Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night, I was informing the Committee about the important report of the Petrick commission of inquiry. As hon. members will recall. I piloted through the Mineral Laws Supplementary Bill earlier this session in order to regulate and facilitate open-cast mining of coal. That legislation ensures a fair deal for the landowner as well as the mining company and will be an important factor in enabling a much higher percentage of our coal to be economically exploited than is the case at the moment. Apart from the aspects which I mentioned to the Committee yesterday, the Petrick Commission urges us to be very circumspect in formulating our export policy in regard to coal. In this connection I should like to mention that when we learnt of this recommendation by the Petrick commission, and before the final report of the commission had been submitted to us, the Government immediately took steps to control the exportation of coal, in order that the country might not be harmed by injudicious exportation. I should like to assure the Committee that after the Cabinet had given very careful consideration to the exportation of coal in the light of this recommendation by the Patrick commission, and after it had received the recommendation of the Energy Policy Committee in this connection, a specific policy in regard to the exportation of coal was formulated. Consequently I may assure the Committee and the country that there is no need for any anxiety as far as the exportation of coal is concerned, because the export policy is already based on the recommendations contained in this report.

Finally, I want to emphasize again in this connection that the commission’s report requires thorough investigation and study and that it would be inadvisable to argue too much about the commission’s recommendations at this stage, before several persons and bodies have been able to have a proper look at this report. For this reason, because of the importance of this report and in view of the fact that coal is our basic energy commodity, I have already arranged with the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment for the Energy Policy Committee to make a thorough study of this report and to make recommendations concerning its implementation to me and to the Cabinet as soon as possible. What I am telling hon. members in connection with the Petrick commission, therefore, is that we are all grateful for having had this report submitted to us, that everyone will get the chance to study it properly and that the Government is paying close attention to this matter.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would explain to us, in referring to the Energy Policy Committee, who the members of this committee are and whether there is a permanent secretariat for that committee to regulate this important work done by the committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Committee is a very important committee. It has a permanent secretariat viz. the Secretary for Planning and the Environment, Dr. P. S. Rautenbach. It consists of top experts in the sphere of coal. Various Government departments are involved in it and are represented on that committee—for example the Department of Mines and the Department of Economic Affairs. Mr. Petrick himself serves on this committee, as do Dr. Straszacker and others. As I have said, it is a very important body which functions continuously and which will now give the necessary attention to this report. In addition to this Energy Policy Committee, of which I have given hon. members the details, there is also an Energy Cabinet Committee. The Energy Policy Committee refers its recommendations to the Energy Cabinet Committee, and this body then makes the necessary recommendations in this regard to the Cabinet.

I come now to the second leg of this most important question of energy and I want to refer to the very important question of uranium and the enrichment of uranium. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up my time and the time of the Committee by furnishing hon. members with further detailed information about the matter at this stage. I shall release certain information to the Press and the radio to bring them up to date. I just want to tell the Committee that, calculated at the value of money at the end of 1974, and estimating the cost of enrichment work at R50 a kilogramme, which, is a conservative estimate, a large-scale uranium enrichment plant will be able to earn an amount of R250 million a year in foreign currency for South Africa, and possibly much more. This is an extremely conservative estimate. Furthermore it is quite clear, in view of the increasingly important role which uranium and uranium enrichment are going to play in the world, that this uranium enrichment process in South Africa will have a very stimulating effect on South African industry. May I just remind hon. members of the fact that the president of the International Atomic Energy Board made a very important speech fairly recently in which he said that although uranium accounted for only 3% of the world’s energy consumption last year, it will probably account for 60% by the year 2 000. Sir, I have the information here to give you an indication of the increasing demand there is going to be for uranium and enriched uranium by 1980, but I am not going to weary the Committee with these particulars. These particulars will be available elsewhere for hon. members who are interested in them. What I do want to say is that apart from this R250 million and more a year which it will be possible to earn in foreign currency, it is quite clear that this will have a very stimulating effect on South African industry; that it will lead directly and indirectly to the creation of many job opportunities in our economy and, in particular, that it will contribute to the creation of new manufacturing potential and manufacturing expertise. I should like to inform hon. members that UCOR has now proceeded to establish ISASA, which is a local company, and that we are inviting organizations to invest in this company; that we believe that we shall reach a decision within the next few months on the question of whether we are going to build a large-scale enrichment plant in South Africa. Sir, we are able to do so without any foreign partners. We have made very great progress with certain other countries in connection with feasibility studies which have now been concluded. A month or so ago the great international nuclear congress was held in Paris, where Dr. Ampie le Roux disclosed a few facts about our uranium enrichment process. His statement was very well received by he 2 700 delegates from more than 40 countries who were present. The scientists of the world now accept that there are not only a gas diffusion process and a gas centrifugal process for enriching uranium, but a third process as well, namely that of South Africa.

