jobs are being done by Blacks. Our workers can move along that road today because they know that this party is their friend and because they know that the National Party regards the development of South Africa also in their interests. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are enjoying this sound confidence and goodwill in South Africa and for that reason we have labour peace. With such reciprocal goodwill, South Africa will indeed be able to grow and become a strong country, and it will be able to see to it that it can offer a proper home and standard of living to all its people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when I moved this motion, I began by saying that it was a privilege to be able to move this motion in this House. I want to thank all the speakers on this side of the House very sincerely for the fine contributions they made. I want to thank the hon. the Minister, too, for the contribution he made. I want to thank him for the assurance which he gave the labour force of South Africa once again. This applies to all workers—to the White workers, the Coloured workers, to the Indian workers and to the Bantu workers. The Minister gave us the assurance once again that these people would all be protected so that there would be no exploitation. The Minister gave the assurance once again that as long as the National Party remained in power, section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act would remain in force.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this House has noted with satisfaction the training facilities that are continually receiving attention with a view to the training and utilization of our manpower in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, the sports policy of the Government is unfortunately not to be found detailed in any party publication, let alone detailed in any statute or proclamation or defined in any law of this country. It is true that the hon. the Minister, when he took over responsibility for the Sport portfolio, told the House in May 1973 that the Government’s sports policy “is very simple, so simple that even a child could understand it”. However, this House has adopted neither legislation nor resolutions which directly concern sports administration or participation in sport. We, the legislature, and the public and sportsmen must determine what this simple policy is from a plethora of statements from Loskop to Waterberg and from administrative decisions on visas, passports and permits, many of which are reviewed, revised or repealed almost within hours of the first decision having been taken. There is therefore no clarity in the minds of the general public and sportsmen themselves are in the middle when it comes to trying to determine what the Government’s sports policy is. It is for this reason and in an attempt to clarify one issue, one issue only, viz. the question of merit selection of national representative teams, that I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) approves the principle of merit selection of sportsmen to represent the Republic; and
2. (b) accordingly requests the Government so to exercise the statutory powers vested in it as to enable sports controlling bodies to apply this principle when they wish to do so.

We are, however, assisted by the hon. the Minister as to the basic approach of the Government. Two years ago the hon. the Minister told this House—

He then added that separate participation in sport is a natural and obvious outcome of the Government’s policy of separate development. I believe this is a significant statement. It was made by the hon. the Minister when he was quite new to his job. What he said was that the Nationalist Party’s race policies provided the basic and fundamental motivation for the control of sportsmen in South Africa; that the fundamental control of sport in South Africa is the Government’s race policies. Sportsmen who are not interested in politics, and who are fundamentally and almost exclusively interested in sport, then find themselves under the control of a political philosophy of the Government. However, the hon. the Minister of Sport is in a curious position because he has no statutory authority to impose his political will and he has no administrative discretion. He must ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior to cooperate and to grant visas or passports or not to grant them. He must go to the hon. the Minister of Community Development to ask him please to use his discretion in such a way that he does or does not grant permits. He must even go to the hon. the Minister of Justice to ask him please to see that the liquor laws apply so that we cannot have an admixture of races in sport in this country. The Minister has no legal or statutory authority whatsoever to impose any policy that he may think up or wish to apply in this country.

What has this simple sports policy done to South Africa? How has this so-called reasonable policy affected our participation in international sport? Our country has been excluded from ten international sporting associations and more exclusions are imminent unless there is a change of approach. In 1973, according to a reply of the hon. the Minister to a question last session, our South African teams were refused the right to participate in eight sporting events in other countries. In the first six months of 1974 our sportsmen were banned by other countries from participation in no less than 11 sporting events, in other words two a month over six months. It was in this factual situation, and bearing in mind the disappointment and frustrations of South African sportsmen and the almost daily occurring crises in connection with our international sporting relationships, that I tabled my motion at the beginning of this session. I later arranged that this debate should be delayed some six weeks.

I am only too well aware that the hon. the Minister has a difficult task. When he was entrusted with the Sport portfolio a few years ago he inherited a policy straitjacket. It was designed at Loskop, it was spelt out by the Broederbond memorandum in 1970, and it has been embroidered by his colleagues in the intervening years. It is a policy which has been exploited in and outside South Africa in countries which were more interested in politics than in sport. It has, also been exploited throughout the world by boycotts against South Africa.

While I express my sympathy for the inheritance which the hon. the Minister received, I would like to say to him that his subsequent efforts to lessen tensions and to introduce some realism into the field of Government sports policy have been significant and have been welcome. We appreciate that he has had tremendous difficulties in his own party and that he has been impeded and frustrated by some of his Cabinet colleagues as well as by hon. members in this House who sit behind him. At the same time he knows and we know that he has the support of many of his colleagues on that side of the House for further and realistic adaptations in the sport policy. He must know, as we know, that he has to have regard to statements and opinions expressed in public by his colleagues. Need I remind you, Sir, of the time —while my motion was on the Order Paper —when the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior said that we will never have merit selection in rugby and cricket. “Never” is a dangerous word to use in politics. The hon. the Minister has to have regard to the remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Labour who said, not long ago, that concessions cannot be made so that White and non-White South Africans can play together because the matter affects the basis of our existence. We realize this and we feel sorry for the hon. the Minister, not only at certain times but most of the time when he is trying to sort out the problems of sport in this country.

Every South African has welcomed every move he has made, however limited, however hesitant, to loosen the political straitjacket he has inherited. There have been some significant moves. There were the South African multinational games and the open national soccer tournament which were held last year which we welcomed. However, while my motion was on the Order Paper there have been even further announcements of changes which we welcome. The authority for multiracial invitation team matches against the Robins touring cricket team at the present moment and against the awaited French touring team is another example of this. May I say that as a country we are indebted to people like Mr. Robins and to other clubs who try to keep us at least in some measure of international contact in our sport despite the actions of this Government. But whenever these changes are announced they are wrapped up in so many layers of verbiage which are obviously necessary to appease the obstinate members who sit on the opposite side of the House. Whether the members of a team are invited or selected the result is the same. It is a truism that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Whether a team is by invitation or by merit selection, it is in fact a multiracial cricket or rugby team representative of the cricket or rugby players of South Africa. The rule of invitation and not merit selection is a continuing hindrance to sport administrators and an unnecessary sop to Nationalist colleagues.

What do you mean by merit “selection”?

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Johannesburg West certainly knows what the problems of the sport administrators are. So my endeavour today in moving this motion is to untie—if I can—the last knot which I believe frustrates international sport for South Africa. In presenting arguments to support my motion I have no intention of involving sportsmen and sports administrators in politics and I shall not quote them. They have expressed their views in the Press. It would be unfair of me to do so.

What I do intend to do, to the utmost of my ability is to attempt to disengage politicians from involvement in sports control and sports administration and to release sport—at least in respect of the selection of national teams—from Government interference which has provoked Governments of overseas countries with which we had the most cordial sports relations before this Nationalist policy was imposed on South Africa, to react and to interfere. The United Party’s attitude has been consistent and unambiguous. In the Part Appropriation debate in 1967, soon after I entered this House, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism, Mr. Marais Steyn, who was still a member of this party and was still sitting on these benches, moved with great eloquence and conviction, according to the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. P. K. le Roux, an amendment to an amendment which my leader had moved, and that amendment demanded that the Government should, and I quote—

1. (i) allowing all race groups to watch all organized sport, provided adequate facilities are available for Whites and non-Whites;
2. (ii) entrusting the control and administration of sport in the Republic to the recognized sporting bodies;
3. (iii) accepting the principle of non-interference in the realm of international sport and leaving the issuing of invitations and the selection of teams to the controlling bodies concerned; and
4. (iv) recognizing in the case of both national and international professional sport, acceptable boards of control representative of the sport concerned.

My motion today deals with one element only of what the hon. the Minister then so eloquently pleaded before this House. I mentioned to him that I would be referring to his approach in this matter, because I expect him at least to support my motion, bearing in mind the sentiments which he so eloquently expressed some eight years ago. Let me quote from his speech and let us see how he put this particular point. He said, and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 19, col. 927:

He went on to move the amendment to which I have already referred. Those were the sentiments of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism. The United Party policy has been repeatedly stated in this House and I am going to refer to only one aspect which is relevant to what I am saying today. I quote the words of my hon. leader last year in this House when we were debating the Sport Vote in the Budget:

Now I am going to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. As I anticipated he would ask me, he asked me to define merit selection. It might have been necessary for him to ask me a week ago, but now it is not necessary to do so because the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Sandton a week ago, said that merit selection for South African sports teams had been approved1 23 times by the Government since 1964. He said that merit selection had been approved. The hon. the Deputy Minister should not ask me what the definition is, because the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of sport, knows what the definition is because he is in touch with sport. I want to point out that the hon. the Minister added that the principle was applied when South African teams participated in world championships or tournaments or meetings of world format. If the principle of merit selection for world tournaments has been accepted, surely it is illogical and nonsensical to deny merit selection in the case of sports which are played on a tour basis such as rugby and cricket. From what the hon. the Minister said a week ago, merit selection should be allowed if rugby became part and parcel of the Olympic Games; in other words, if it became part of a world tournament. If rugby people from New Zealand, Scotland, France and anywhere else, get together and decide on a world rugby tournament to be held at some central point, merit selection will be quite all right. That shows up the illogicality of what the hon. the Minister and his party are doing. How many countries must participate to make merit selection appropriate; in other words, how many countries must participate for a contest, whatever it may be, to become a contest of world format? The hon. the Minister in his reply to the question put to him last week, accepted the principle of merit selection. He accepted the fact that members of all races are entitled to a place in a South African sports team, a team which represents South Africa, if it is competing in a world competition. That is the correct approach because, no matter how much we talk about multi-nationalism, all races in South Africa are both de jure and de facto nationals of South Africa. There is no other nationality. This factual approach has been adopted by the Government. It was adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When they sent a South African delegation to the U.N. last year, they made it representative of the South African nation, the South African people. They were White, Black, Coloured and Indian. For what reason are the same criteria not applicable when we are selecting a team to represent South Africa at cricket or rugby? I would welcome some reasonable attempt to justify this exception. Any justification which is offered had better be convincing.

It is not for us in this House as politicians to dictate how merit selection is to be carried out in practice. That is not our concern. Sports administrators know how to select on merit in respect of the particular sport they administer. I think the time has come for us to let them get on with the job. We know that different procedures are normal for different sports but the sports administrators know what procedures apply. It is not for us to say that they can or cannot have trials, or that they can play against each other in separate teams but that they cannot be mixed for the sake of merit selection. That is for the sports people to decide. There is another much more serious aspect of this matter at this point in time. You are aware, Sir, of the endeavours of the hon. the Prime Minister to seek détente and to normalize international relations in so far as South Africa is concerned. You are aware, too, that we of the official Opposition are pledged to support the Prime Minister’s efforts and the efforts of the Government generally in this regard. You are also aware, Sir, as we have made it clear in debates this session, that we believe that political and realistic action must be taken in our relations in South Africa to give meaning today to the declared intention to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of colour. The responsibility to seek political detente is the responsibility of politicians, but the responsibility to secure our re-entry into international sport and to regain acceptance by our former friends should and can best be left to our sportsmen and sports administrators. The sportsmen of South Africa have never let South Africa down. I believe that by accepting my motion we can give them the opportunity of getting on with the job unfettered by political directives.

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member for Green Point about one thing, and that is that the sportsmen of South Africa have never let this country down.

But the Government has.

As far as I am concerned, the Government has not let South Africa down either. As far as the Opposition are concerned, there are not many of them left to let South Africa down.

As far as this motion is concerned, we differ once again basically in this House. Let us make no mistake. The basic philosophy of the National Party is accepted by the electorate of South Africa because just see what the Opposition over there looks like! As the representatives of the vast majority of the voters of South Africa, we regard South Africa as a multi-national country and the sports policy of the National Party, and therefore of this Government as well, does not differ in any way whatsoever from the basic policy of separate and multi-national development in this country. One can fish in troubled waters until the cows come home, but on this side of the House there is not the least difference of opinion. There is not a single one of us who has any doubt about this basic principle of separate development in which we believe. We believe in sport being practised separately at club, provincial and national level in this country. In the second part of the hon. member’s motion, the impression is created that sport in this country is controlled by law. There are only two sports in this country which are controlled by legislation, and those are professional boxing and wrestling. Except for those, there is not a single sport which is controlled by legislation.

That is exactly what I say.

The administration of all sports is controlled separately in an autonomous way by each sport administration. Let there be no doubt about this. It is very clear where this motion originates. Last year the hon. Leader of the Opposition took charge of the sport debate himself because, so I was told, the hon. member who should have done so was ill. We are glad to see that he has made a splendid recovery. The Leader of the Opposition then used these words, and I quote from his Hansard (Vol. 52; col. 5251):

The hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House accept the issue of so-called “merit selection”, as expressly stated by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and debated by the hon. member, as being the only way in which merit teams can be selected.

I did not say that that was the only way.

He said this was the only way towards an easy selection of representative teams at national level. If it is the position—and this is supported by the English Press—that we should practise our sport at mixed club level, even internally in South Africa itself, and even have mixed clubs, that we should not only play against each other, but on a mixed basis, then the hon. member must not be in any doubt that there is not the least doubt in the minds in any of the hon. members on this side of the House about the fact that this is not acceptable, because it is not acceptable to our voters. If one does things which are not acceptable to one’s voters, then one eventually looks like the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Personally you do not care whether it is right or wrong; it is simply what the voters want.

No principles.

It is right, honest and morally correct to allow every person in every population group to develop in his own right within his own national context. The problem with the hon. members on that side of the House is that they have never been able to rid themselves of the imperialistic mentality … [Interjections.] Hon. members can laugh— but on the day the empire collapsed, they also lost their anchor in life and they no longer know which way to turn. [Interjections.] That is why they look the way they do. That is the problem. [Interjections.] It is very clear then what the policy in South Africa is and for as many as 76 sports —a total of 78 are played in South Africa —precisely what the hon. member for Green Point asked for, is happening, viz. “that selection be left to the controlling bodies concerned”. However, when the hon. member talks about sport, then, for the sake of convenience, he forgets about all the other sports and thinks only of rugby and cricket. Rugby and cricket have developed as they have developed, and it is very clear why this must be the case and why this is the case. Rugby and cricket have given South Africa sporting ties, and these have developed in this way over the years with White countries and White countries only. Therefore the White Springbok team has played against England, New Zealand, Australia and France. No other countries whatsoever have ever played rugby. Subsequently a few games were played in the Argentine. [Interjections.]

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

It is very clear how the sport policy is controlled in South Africa. On the one hand there is the internal policy and on the other hand, the foreign policy. Internally, every people is accustomed to participating in the various sports separately, but if one participates in international sports, then one participates according to international rules, and that is what we have been doing over the years in the 67 international sports in which we have participated. As far as cricket and rugby are concerned, we played on that very basis against White countries with whom we have always had sporting ties in the past until politics began to play a role in sport.

Whose politics?

Overseas politics. Sir, there was a report over the radio last night that Mr. Dennis Hall, the Minister of Sport in Britain, had expressed serious concern at the increasing role politics played in sport and pleaded that an end should be put to this.

Who was he rebuking?

He was not rebuking the United Party; he has never heard of them; he was rebuking his own people. He was talking to them and telling them that political interference in sport must stop.

But that is not correct.

You are not correct either. Sir, I am going to mention further examples of politics in sport to you. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Fauresmith is giving a solo, not a duet.

Sir, let us look at what the position is in connection with table tennis and what happened last year at the world tournament in India. The South African team consisted of four Indians who would have represented South Africa there, and what happened? India refused those four Indians from South Africa entry and visas to India. Why? For sport reasons? No, Sir, for international political reasons. What happened in tennis? Precisely the same as happened in the Federation Cup. Hon. members know that mixed play is allowed for the purpose of selecting a team for the Federation Cup. But what happened? New Zealand refused to allow that tournament to take place in New Zealand because it was blackmailed by the Organization for African Unity. That tournament was held in Europe. Sir, what happened recently to our Davis tennis teams? Why were the members of our team not allowed into Mexico? To select the team, a mixed tournament, an international tournament, was held in Johannesburg where the members of the team were selected according to merit, but even that was not enough to ensure the admission of our team to Mexico. I shall tell you, Sir, what has happened. The president of Mexico himself intervened personally, and why did he intervene? Because he sees himself as a leader of the Third World and as a possible candidate for the Nobel Prize next year. That is what is happening in sport, Sir. That hon. member can laugh, but that is what is happening. As soon as South Africa’s interests are at stake, then that hon. member laughs. Why did he come to South Africa? He merely came to seek a fortune. If South Africa’s interests must be served, then he is the first to stop short. Sir, in these circumstances, it is a privilege for me to move the following amendment—

1. (a) affords every sportsman and sportswoman the opportunity of reaching the highest level within his or her own national context without there being any restriction, and of competing against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other nations within South Africa and in the world; and
2. (b) affords sports control bodies the opportunity of further developing their respective branches of sport within the framework of the national policy.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down said that none of them had any doubts about their sport policy.

†Sir, I would agree with him. I do not think there is a member on that side who disagrees with the sport policy, but I think there is a gap as wide as a bam door when it comes to the application of that policy, and that is where the difference lies. We have before us this afternoon a very important motion moved by the hon. member for Green Point, important because it gives us all an opportunity to be completely clear in our own minds as to what we understand by merit selection in sport. We on this side of the House have no problem with this question of merit selection. In our opinion merit selection means the choice of a sportsman or a sportswoman on the strength of their individual capacity in a particular sport, regardless of colour or race. On this basis merit teams could be mixed teams of sportsmen and sportswomen of different colour. I prefer to use the word “merit” rather than “mixed”, because people do confuse colour considerations with ability. In fact, this confusion was interpreted in the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg West when he said in Pretoria West on 14 February: “Merit or mixed, call it what you like.” One can sympathize with the irritation which this famous past Springbok must feel in trying to get this point of view across to his voters. I say “irritation”, because it is often this side of the House which is accused by the Government of not understanding their policy. In fact, I feel the boot is on the other foot. The problem of interpretation lies very definitely in the Nationalist camp, and to illustrate my point I would like to refer to statements made by Nationalists on their sports policy.

If one goes back to 1962, the late Dr. Verwoerd said at Loskop Dam that all Olympic sports may select an inter-nation team on merit consisting of the best individuals of all nations in South Africa to represent South Africa under one flag until the non-White nations become independent. Now, Sir, I am going back some time because I think there is a history to be studied here. I am not prepared to consider whether this was lip service in order to placate the Olympic Board at the time. Nevertheless we were not admitted to the Olympic Games in Mexico after this statement. But what is important in that first statement made by the late Dr. Verwoerd is that the green light was given for merit teams to be selected to compete for South, Africa under one flag until the Blacks became independent. This has never been applied; in fact, lip service has been paid or exploited, as the hon. member for Green Point said earlier on. Later, in 1967 and 1971, the hon. the Prime Minister stated that an inter-nation team chosen on merit to represent South Africa is possible until the nations have become independent. Again it is important to note that from the succeeding Prime Minister, mixed selection was advocated. Then I come to the hon. the Minister of Sport, Dr. Koornhof, who in 1973 at Windhoek said—

One seems to sense an urgency in that the hon. the Minister of Sport was realizing that merit selection was winning the race against the homelands’ independence and that more than just lip service had to be given. On 14 October 1974 Mr. Hoon, the hon. member for Kuruman, who himself is an ex-physical training teacher, said—

I have explained the Opposition’s point of view to merit selection and I have given the House extracts of speeches made by responsible Nationalists, past and present. At face value there seems to be no difference. We all agree that all South Africans, Black and White, can represent South Africa in sport. However, in practice—there is the rub—the Government is taking a very long time to implement its policy. Recently this slow-moving tortoise was given a boost with the announcement that a mixed team would play against the visiting French side. Hon. members should notice how painfully the Government came to this decision to implement by way of a practical step what they have been saying all along. It must have been agony for them.