†Sir, it is with pride, therefore, that I am able to announce that a plant for the production of uranium hexafluoride has been successfully commissioned at Pelindaba so that for the first time in South Africa this compound has been produced on an industrial scale, which is very, very important. Uranium hexofluoride is a vitally important material in the production of enriched uranium for nuclear power processes. It is the only compound of uranium which is gaseous at temperatures and pressures around normal and is the feed material for all enrichment processes used today, including the enrichment process developed by UCOR.

*The importance of this announcement to South Africa and to the outside world lies in the fact that there are persons and bodies in the world who have expert knowledge of this field who doubted whether we would really be able, even if we did possess this process and even if we did possess all the expertise, to construct a large-scale enrichment plant of 5 000 separating unit tons a year unless South Africa was able to manufacture commercially in this country this important feed material, which is required for arriving at the process of uranium enrichment. Since we were able last week to manufacture hexafluoride commercially in South Africa, that problem also falls away. The importance of this lies in the fact that we are able in South Africa to build a large-scale uranium enrichment plant without any foreign partner and without having to depend on a foreign country in any way. Sir, this is a most important fact.

†It is, however, that is UF6, an extremely hazardous and corrosive substance, so that highly specialized production techniques have to be utilized. Very stringent safety precautions have to be taken in the design of the plant, in the selection of material for construction, in the operation of the plant and in the handling of the plant. Sophisticated instrumentation and control systems have to be employed. The successful commissioning of this plant is the culmination of many years of intensive effort by a team led by Dr. R. P. Colborn under the general direction of Dr. R. E. Robinson and Mr. H. James as part of the activities of the extraction and metallurgy division of the Atomic Energy Board. After intensive research effort in which these techniques have now been proved to be viable in South Africa, all I can say is that it is indeed a very remarkable achievement that the plant could be commissioned in the short time of two years and that the South African scientists involved have mastered this extremely complex technology. To Dr. A. J. A. Roux and these other scientists I have mentioned and all the other who have assisted in making this possible —and I speak. I know, not only on behalf of this House but on behalf of South Africa—I wish to express my congratulations and sincere thanks on yet another excellent scientific achievement.

While wishing to share in the congratulations which the hon. the Minister has just expressed to the leaders of this team I should like to ask him whether in fact this new process involves the conversion of uranium oxide through the UF4 stage to the hexafluoride stage, UF6, or whether in fact it incorporates the industrial process which has already been developed by private enterprise which is converting uranium oxide to UF4 and has been doing so for some years. In other words, is the new process at Pelindaba designed to take uranium all the way from oxide to UF6, or does it incorporate what has been done by private industry already and merely take it onwards from UF4?

The fact of the matter in this respect is that it is a combined effort. It is a collaborative effort between the Atomic Energy Board and the S.A. uranium industry. These two sectors have worked together and have collaborated and the result of their co-operation has been this commercialized production of UF6.

*What happens there is that uranium oxide is used to produce this UF6, and the UF6 is then the feed material for arriving at the process of uranium enrichment. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question.