It was agony.

However, they have taken the decision and we compliment them on it although we have been pushing them for so many years to do it. What we want to know now is whether this mixed team which has been announced is a sop to the French Rugby Board or does the Government intend implementing merit selection permanently? We have doubts because of certain discrepancies and alarming counterstatements which have been made by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. These statements have confused the public and the sportsmen and sportswomen of the country. I should like to refer to some of these contradictory statements or actions. First of all in November 1974 the hon. the Minister of Planning, Mr. Loots, who was then acting Minister of Sport, turned down a request for a multi-racial side. Then in January 1975 Dr. Andries Treurnicht, the hon. member for Waterberg, assured the voters in Naboomspruit that they would not have mixed sport thrust down their throats … [Interjections.] … and that people who talked about mixed rugby teams were not interpreting Nationalist sport policy correctly. The hon. the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Mulder, addressing a public meeting in Pretoria West in February 1975, said—

This was followed up by his understudy, the recently appointed Deputy Minister of the Interior, whom we congratulate on his appointment. The hon. the Deputy Minister addressed a Jeugbond gathering in March 1975 in his constituency and he told them in Potchefstroom that Springbok teams will remain White and that merit teams are not part of Nationalist policy. [Interjections.] Then of course the poor MPC for Marico, Mr. Andries Beyers, was taken to task by his member of Parliament, Mr. Grobler, who threatened his political career if he should again make statements on sport. His member of Parliament told him that such statements should be left to the Cabinet.

Now, what do we have? We have responsible members on that side saying one thing. We have other Nationalist members— equally responsible or perhaps as seniorsaying something else. This means that the Nationalist left flank does not know what the Nationalist right flank is doing, and the poor chaps in the middle, who are symbolized by Mr. Grobler, dare not say a thing because they will go off-sides. I hope this will show the hon. member for Fauresmith that there are differences in interpretation, which he was trying to tell us did not exist. There are considerable differences and they are in black and white; they were said in public.

Underline “black and white”.

Apart from getting uniformity of interpretation from the Government benches—and we must accept the assurances of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Sport— other problems arise which make us ask ourselves: How genuine are these assurances? I refer to the many hurdles which are thrown in the way of merit selection in the form of statutory legislation. It is these which make us sceptical.

First of all, I would like to refer to financial assistance. I have received a long list from the hon. the Minister of Sport as to the payments made to the various sporting bodies to assist them in sport. When I look at the assistance given by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, by the Department of Coloured Relations, as well as by the Department of Indian Affairs, I find that there is no comparison, proportionately between the amount of assistance given to the White groups and that given to the Black groups. That is one of the problems we have. Secondly, we have group areas. In terms of the Group Areas Act permits are required for mixed races to occupy certain amenities. We have had this problem at Pietermaritzburg and we have it right here in Cape Town where the Robins XI played a mixed side. Where did they have to play the match? Not at Newlands, but on a matting wicket in Langa. I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Community Development would not permit them to play at Newlands. However, there is this problem that there has to be an application for a permit. This is the difficulty.

Thirdly, there is another statutory problem, namely that of the liquor laws. Under the provisions of the liquor laws Blacks are precluded from having refreshments with Whites after playing a game together on the same premises. Unless permission is granted this cannot be done. This is usually a long term arrangement. While these statutory restrictions exist and while there are different interpretations in the Nationalist camp, we feel that the implementation of merit selection cannot be taken seriously. Colour selection has denied a fully representative side of South, African sportsmen and sportswomen to compete internationally. South African sportsmen and sportswomen have been helpless victims of this policy.

The hon. the Minister is always very quick to stand up and point out that we are not isolated and to give a long list of sides which have visited South Africa. It is time that the hon. the Minister stopped drawing these red herrings across the main problem. He must swallow his great bluff. His world of self-delusion is so fantastic that it makes Gulliver’s Travels look like a funeral service. The fact is that we have been thrown out of the Olympic Games. Today we received news that the invitation to participate in the pre-Olympic trials in Montreal has been rescinded. We have been bowled out of cricket tests. We will probably find that the French side will be the last one to visit the country. No one is bluffed by multi-national tokenism in sport. Look how painfully the Government took the decision to allow the French to play against a mixed side. The terror of pushing in a scrum with Blacks is equated with the fear of hardening South African and world opinion against them. I want to tell those fastidious Nationalists that, if ever they get into the engine of a scrum as I have, there is no question of delicate ranges of perfume. The whole corporate sweating mass of 16 bodies is ghastly, but it does make one feel a man.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many of the 55 teams which visited South Africa during 1974 represented their countries officially. I sat on the plane next to a person who came out to participate in the tunny fishing competition last year and he told me that he could not present his flag officially to the country. This is the case with many other sporting bodies. I submit that these sportsmen and sportswomen from overseas come out here on a holiday paid for by this Government. Their visit is used as propaganda to persuade South Africans that they are not isolated in sport. But one has only to look at the last Lions’ tour to see how out of practice the once kings of world rugby had become.

In conclusion I want to say that we are prepared to give support to the Government in their moves to get merit selection on the way. In fact it was interesting to hear a report on the national news on Sunday where the Prime Minister was reputed to have said at Ceres that regarding the allocation of amenities, each White community would have to decide for itself and that where alternative amenities were not available, existing ones could be shared. Although this is very much a case of “Johnny-come-lately”, it certainly will bring great relief to local authorities who are faced with the huge financial burden of building duplicate sports facilities.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot actually hold it against the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North that he adopts this standpoint because, as the hon. member for Fauresmith said, this side of the House and that side of the House differ completely with each other. That side of the House sees South Africa as an undivided unit with a population of 23 million, while this side of the House sees South Africa as a country in which different peoples live, each on the road of separate development.

Do you believe it?

Yes, we believe it. When I speak of the U.P. members on the opposite side of the House, I include the Progressive-U.P. and the Reformist-U.P., all of whom speak of an undivided South Africa.

What about the Nat-U.P. members?

The United Party governed South Africa for many years when South Africa basically had the same population composition as it has today. South Africa also competed in international sports meetings in the United Party Government’s time. South Africa competed at the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games and our Springbok rugby teams and cricket teams played against the best teams of other countries, countries with which the South African Rugby Board and the cricket controlling body had traditional ties. As far as my knowledge goes, there was no non-White sportsman or sportswoman in the years of United Party rule who represented South Africa at the Olympic Games or at the Commonwealth Games or on the rugby, soccer or cricket fields or even in a boxing-ring. In the political field, the Brown people had to be satisfied with being used as a political football on a common voters’ roll in order to pin National Afrikanerdom down in the Opposition benches. The Black people had to be satisfied with a few White people representing them in this Parliament. In the political field, the United Party afforded the non-White peoples no opportunity of reaching the highest level.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the subject under discussion.

In the field of sport, the United Party afforded the non-White peoples even less of an opportunity of reaching the highest level. Because a dynamic National Party Government has made it possible for other peoples in South Africa to produce sportsmen and sportswomen of international standard within the framework of separate development, the hon. member for Green Point introduced the motion today that all sportsmen be selected on merit to represent South Africa.

What is wrong with that?

He also asks that sports controlling bodies be allowed to apply this principle when they want to do so. The idea of practising sport separately, which has also afforded the other peoples in South Africa the opportunity to distinguish themselves at international level, is completely ignored in his motion. If sports controlling bodies want to have it that way, says the hon. member, all races can be accommodated in the same teams at club level, provincial level and also national level. The hon. member for Fauresmith, too, has already pointed this out. I should like to put a few questions to the hon. member for Green Point. I want to ask him whether it is possible, within the framework of his motion, to select 15 Black rugby players to represent South Africa in a test match against the All Blacks if on merit they are the best 15 players in South Africa.

If they are the best, why not?

I am grateful for their admission that in terms of their policy 15 non-White players can represent South Africa on merit in a test match. I also want to ask the hon. member whether they foresee, in terms of the hon. member’s motion, full Springbok colours being awarded to all sportsmen who represent South Africa.

Why not?

It is in the hands of the Rugby Control Board and the other sports bodies.

The hon. member must not try to run away from my question. I ask whether he foresees that Springbok colours can be awarded to these 15 Black rugby players. [Interjections.]

If the Rugby Control Board so decides, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the hon. member for Bryanston has at least said that according to the Reformists this will be the case. However, the United Party runs away from this question as they run away from all questions. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question and when I answered it, he misrepresented what I said. My answer was: “If the Rugby Control Board so decides, yes.”

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time. Mr. Speaker, the hon. members on the opposite side said that should 15 Black players be the best players on merit to represent South Africa at international level, this, in terms of their motion, could happen. I also want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether he foresees the same merit pattern being followed in the composition of the national authority structure of the United Party’s undivided South Africa, viz. the federal Parliament, as is to be followed in the composition of sports teams in terms of his motion. If the United Party is not prepared to allow the development of its political structure to follow the same merit pattern as the proposed sports structure, then the United Party is not consistent and honest as far as the ideals are concerned which it is holding up to the people of South Africa.

Just as the National Government has made it possible within the framework of separate development for other peoples to reach the highest level in the political field, the Government also makes it possible within the framework of separate development for sportsmen and sportswomen of other peoples to reach the highest level on the sportsfield. Therefore I support wholeheartedly the hon. member for Fauresmith’s amendment, an amendment which expresses confidence in the Government’s sports policy, which affords every sportsman and sportswoman—I think the hon. member for Houghton will be pleased that we also involve women in this—the opportunity of reaching the highest level within his or her national context without there being any restriction, and of competing against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other nations in South Africa and in the world. I should like to mention a few examples in this connection. It was not only a Springbok team as the national team of the Whites, which played against the Lions and the All Blacks in recent years. Nor will it be the only national team which will meet the French team on the rugby field soon. The Protea team, as the national team of the Brown people, and the Leopards as the national team of the Black people, also played against the All Blacks and the Lions. Soon these teams, as the national teams of the Black and Brown people of South Africa, will meet the French team in test matches, just as the Springboks will do. White Springbok teams were not the only ones to undertake tours abroad; the Proteas and the Leopards did the same. Three weeks ago a very successful tournament was concluded in which the best boxers of the different peoples met in the boxing ring. The different peoples held trials before the event and consequently the best of every people could meet at this tournament. On this occasion, two Bantu boxers were victorious in the final fights. In the professional ring, Tap-tap Makhatini and Pangaman Sekgapani, like Pierre Fourie and Arnold Taylor, could meet the best boxers in the world. During the South African Games of 1973, the best athletes of the different peoples in South Africa, could compete against each other on the athletic track and on the soccer field, as well as against the best sportsmen of other countries. Titus Mamabula and Morose could, like Danie Malan, reap laurels at athletic meetings elsewhere in the world. In the Sugar series tennis competition, Bantu and Coloured tennis players could compete with the best tennis players in the world.

I can mention many more examples, but I think these examples are sufficient to prove that every sportsman and sportswoman has the opportunity of reaching the highest level within the framework of this Government’s policy, within his or her own national context without there being any restriction. They can compete against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other nations within South Africa and abroad. I am convinced that sport can make a tremendous contribution, within the framework of separate development, towards cultivating a national pride in each of the different peoples in South Africa. I believe that the Tswanas are just as proud of the achievements of Sekgapani as I am proud of the achievements of Danie Malan, John van Reenen, Pierre Fourie and Arnold Taylor.

And Sekgapani.

I am also proud of him.

But you will not be proud of a 15-man Black rugby team.

I believe the Brown people will bubble over with pride if the Proteas can give the French team a hiding on the rugby field in this coming French tour.

So would we.

Sport is important in the life of every people. The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said that he will also be proud. We shall all be proud, but I think he will be more proud if the Brown people beat the French, than he will be if the Springboks, which is the national team of the Whites, beat the French. Sport is important in the life of every people. Not only does it contribute to individuals developing a pride in their national context, but also to the building of a physically strong, healthy and prepared people. The hon. member for Green Point, to my mind, would have made a far larger and more important contribution to sport in general if he had introduced a positive motion to provide more and better sports facilities for all the population groups. He could have made positive suggestions for better and more coaching and training facilities being made available, especially for the non-White peoples. I want to direct a request to the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. Under his dynamic guidance and under that of the Department of Sport and Recreation, a thorough investigation must be instituted into the sports facilities for all the peoples in South Africa. A report can be published in this regard and we on the Government side will try to provide all peoples with the best possible sports facilities so that every people will be able to practise sport separately at club, provincial and national level. The sport fields can produce future champions of whom the peoples of South Africa can be proud.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from both the hon. member for Kuruman and the hon. member for Fauresmith that there is a fundamental difference in respect of sport between this side of the House and that side of the House. I accept this as obvious. I think it is clear to everyone that this is indeed the case. I do not want to use this limited opportunity to score debating points off the other side. Nor do I want to use statements of certain hon. members on that side to show that there is tension in that party. I think one can use the opportunity, short though it may be, to see precisely what the standpoint of the Government is in respect of sport in South Africa. There is uncertainty about this and it is important when there is a difference of opinion about a matter, that one should at least know on what points they differ from one another.

I speak gladly in support of the motion of the hon. member for Green Point. In respect of merit selection in sport in South Africa, the motion is stated clearly. Last session the hon. the Minister of Sport, and also the hon. member for Johannesburg West, spent a lot of time in giving us a philosophical basis for the sports policy of the Government. The hon. member for Johannesburg West in particular, spent a great deal of time giving us a philosophical basis for the sports policy of the Government. The hon. member indicated that one has national sport, then inter-nation sport, in other words the different nations in South Africa, and then multi-national sport. For multi-national sport there are criteria and rules which apply, which differ from those of inter-nation sport and of course nation sport. I should like to make the point that obviously there is a difference between policy and the problems which one encounters in implementing that policy.

The hon. the Minister of Sport spent a great deal of time last session explaining what the policy of the Government was and what the practical problems were which were being experienced in the implementation of this policy. I think that it is important that one should maintain this distinction. For example, it is fatal to use a practical problem and to create a policy around that, because then one will only have confusion. In terms of the statements of the hon. member for Johannesburg West and of the hon. the Minister of Sport, it has been said unequivocally and clearly that their policy is merit selection.

It is in Hansard and I can quote this for both gentlemen if they do not want to believe me, but I think they know that they did say this. Last session the hon. the Minister of Sport said explicitly that there would be merit selection on multi-national level in South Africa. He even quoted examples and also said that problems were being experienced with rugby and cricket and that he would like to have talks with the sports administrators concerned to solve the problems, so that we could give expression to this policy. He also said that in the meantime there was nothing preventing the Quaggas, the Leopards, or whatever they are called, from playing against the Springboks. They could play and from that game a multi-national representative team could be selected on merit to represent South Africa.

It seemed to me to be a very clear indication of a policy in respect of sport. It gave hope to all sportsmen in South Africa and everyone had an idea, more or less, of what the future held, in spite of all the practical problems with which we were faced and which the hon. the Minister pointed out to us in detail. We recognize the problems and we are not blaming the Government for that now. Historically it developed in this way and problems arose. I do not want to rake up old stories as the hon. member for Kuruman did, so as to decide about who was responsible for what. The hon. the Minister said last year that we must try to leave the problems behind.

What do we have now? After a Cabinet decision there has been a concession in respect of a mixed team in South Africa and that team which comes from South Africa, is called an invitation team. However, for this concession there is a price, and that price is that there can be an invitation team to play against the French or against the Derrick Robins team, but it is not Government policy that there should be merit selection at multi-national or at national level in South Africa. What has happened here, is very simple. The Government has come up against a practical problem, not among sportsmen, but within its own ranks, and now it is using that problem as a basis for a principle of policy, and that principle of policy is a direct contradiction of the statement which the hon. the Minister made last year in this House. Now we have this dilemma: What are we to think now and what does the future hold for us? Are there going to be invitation teams every time in order to make a small concession to international pressure in the area of cricket and rugby? Do we have to give the right every time to some control board to invite a team? On what basis does it invite a team? Is Habane, who plays against the Derrick Robins team at Newlands tomorrow, not there on merit? Is he only there on invitation because someone happened to have seen him playing somewhere and because he can hold a cricket bat? I think Habane himself will feel somewhat bad if they say to him, “You are invited to play against the Derrick Robins team, but remember, you have not been selected on merit.”

You are talking nonsense.

On what basis was this man selected? It is being said that the team which will play against the Derrick Robins team tomorrow, was not selected on merit but on invitation. Sir, what kind of sport policy do we have in this country? It is a mere potpourri of contradictions and denials and ad hoc decisions, with the result that one does not know whether one is coming or going. I just want to mention here that we are often exposed to inquiries by visitors from abroad who ask us what the Government’s standpoint on certain matters is. We can try to state it, and obviously Government representatives can state it better than we can do, but one can at least explain to them what the underlying idea of the homeland policy is and what the underlying idea of Government policy in respect of the urban Bantu is. Even if one does not agree with that policy, one can at least understand it, more or less.

But, Sir, it is totally impossible to explain to any visitor from abroad what the logic and what the course of the Government’s sport policy is, because there are so many contradictions. By that I do not mean to imply that we do not welcome the fact that a mixed invitation team will play against the Derrick Robins. It is a step in the right direction. In fact. I think it is a step which is linked to the statements made by the hon. the Minister in this House last session. It is a step in that direction. It shows that the hon. the Minister has done his best to implement the policies which he indicated to us, in spite of the pressure which was exerted on him here, in spite of the fact that the Deputy Minister and the Minister of the Interior have at public meetings contradicted the statement we heard in this House, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Johannesburg West has told us in this House and on public occasions that there has to be merit selection at multi-national level. It so happens that he is supported by thousands of his own colleagues in the field of sport, both Black and White in South Africa.

In fact, everyone who is involved in sport, everyone who is interested in it, is trying to put this policy which was indicated by the hon. the Minister into operation. They support the principle of merit selection, but the policy is not being implemented, and the fault does not lie with this side of the House; it does not lie with the sporting bodies outside this House. The fault lies with the Government itself, and now the whole of South Africa has to sit and wait until that side of the House has solved its internal quarrels, so that we can have clarity on our sport policy in South Africa. Until we have that clarity, we shall continue to get ad hoc statements which try to justify the Government’s policy in one field of sport, but which are directly contradicted in other fields of sport. In tennis one can have merit selections; one can invite people to play at Ellis Park to select a side to represent South Africa, but merit selection cannot apply in respect of football and nor can it apply in respect of cricket.

Sir, we can understand that there are practical problems. The hon. the Minister has said that the sports administrators should come and speak to him. I think that they have stated quite clearly in public what their standpoint is. I think the hon. the Minister should know very well what will be said if they come and speak to him. The hon. the Minister has also declared himself ready to give them a sympathetic hearing. But against the background of the latest statements in respect of merit selection in the field of sport, how can any rugby or cricket administrator feel at liberty to go to the Government and say: “We want to introduce merit selection but these are the practical problems we are experiencing”? Sir, I think personally that in the field of sport we have an outstanding illustration of how a particular policy, a particular philosophy, just cannot be made to sound plausible and how concessions have to be made under pressure which cannot be justified in terms of that same policy. There might well be a fundamental difference between this side and that side of the House—and it ought to be so between Government and Opposition—but an Opposition can at least expect the governing party to be clear about its own policy which we on this side oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Rondebosch will excuse me if I devote my attention solely to the Nationalist Party. This afternoon I find myself in the position where my fight is with those opposite me and not with those who sit on my left.

That is the under-statement of the year.

I want to begin with the chief speaker on the other side, the hon. member for Fauresmith who, it was so clearly stated earlier, was involved in a solo performance and not in a duet. I want to say, however, that during his solo performance he departed from the score and I am afraid that there were many off-key and false notes. I do not know why the hon. member did not accurately quote the news report this morning. I want to start by referring particularly to that news report, a report of a statement by the hon. Mr. Dennis Howell, the British Minister of Sport, in which he has appealed to the Governments of other countries to remove interference in sport from their administration. It is significant that the hon. gentleman did not point a finger at South Africa, because his argument with the countries to whom he addressed his remarks was that they were using sport as an extension of their foreign policy. [Interjection.] There the hon. member agrees with me. Why did he not do so when he spoke earlier? The British Minister was addressing his remarks to those countries which used sport as an extension of their foreign policy. He did not address them to South Africa, because we do not use sport as an extension of our foreign policy. We use it as a limiting factor. I believe that the sports policy of this Government has done our relations with foreign countries more harm than perhaps even apartheid has done, except, of course, that sport is merely an extension of the apartheid policy of this Government. I see that the hon. the Minister is shocked at this statement I am making, but I believe it to be correct. What did the hon. Mr. Howell ask for? He appealed to these countries to leave the administration of sport to the administrators of the particular sports. He asked the Governments to take their fingers out of the administration of sport, which is exactly what we have asked this Government to do for so many years, ever since that black day in the history of South African sport when Dr. Verwoerd made his speech at Loskop Dam saying that the Maoris would not be welcome in South Africa. That was the beginning. I do not hear anyone saying “Hear, hear” today.

Everyone said “Hear, hear.”

That may be, but I think they realize that today they are gathering the bitter fruits of that particular day. Now, unfortunately, our sports policy in this country has not been used, like those of the countries to whom Mr. Howell addressed his remarks, as a means of making friends with other countries. Our sports policy has been used to alienate our friends. The hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Kuruman mentioned the relations which we had in the rugby and cricket world, but they said the relations we had were with other White countries, and I want to agree with them. I want to ask them today, however, what our relations with those countries are.

Due to politics.

Due to politics? Yes, due to sports politics played by that Nationalist Government. That is why our relations today are strained with New Zealand, and why our tennis team is not welcome anywhere. The hon. member for Kuruman mentioned the merit selection of our Federation Cup team. Yes, it happened, but where and how and under what circumstances? After it was all over the hon. the Minister of Sport gently lifted one corner of the blanket which had been drawn over those trials and said that in private we had held multi-racial trials. [Interjection.] Sir, I believe that that type of statement does more harm to South Africa than if that Government were to say outright that we want to have nothing to do with Black people and will only play White snort. I believe that those sorts of actions do more harm than good.

That was donkey’s years ago.

No, it was not donkey’s years ago. How many years ago were those tennis trials held? Two years ago, and under the blanket. Now what has happened? All our traditional sports friends in the world have been alienated, and what is most significant, in relation to what happened this morning, was the news commentary that came after that news report. That news commentator said those comments came strangely from the Minister of a country which had started this tendency, which had first interfered in sport. He referred to the cricket tour of 1971 which was cancelled. He also referred to Peter Haine and others. Only last Friday we debated a motion on the SABC and the misleading statements which come particularly from this programme, but here we had an example again this morning. Why is the Nationalist Government so ashamed today of what Dr. Verwoerd said at Loskop Dam in 1962? Why do they hide the fact that in 1969 the present Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster, cancelled the prospective tour of English cricketers because Basil D’Olivera had been selected as a member of that side? The hon. the Prime Minister did it at the Nationalist Party congress in Bloemfontein at a time when he was in trouble trying to keep his party together. He did it as a means of rallying these people back to the “kruithoring”, rallying them back into the laager. That decision was not taken in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of the National Party. [Interjections.]

Those hon. members talk of how many overseas tours there have been in the Republic by other teams and how many teams from South Africa have toured other countries. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Sport, in all earnestness this afternoon, to tell us honestly how many official visiting teams have come to this country. My friend, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, mentioned that a sportsman whom he had met had been unable to bring the flag of his country and present it to us in South Africa because he was not allowed to come here as an official competitor, an official representative of his country. This morning the same commentator, whom I mentioned earlier referred to the multi-national games which start in Pretoria tomorrow and boasted of the number of teams that will be represented at those games. He said that the largest contingent had come from England, again hitting at the hon. Mr. Howell. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that contingent from England is here as an official team representing the United Kingdom. Does it carry, and will it carry tomorrow, the flag of Britain? Of course it will not, because it is not here, as he knows, as a representative team. The bulk of those sportsmen who have come out here, as the hon. the Minister knows, have come on nothing more than a pleasure jaunt, a holiday with all expenses paid, to dp something they enjoy doing, i.e. playing sport. That is the basis on which they have come here and not as official representatives of their countries. There are still sportsmen who will not even come on a basis of a holiday with all expenses paid to do something they enjoy. But then the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House can sit back and say that they are proud of the situation in which we in this country find ourselves today. I can quite understand why there is the division in that party which there is today. There sits the hon. member for Johannesburg West, there sits the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. I ask him, is he happy today to be sitting there representing a Government which adopts a policy which has put us in the position in which we find ourselves today? None of our traditional friends wants to play with us anymore. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon. member for Fauresmith moved an amendment to the motion. In his amendment we once again have a classic example of the double talk or the hidden standards of the Nationalist Party, because his amendment reads as follows:

This is a laudible aim and nobody can argue with it, except that he adds the rider

How can he say that there is no restriction and that a sportsman can reach the highest level when he is restricted to his own national context. My friend, the hon. member for Green Point, pointed out that we are all South Africans, that we are all proud when South Africa does well and that we are all downhearted when South Africa does badly. Even my Black, Coloured and Indian friends are sad when South Africa is excluded from these other sports. He goes on in his amendment:

How can he make such a false statement? He knows that our athletes are not allowed to compete against the best athletes in the world. They cannot even get to the Olympic Games. Why? Because of the policy of that Government. That is why.

Let us now deal with the question of merit selection. Both the hon. members who have spoken are afraid that merit selection is going to lead to integration at club level. I stand by the statement of my leader read to us a little while ago by the hon. member for Fauresmith. If that is what the sports administrators want, let them have it. Let there be integration at club level. Why run away from it? Why should the Government force its narrow views on every sportsman in this country? Let them have it themselves. If that attitude were adopted, we would have a team at the Olympic Games today. All our sportsmen and sportswomen would be allowed the opportunity to compete against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other nations. Because of the attitude and policy of this Government, however, they are precluded from doing so.

The (b) leg of the hon. member’s amendment is even more funny. It reads as follows:

I think there is a misprint here. Surely “within the framework of Nationalist Party policy” is what is meant. Since when has this been a national policy?

That is synonomous as far as they are concerned.

It might be synonomous as far as they are concerned, but let us disabuse them of that thought. Since when is the policy of the Nationalist Party a national policy? We cannot accept that. It is all very well for members to talk about the 76 tours there have been or the 76 sports in which we still have relations with other countries in the world. What, however, are the primary sports in this country? They are cricket, rugby and athletics, but we are not allowed by this Government to have the contacts we would like to have as far as those sports are concerned. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he has allowed merit selection in 76 types of sport. Has this merit selection led to integrated clubs, something they fear so greatly? I do not believe it has in a single instance. Why should they be so afraid that this is what would happen in the rugby and cricket spheres, especially when the administrators of both rugby and cricket have repeatedly asked that they should be allowed to have merit selection? I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to allow merit selection. These people feel strongly about this. Recently the hon. the Prime Minister said at Ceres that there will always be a White Springbok rugby team. Similarly a Coloured Protea team and the Black Leopard team were assured that they would be able to represent their people against any other country. If they feel so strongly about the terms “Springbok”, “Leopards” and “Protea” and they want to keep the Springbok blazer only for White people, I am not going to argue with them. But what I want to say is this: Let us have a fully representative South African team selected and let us call it the Bontebokke, the Rooibokke, the Vaalbokke or anything we like, but for Pete’s sake let us have a fully representative multi-racial team which is selected on merit. Let us have the best sportsmen to represent us in whatever sport it is that we are playing at the time. The hon. member for Kuruman asked us whether we wanted to have 15 Black people as Springboks. I have given him the answer. If he does not want to call them Springbok call them Bontebokke, but if 15 Black men are the best rugby players in South Africa, why should they not represent South Africa?

Ask Dawie.

No, Dawie keeps quiet. He does not wish to say anything. I do not know whether he is going to take part in the debate.

Dead quiet!

No, he indicates that he is not going to take part.

†Now we are going to have a multiracial or—let us rather not mince words— a mixed side of Black and White cricket players representing an invitation team chosen by the president of the South African Cricket Association which shall be playing against the visiting side. It is going to be a mixed side, it is going to be a multi-racial side and I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to make it clear to us what the difference is between this side which is playing on Saturday and which will be mixed Black and White and one which could have been selected on merit. What is the difference between that side and a multi-racial side or a mixed side? I believe that it is still a multi-racial side and it has the same end result. I believe that the objection of the National Party to merit selection is the question of involvement in integrated sport—down to club level. I want to repeat the question which I put to the hon. the Minister before. In the 76 sports in which he has allowed merit selection, how many cases are there of mixed clubs right down the line?

I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech at Ceres. The second leg of the hon. member for Green Point’s amendment deals with the statutory powers which Ministers have and who can help to ease the situation and improve the position of South African sports in the world. He mentioned the question of visas and the fact that we have trouble in getting visas for Japanese jockeys to come to Pietermaritzburg, the question of visas for the Maori’s and many other instances. Just think of the trouble that we have in Pietermaritzburg to get a permit from the hon. the Minister of Community Development to allow Black spectators to watch football at the Jan Smuts stadium and the present difficulties which are being faced by other sportsmen. Regarding the allocation of amenities the hon. the Prime Minister was reported to have said:

Why does he say: “Could be shared”? Why does he not say that they “shall” be shared or that they “must” be shared where they do not have separate amenities? Why does he not have the courage to go the whole hog? If he has then, I believe, he will do an awful lot to improve the image of South Africa. Perhaps he is a bit afraid of the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. the Minister of the Interior and his Deputy, but I thought that the hon. the Prime Minister has been displayed here today as a “kragdadige” person, a person who had the courage to take matters into his own hands and to make the necessary decisions! If the hon. the Prime Minister would only take that step, it would do such a tremendous lot to ease the tensions which exist in South Africa today between the different racial groups, even within the realms of sport. I believe that by such a step and through these administrative actions, the hon. the Prime Minister could ease these tensions. Look at the trouble we have had with intervarsities because of these problems. Look at the problems we have had with insufficient accommodation for non-White people at international sport events in the various stadiums.

I believe that the hon. member for Green Point has done South Africa a service in introducing this motion this afternoon. If only hon. members opposite have listened this afternoon, if only they have digested it and taken note of the suggestions which have been put forward by this side, they will realize the harm they have done to South Africa, not only internally to the relations between Black and White in South Africa, but also to the relations between South Africa and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I think the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was absolutely shocking, outrageous and very irresponsible, especially the accusation he levelled at sportsmen and sportswomen of world stature who come to compete in South Africa, i.e. that they simply came here to have an enjoyable holiday at our expense. I think it is absolutely irresponsible for a South African to make such statements.

Repeated reference was made this afternoon to the speech of the late Dr. Verwoerd at Loskopdam. I must say that when I recall those days, it must be admitted that the National Party has made progress since that time, for just see how many of us are here! We played rugby and had our athletes, but when I look at the opposite side, I must say that the electorate probably sang the Afrikaans song: “Ons hou nie van ’n loskop-dolla nie”. That is why they are so few in number. But I leave them at that.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Green Point reminds me of the Curria Cup final we had in the fifties at Loftus Versveld. In the final moment of that match the Western Province full-back tried to kick a rolling ball into touch. He missed and let Northern Transvaal through for their winning try and also the cup. Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake, let us not joke about it this afternoon, as far as sport throughout the world is concerned, we are faced with a rolling and a bouncing ball. Why is it so? We can argue as we like, but there is only one answer, and that is that political leaders use sports for achieving political ends and that sport and politics have become mixed. Many references were made here to the Olympic Games. Let us look at the Olympic Games of 1972. Rhodesia had a mixed team at the Games on that occasion.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have very little time. Eight members of the Rhodesian team were non-Whites, but Rhodesia was nevertheless refused participation in the Olympic Games. They were refused participation by countries such a Kenya and Uganda, that had banned thousands of Asians from their country shortly before. At the same Olympic Games there was a team from East Germany and a small number of selected spectators who could compete in the games and who could watch the games only under the strict supervision of officials of that country’s Government. I have here an article from News Week of 4 September 1972. The heading reads: “The Olympics: political blackmail”. I hope hon. members can read this article because then they will see how politics are dragged into sport and how political leaders are playing politic for their own gain. One thinks of the Davis Cup, to which the hon. member for Fauresmith has already referred. What do people like Segal say in connection with this competition? He says (translation)—

Listen to the words of Eric Sturgess, probably one of our greatest and best tennis players. He said (translation)—

We think of cricket. We were prepared to receive the Australian cricket touring team here. We were prepared to let them play against the Coloureds, the Bantu and our own Springbok team. We were prepared to let them play against an invitation team here in South Africa. We know that Mr. Boon Wallace wanted to go to Australia, but a visa was refused. Why do the hon. members on the opposite side not deal with that matter? Why do they not come forward with an accusation against Australia and ask why they refused this gentleman—and he is a gentleman—a visa? After all, he simply wanted to have talks on cricket; he did not want to go and play politics in that country. However, Mr. Whitlam of Australia intervened because—we have the information—he wanted to achieve political ends. For that reason he had to get communist countries and other States on his side to vote for him. For that reason the tour to South Africa had to be cancelled. Let us look at rugby and go back to 1972. Why was a Springbok team’s visit to New Zealand refused? The then premier of New Zealand refused it contrary to the express recommendations of his own Rugby Board and contrary to sporting interest in his country. His people wanted to come and play here, but he prohibited it. Mr. Kirk succumbed to the pressure of leftist demonstrators and of his labour union wing. This cannot be argued away. He succumbed to threats that Africa States would boycott the Commonwealth Games in Christchurch if he were to send his team to South Africa. That is why he refused to have them come here.

In this way sport has become a rolling and bouncing ball, and what is the United Party doing with that ball? They want to tap that ball over the touch-line, but I am afraid that in that process they are going to let the enemies of South Africa through, people who have their eyes not only on the Whites, but also on the non-Whites of South Africa. On this side, however, we have the National Party and the Government who apply the basic rules of the game. We master the loose ball and we handle it accurately. In the process of handling the loose ball, this party and this Government are maintaining their self-respect. No country will allow another country to poke its nose in its affairs.

Hon. members on the opposite side, however, want us to surrender everything. We must simply shout “merit”! and we shall have heaven on earth and things will be fine for everyone. Our policy is the sound development of sport on a multi-national basis. Hon. members can go back in history and they will see that all along we have spent amounts of money on that basis and for that purpose. Through our Department of Sport and Recreation we have always been prepared to create the necessary facilities so as to enable Whites and non-Whites in this country practise their sport. Our policy has always been the organized practising of sport on a multinational basis.

Reference was made here this afternoon to Black teams and Brown teams. I was a spectator at the match the Coloured team played against the English team at Athlone at the time. I saw only one member of the United Party there, Ossie Newton Thompson. He is no longer with us. I saw no other member of the Opposition there. I also was a spectator at the match the Coloureds played at Goodwood last year and there we applauded this Coloured team when they produced beautiful play. We grant every nation its participation in sport. We are proud this afternoon to be able to refer to achievements throughout the years. Last year during the discussion of his Vote the hon. the Minister referred to visits to South Africa. He referred to visits by South Africa to other countries.

I believe the hon. member for Green Point failed to indicate who could not participate and why they could not participate. I hope he will take the opportunity in a later debate to give us an indication in this regard. Surely this Government is opening the doors for everybody, White and non-White, to participate in sport. When visiting teams come here, they may play against everybody. For what sportsman and sportswoman in South Africa is it impossible today to reach the highest rung? We have been making fine progress, and this afternoon I want to address a few words to the sports administrators of our Coloureds. I think they are doing their people an unjustice. I want to use the words of Mr. Derrick Robins himself, who said the following in the Sunday Times last Sunday—

Therefore I want to plead this afternoon with the sports administrators amongst our Coloureds to allow their people to make use of the available opportunities. A Coloured has been selected for the invitation team to play the Derrick Robins eleven, although I think he is going to be refused permission to play. I want to plead with them this afternoon not to close the doors for their own people and I want to request the hon. members in this House and all others not to play politics with sport. Do not be under the impression that if there is merit selection, everything will be fine for South Africa. Let us stand together and work together and give every sportsman and sportswoman in South Africa the opportunity to develop and gain the highest laurels.

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting listening to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. He stated that politicians were interfering with sport and he puts the blame on politicians throughout the outside world for the tragic state of affairs we find ourselves in South Africa. I would just like to quote for the hon. member, before he leaves the Chamber, from this afternoon’s headlines in The Argus. This afternoon’s headlines in The Argus are—

Second headline—

Dr. Koornhof, the hon. the Minister for Sport, a politician comes in and sinks the whole ship. This is what he has done. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, representing the Government, is the last person to come and accuse politicians of meddling in sport. In fact South Africa is the only country in the world that I know of whose sports policy is not accepted. Why is it not accepted? It is because politicians have interfered with sport in South Africa. [Interjections.] Government politicians. After many years this Government is gradually learning to respect the sport policies of the United Party.

After many years it is now slowly being forced to revise its ideas as to what conforms to its so-called policy of separate development. It is separate development that is in fact hamstringing this Government and in the process also retarding this Government to adopt a more forward and outward-looking policy as regards sport. We know what the problem has been over the years, when a political party allows an organization to function within the party, apparently a powerful organization, namely the Broederbond, which we all know plans to take over all South African sport and has interfered at all levels with South African sport. We all remember clearly, it was just before the general election of 1970, when the National Party held their Free State congress. It was not a congress of sportsmen, but a congress of politicians. It was at that congress in Bloemfontein that the National Party accepted and endorsed the hon. the Prime Minister’s words that D’Oliveira would not be included in the English cricket team. It was decided there, and he received applause. They went mad and there and then the election was announced. It was on one of these issues that the election was fought. D’Oliveira would not tour South Africa in an English cricket team. There, once again, we saw the hand of the Broederbond-controlled Nationalist politicians.

What has the Broederbond got to do with it?

They formulated the policy.

Now we hear from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn that it was the Australian Government who refused Mr. Boon Wallace a visa. Sir, who refused Mr. D’Oliveira a visa?

Or Arthur Ashe?

I could mention many others. I believe it is completely wrong, and I cannot find words to express my feelings towards hon. members on that side who accuse politicians of interfering with sport throughout the world. It is for this reason, too, that this Government has been dragging its feet in making decisions on international sport.

As usual.

It has been literally dragging its feet in making these vital decisions. Sir, this has done our sport in South Africa tremendous harm. Our sportsmen have suffered through this policy of the Nationalist Party. This policy has destroyed the good image that we had overseas and it has destroyed the relations that we had before with friends in the outside world. We welcome dialogue and we welcome détente, but it is this Government that created these problems for South African sport, so much so that we are finding ourselves completely isolated, and the Government has to go out of its way to seek friends for us through detente and dialogue. Sir, we have come a long, long way since the late Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister. Our sports administrators and controlling bodies throughout this long period have had to walk the political tightrope in the interests of our sport. It has been very difficult and very frustrating and humiliating as well for them. The hon. member for Fauresmith said here this afternoon: “Dit is baie duidelik wat die Regering se sportbeleid is.”

Hear, hear! You just do not understand it.

Sir, it is clear that the outside world does not want to have anything to do with South Africa in the field of sport. The outside world knows just enough of our sports policy to be opposed to South Africa, not only in the field of sport, but in all respects.

†Sir, what happened last year when our rugby team went to France? They put up a very good show, but what happened to the Italian tour? Not one hon. member on that side has mentioned here this afternoon what a fiiasco that was. Our rugby team had to pack up and come home, and I think they were jolly pleased to come home, too, because of this Government’s sports policy, which turned our sportsmen back to South Africa before they could even visit Italy. We talk about mixed international teams by invitation and we talk about mixed teams selected on merit. Of course the great word now is “by invitation”. The other evening I happened to meet an old gentleman whom I have known well for a long time in King William’s Town, an ardent supporter of the Government, a Nationalist, and he asked me the question: “Wat is nou die verskill tussen ’n internasionale span gekies op meriete en ’n gemengde internasionale span gekies op uitnodiging?” He asked me what was the reason, and what was now going on in the Nationalist Party? [Interjections.] I said to this gentleman that there must be a reason, because I know for a fact that in the Nationalist Party caucus they spent hours and hours and days discussing this very issue, and that it had been decided for several reasons that teams from now on under this Government would be chosen by invitation to appease those who are so opposed to teams selected on merit, which is our policy and which is straightforward and simple so that everybody can understand it. It was to appease those people. Furthermore I believe—and I have good reason to believe—that the hon. members sitting on that side of the House pledged at the last election to their voters in their constituencies that “so lank as die Nasionale Party regeer, sal daar nooit gemengde internasionale spanne gekies word nie.” They pledged this to their voters. They pledged their word, and this has put them in an awkward spot. It was to appease those hon. gentlemen who emerged from that election with flying colours, that it was said, that never would a team go overseas from South Africa as a mixed team. This is why the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister cannot at this stage accept the United Party’s policy in toto, and that is to have teams selected on merit, and that the matter should be left to the sports bodies. This we have repeated so often.

When the Government and the hon. the Minister announced this new philosophy, this new idea, of mixed international teams by “invitation”, it was welcomed in the sports world. All sportsmen welcomed this as a step forward. They believe, and we believe, that it is an interim step towards teams selected on merit. It is only an interim step. Teams selected on merit will have to come in South Africa, but of course this is United Party policy. Our non-White people, I think most of us are aware, are becoming more and more sports conscious. In fact, some of them, as we know, are outstanding sportsmen. Some of them could compete with some of the best sportsmen in the world today, but they are debarred from it. Not only our sportsmen, but our spectators, our non-White people, are becoming more and more sports conscious. If all non-White people in South Africa could go to an election today and decide on mixed teams by invitation, or mixed international teams on merit, I have no doubt what the decision would be. I do not think the Government would get one candidate returned on this issue. It would even be worse than the Government’s policy on Coloured affairs which was rejected completely yesterday. The sports policy would receive even less support than the Government’s Coloured policy received yesterday. When my colleague from Green Point introduced this motion I knew that he was going to put hon. members opposite on a very sticky wicket, and I must say that I am not impressed with the batting we have seen by hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, if I may react quickly to one or two points made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, I should like to say that when he talked particularly about dealing with a bouncing and a rolling ball, he was probably quite correct. If some of us remember our younger days, we were taught that when there was a ball that was rolling and bouncing upon the ground, the first thing that had to be done was to secure that ball, to catch it or to fall upon it in order to deliver it back to your team; in other words, to obtain security and certainty for your team. That is the job that has to be done with the sports policy. We have to contain and secure that rolling ball and we do that, I believe, by creating a policy which is understandable to the public, the sportsmen and certainly the members of this House.

The second point to which I should like to react in relation to the speech of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, is his argument that regardless of what action South African or even Rhodesia or other countries in the same sort of difficulty might have taken, they would nonetheless suffer the same boycotts as we have experienced over the past few years. He gave the example, I think, of the Rhodesian Olympic team. I agree that even if there is reform in sport in South Africa, it may not necessarily mean the end of our problems at international level. It may not necessarily mean that we shall satisfy the people who are perhaps hostile to us for reasons other than of a sporting nature. Certainly it may not. However, what is important, is that the changes which we make are not made for reasons of expediency, or to satisfy people; they must be made because they are right. These changes should be made because it is correct and right that every person, regardless of his colour, has the right to play sport in South Africa at every level, with whom he wishes and, if he is good enough, to represent South Africa. To represent South Africa is something of which every citizen is and ought to be proud.

I think today is, in fact, quite a sad day for sport in South Africa. I believe that the outcome and the upshot of the motion which is before the House, was predestined to refusal by hon. members on the other side. One only needed to listen carefully to the answer this morning to a question that I posed, to realize this. What a tortuous business it is to get an answer out of the hon. the Minister. Only a few days ago I put a question and all I wanted to know was what approaches had been made to the hon. the Minister in order to obtain merit selection for South African teams on an international level. He gave me a long answer in which he used certain terms of his own which were not in the question at all. He talked about world championships, tournaments and meetings of a world format and he gave me a list which was not the full and correct answer as requested.

I thought that he had “ducked the ball” once and I should put the question again. So I did put it in another way. I put that question again on 18 March. This time in answering the question relating again to what approaches had been made to him, and what his reactions to the approaches were in regard to merit selection, the hon. the Minister said that no sporting body at club, provincial or national level, except for South African teams to participate in world championships had officially— and that was not a word I used in the question-requested his department in writing etc., etc. That was also not asked in my question at all. No wonder that when the hon. the Minister answered the question a day or two ago he had a tremendous twinkle in his eye, knowing that once again he had ducked that ball.

Well, I put the question again today, the third time, and this time at last, caught on the wicket, all three of the stumps, I am afraid, went flying. We received what I believe is in fact a very sad answer. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister finally had to give an answer of this sort to the House and I am sorry that the question had to be asked, but then if we want to secure the rolling ball, we have to know where we are going. What was the answer? The answer was that in respect of cricket and rugby the Government was not prepared to grant approval to the selection of merit teams. This is a complete contrast to the answers given relating to other teams such as bodybuilding, softball, tennis, hockey, etc. I quote what he said further—

In giving such an answer to this House, the Government has dealt a blow—and I do not blame the hon. the Minister personally for this—to the aspirations of the young sportsmen of South Africa of today and of the future. By denying merit selection there are three major aspects which come to mind. Firstly, the Government is going totally contrary to the expressed views of the sportsmen concerned. Secondly, the Government is going totally contrary to the general consensus of the spectators of sport. Thirdly, the Government is going against the very views held and expressed by the hon. the Minister of Sport himself.

Those statements are false.

I shall try to prove my case and in doing so, I am not afraid to quote sportsmen. They have an absolute and deep interest in this matter.

The Chairman of the S.A. Cricket Board has repeatedly called for multi-racial sport and merit selection. After the Minister’s reply to last year’s sports debate, he said that he was disappointed because it seemed that cricket had once again been left out in the cold. Only a few weeks ago the president of the Western Province Rugby Union, Mr. Hannes Pretorius, said—

This is a sincere declaration which is backed up by the very sportsmen who stand behind the Western Province Rugby Union. It was not made for expediency, but it was made because these people would like to see a go-ahead in sport for all the races. Despite all these cosy chats we now have a situation where he says that he does not regard these as special representations, but that they are a kind of exchange of views. Despite all these cosy chats and the hon. the Minister’s friendliness—and I am pleased that he is helpful to the sports—we have the situation where the hon. the Minister has brought his Government into conflict with the two major sporting bodies of South. Africa, because he is in conflict with the requests they are repeatedly making for merit selection. In the process of bringing about this conflict, the hon. the Minister is sinking these sportsmen and sportsmen of all races. It is a disgrace and a great pity. I also allege that the hon. the Minister is in conflict with his own views as have been expressed from time to time. At the end of December 1973, the hon. the Minister saw Mr. Howa and from this meeting emerged what was known as a three-year plan to merit selection. In March 1974 the hon. the Minister saw Mr. Fenton, a dignatory from New Zealand, Who told the world after he had left that he had been given to understand by the hon. the Minister that all South African teams—including rugby and cricket teams —would very soon be selected on merit.

The Government’s attitude is not understandable. They allow merit selection in Olympic teams, tennis, softball, hockey, athletics and gymnastics. In some of these there were mixed trials, and yet, because the choosing of a cricket team might involve a mixed trial, they are against merit selection for cricket. This is incomprehensible; it is gobbledygook. I think it is because the Government fears that there will be friction if people are brought together, perhaps on a spectator level, perhaps on a sporting level. I want to say that the Government is far behind the times, because the wail about friction is a fiction. The people of South Africa are far ahead of the thinking of many of the members on the other side of this House. Sporting contacts build friendships. Have the hon. members on the other side never learned that? Sporting contacts build friendships; they do not break them down. What we want is an ordinary, normal society in which people can play together without all this cloak-and-dagger stuff and without all these meetings being held behind closed doors at secret venues and the like. There is no morality in the distinction which is being drawn. I do hope the hon. the Minister is able to throw a little more positive light on the matter than he has hitherto.

Mr. Speaker, I am very please that we have been able to have this discussion this afternoon in a relatively calm atmosphere, at one stage even in a somewhat lighthearted atmosphere. I want to point out to hon. members that this matter is not as simple as hon. members on the opposite side of the House were inclined to suggest in their arguments this afternoon. I must point out to them that there are serious issues at stake. I want to remind them that the U.N. adopted a resolution many years ago requiring all the member countries of this organization to refrain from practising sport with a country which practices race discrimination. The United Nations has an apartheid committee, which meets almost every week and takes action against any country practising sport with South Africa. This committee then sends the governments concerned a letter pointing out to that government that its sportsmen and sportswomen are practising sport with South Africa. It is then pointed out to the Governments of Mexico, Paraquay, Colombia—or whichever country it may be—that the tennis players of that country want to play tennis, or whatever kind of sport it may be, against South Africa. That Government is then confronted with a resolution of the U.N., which was after all aimed at South Africa in respect of other matters and has nothing whatsoever to do with sport. It will make not an iota of difference whether the United Party or any other party were to be sitting on this side of the House. It has nothing to do with the National Party. I do not want to bring up this entire matter again now, for the hon. the Prime Minister recently reminded the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on that side of the House that these things were already happening when General Smuts was Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. Therefore we should not discuss this matter so lightly here. After all, the interests of our young men and women and our sportsmen and sportswomen are at stake here. Therefore the matter is not such a simple one.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this matter in detail, although I wish I did have the time to do so. I do not want to be unpleasant now, nor am I going to be, but there are hon members on that side of this House who made remarks this afternoon which were really dis-graceful, and which did not redound to the credit of the Republic of South Africa. I am referring specifically to the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North and Pietermaritzburg South. Both of them come from Pietermaritzburg, and I think that the allegations they made this afternoon were a discredit to Pietermaritzburg and to South Africa. Imagine an hon. member who is a backbencher of the United Party referring to the people who visit South Africa under the most difficult of circumstances to participate officially in sport as being people who come here “to have a jaunt”. I think it is a disgrace! [Interjections.] I want to tell these two hon. members that I shall confront them with international sportsmen of great fame and reputation who will have a go at them if they say anything like that to them. [Interjections.] When they have finished with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South very little of the bull will be left. Only the butter will be left. I now want to leave this matter at that.

In spite of the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself in the international world, it is a fact that there has been very good progress in the field of sport, that there has been very sound progress, controlled progress. The progress in the field of sport in South Africa was possible because it is based on sound and firm principles, and has taken place in accordance with firm guidelines. The same will apply in future too. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the sport administrators and the sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa very sincerely for their co-operation which in general has been very, very good. I attend most of these important sport functions, and I want to tell the sportsmen and sport administrators again this afternoon that this Government and I personally are their friends. We know, and no one better than I, what an extremely important contribution is being made to South Africa’s welfare by our brilliant young men and women, a contribution to the physical viability of South Africa, to make of us a fit nation. They are setting us a wonderful example, an example worth following. And let there be no doubt whatsoever about this—we want to help all of them, regardless of race or colour, the White as well as the non-White members of all the peoples in South Africa, to practise their sport without any restrictions in South Africa within their national context and against the best of the other nations in South Africa and against the best in the world. This is not an empty claim we are making here. I have, with this, stated to you the policy of the National Party Government, a policy which we are trying to implement in practice as rapidly as is realistically possible. Let me say at once that we want to exclude and ban politics from this matter. I even want to thank hon. members of the Opposition for not elevating this matter to a political football in the Republic of South Africa. When I thank these sport administrators and express my appreciation to them for their responsible actions, I also want on this occasion to make a friendly appeal to them. My motto has always been: “Let’s get on with the game”. The sport administrators are well aware of this, if the hon. members on the opposite side are not. Since we are trying to exclude politics from sport, I want to ask the sport administrators: Let us practise sport in South Africa in accordance with the national structure in South Africa. If they do that I think—and I would not misled them—that we would make the most rapid and best progress towards achieving and maintaining international competition and in causing sport in South Africa itself to prosper and to flourish. I want to ask them not to exert pressure on us to allow sport on a mixed basis at club, provincial and national level in South Africa. After three years of experience, I know what I am talking about. I want to say today that I think that the investigation recently carried out by The Argus proves that a very large percentage of the people in this country, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking, feel very strongly in regard to this matter and that the atmosphere in this regard is emotionally charged. If unnecessary pressure is exerted on us, for example to throw open our clubs in South Africa, we are going to cause chaos in South Africa. Someone has to accept the responsibility for this, and the National Party Government accepts its responsibility. We are the friends of the sportsmen, and we want to help them to compete internationally. We have proved this in the past, and we shall continue to prove in future that we wish to afford everyone, Whites and non-Whites, the opportunity of practising sport at the highest level within their national context, to compete against the best of other nations in South Africa and to compete against the best in the world.

I could mention so many examples of this. I want to mention only the case of Pangaman Sekgapane. He comes from the Western Transvaal, and is a Tswana from Bophuthatswana. Within his national context he has progressed to become the best in his weight division. When he was able, thanks to our policy, to compete with the best of other nations in South Africa, he did so, and won. We then brought someone out from Norway, a White person, whom he knocked out in the ninth round. I was present there myself when he did so. Now he is going to box against a world champion, because he has shown his mettle. Surely this is practical evidence that we are not merely paying lip service, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North alleged. On the contrary. Surely this is evidence that we mean it. This is only a young Bantu from the vicinity of Koster, whose father was a shepherd. Hon. members must not make remarks of that kind if they really do not know what they are talking about. I say that it will cause chaos in South Africa if we do not go about this matter in a responsible way. The Government has to accept the responsibility in this regard, and it shall do so, but we ask for understanding in this regard. If we take these steps, we are doing what every other nation in the world does, viz. to practise sport on a national basis. In this way the English practise sport in Britain, the French in France, the Americans in America and the Germans in Germany. Why would we then be so different, if we also apply it on a national basis in South Africa. Cannot hon. members perceive that if we do it in this way, we are affording the non-Whites far more opportunities than would otherwise have been the case? I could furnish many examples, but allow me to mention only soccer as an example. The Bantu Soccer Association of South Africa is the largest soccer association in Africa, and probably the largest in the world. They have 500 000 soccer players playing for them. There is a great deal of talent among them. The President of the Bantu Soccer Association has, however, repeatedly declared in public that with his 500 000 soccer players, who are all clamouring for an opportunity to reach the highest level, he cannot allow a White person to play in a Black team because the White person would then take the place of a Black person. Thabe said they would murder him if he did, and they will too. Hon. members must understand this. If one can include only 11 players in a team, or 15 if it is rugby, we must take into consideration that every White person who is included in a Black team takes the place of a Black person who would otherwise have had a chance to play. Then there will be trouble; those people say it themselves. [Interjections.] Of course this is the case.

Order!

I want to state another very important point. I have even discussed this matter with people who hold very important positions overseas. There is one thing I do want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is sitting there now with a smile on his face. I studied at the Oxford University for a long time, and I know that the Englishman’s home is his castle. I also know that the Englishman’s club is the extension of the Englishman’s home. I have thrashed out this matter with people on a high level. I asked them: “Would you allow anyone in the world to prescribe to you who should be members of your club? They replied: “We would not allow anyone to do so.” But now they want to prescribe to us … [Interjections.] … That is my whole point. [Interjections.] Please give me a chance to complete my argument. They say they will not allow anyone to prescribe to them who they should allow into their clubs. Then I said to them: “But if you state that you are not prepared to play against South Africa unless South Africa administers its clubs on a basis which you prescribe for South Africa, what are you doing? You are then interfering in our clubs and our way of life.” To that they replied: “We do not want to do that and we are not going to do that.” Surely that is as it should be. I reminded them that the leader of the Reform Party, Mr. Harry Schwarz, who was then still in the United Party, had been black-balled by a certain club in South Africa. I then asked them: “Do you want to interfere and tell that club that this hon. member should not be black-balled?” Hon. members should therefore not be so quick to arrive at a specific conclusion. Now the smile has disappeared from the face of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The point I wish to state is that we should not mislead our sportsmen. This apply to the White and to the non-White sportsmen. We must be honest. I am stating unequivocally now that South Africa will not allow the outside world to dictate to it the manner in which it should handle its club affairs. If anyone says that they will be able to do this, it is an untruth. Why should we not ensure that every nation practises its sport separately on a club, provincial and national level, if this would prevent difficulties and problems in South Africa? The separate practising of sport on those levels creates sound relations and far more opportunities than would otherwise be the case. One is then able to say that those who have reached the highest level, may compete without any restrictions against the best players of other peoples in South Africa. They may also compete and play against the best players in the world. That is precisely what every other nation in the world is doing. Since we have now had this latest development in regard to rugby and cricket, I want to point out that we have in this way succeeded in doing this in respect of all 78 sports in South Africa.

Now hon. members are asking me what the difference is between an invitation team and a so-called merit team in cricket and rugby. I think the hon. members are betraying a measure of ignorance, Sir. Allow me to mention the example of Great Britain as far as rugby is concerned. In the previous century already they were experiencing problems because Great Britain consisted of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England. There was even a time when they had fought wars against one another. When they began to play rugby, they were confronted by the same problem as that with which we are confronted in the case of cricket and rugby. The concept of invitation side dates from that period. This is an accepted international concept in sport. In Britain they wanted to make certain that other teams would play against the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the English, and then they decided that although they would send a British Lions team overseas, consisting of players from the four nations, the home unions, when another team played in Britain that team would not play against the British Lions, but against the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish and the English respectively. That position has existed for more than 70 years.

Mr. Speaker …

I am not prepared to reply to any questions now. The hon. member may put questions to me when I have finished. The concept and the idea of an invitation side dates from that time. When overseas teams began to tour there, they asked to play against the British Lions. The British then said to them: “In Britain you will never play against the British Lions. A Lions team plays only when tours are undertaking to other countries. Here you can play against an invitation team.” They then mockingly called that invitation team the “Barbarians”. Hence the concept of an invitation side. We have this in cricket as well. In Britain there is the President’s XI and various other invitation cricket teams. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who played rugby for Scotland, knows very well that even Springboks and Englishmen played for the “International Barbarians” in New Zealand. The difference between an invitation side and a merit selection side is therefore precisely what the two concepts indicate. A merit selection side is a team in which every player is selected according to merit, on the basis of the fact that he is the best player in a specific position. In an invitation side this is not necessarily the case. For example, young players who have distinguished themselves may be included in an invitation team, or others may be included. There is therefore a major difference. Now I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Rondebosch. If we were now to select a merit selection side to play against the Derrick Robins XI, would he be able to say with certainty that a non-White would not be included in that team? The hon. member is shaking his head. Hon. members must therefore not be so quick to try to draw inferences.

I also want to remind hon. members that rugby and cricket have developed in a completely different way to our other sports in South Africa. We must take that fact into consideration. In this regard the Government has taken the absolutely correct step. Within the framework of our national structure, our people practise sport within their own national context, separately on a club, provincial and national level. When they then reach the highest rung, they are able to play against the best of all the other peoples in South Africa, and in that way, then, against the best in the world. In this way we are really making good progress. Within the framework which I stated, the policy in South Africa will without doubt develop further. It will develop further, but within this framework and according to these principles. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the motion which has been proposed is correct, for in the amendment it is pointed out that it is the Government’s policy that every sportsman and sportswoman be afforded the opportunity of reaching the highest level within their own national context without there being any restriction, and of competing against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other nations within South Africa and in the world.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.