Sir, there is another very important point I want to make in connection with uranium and uranium enrichment. It is quite clear that uranium and uranium enrichment are going to play a very important and divisive role in the world in the years to come. What has also become quite clear now is that as a result of the expertise of its scientists, South Africa has a very important and perhaps even a decisive part to play in this process, but in order to play that part satisfactorily in the years to come, we shall have to do everything in our power in South Africa to keep improving our processes, metallurgical and otherwise, and to keep trying to make them more economical by means of scientific and other methods; but most important of all, perhaps, is that we shall have to do everything in our power in South Africa to find the maximum uranium oxide deposits which this country possesses. With this in view, consultation on the highest level, in which I am personally participating, is at present taking place with the uranium industry in South Africa. I am now replying to certain questions which have come from hon. members on the other side. Consultation is taking place on the highest level and the purpose of this consultation is firstly, to intensify prospecting for uranium in South Africa in the light of the increasing requirements; secondly, to increase the uranium production to the highest possible level in course of time and thirdly, in the light of these circumstances, to see to what extent we can help the mining companies engaged in uranium exploitation to participate in the activities regarding uranium oxide and prospecting and all that this entails.

It is a great pleasure to me to make an announcement against this background. As hon. members know, we discovered uranium in the Karoo at the end of last year. Investigations by the National Institute for Metallurgy have indicated that the uranium deposits which have been discovered there may lie fairly deep. Consequently we have obtained an amount of R3 million from the treasury for launching air magnetic and air radiometric surveys over a surface of 663 333 square km, the extent of the Karoo system. The significance of what I am saying here lies in the fact that we are doing and will do everything in our power to stimulate uranium prospecting further and to ensure in ail possible ways that the Republic of South Africa finds its optimum resources and utilizes these to the maximum.

The third very important aspect in connection with energy, which is and will be so important to our country and the world, is the question of oil. This was referred to by the hon. member for Von Brandis, the hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for Etosha. We are now about to follow up all the information we have obtained in our marine area by tackling a new oil-drilling programme of approximately R18 million a year, a project which will commence early in 1976. It will take at least two years and perhaps longer. The programme will be concentrated on the West Coast, where we have drilled one hole and made a considerable gas find, to the south of the Elephants River, and on the South Coast between Struisbaai and Port Elizabeth, that is to say, on the Agulhas Bank. For this purpose we have obtained the floating drill, the Sedco K. This is one of the biggest drills in the world. It can measure a gas pressure of 10 000 lb. a square inch. Hon. members will remember that the previous Sedco 135 could measure only 5 000 lbs. a square inch. For this reason the gas find on the West Coast could not be measured by that drill. We have now obtained a drill which is able to drill in water to a depth of 270 metres, down to a depth of 7 500 metres. In reply to questions I want to say, therefore, that the Government has by no means abandoned its oildrilling programme. In actual fact we are extending the programme and intensifying the oil search, on land as well as at sea. On land we are drilling at several places, and we are going to drill various other holes in terms of our programme. The hon. member for Carletonville is quite right. Of course we must not lose courage as far as the search for oil is concerned. As our oil search at sea is concerned, we are only scratching the surface as yet. On the West Coast, which may have the best potential, we have drilled only one hole and already we have made an important gas find. On the East Coast we have drilled eleven or twelve holes and there, too, we have made a very important gas find. We have found signs of oil in two or three other holes as well. The structures are there. Consequently there is no reason on earth to be pessimistic about our oil search in South Africa.

Reference has been made here to the Russian research and oil discoveries in certain rock formations. The Geological Survey and Soekor, who are conducting the oil search, do not consist of old hide-bound scientists. They do not think only in terms of old …

I did not suggest that.

No, I know that, but I just want to state the facts. They do not think only in terms of old ideas and theories. No, they are vigorous young people and they are only too aware of the fact that in certain overseas areas, oil is being taken from formations which are very old geologically speaking, viz. pre-Cambrian. However, the Geological Survey considers it to be an important question whether the degree of diagenesis of a formation, i.e. the highest temperature to which the formation was heated in the past, is so high that oil can no longer be found in it. Dr. Ypma, a professor at an Australian university, alleges that he has found a new and very reliable technique for determining diagenesis. He was in the Republic in February 1975, and representatives of the Geological Survey had constructive discussions with Prof. Ypma. During these discussions it appeared that the professor’s results could be interpreted in various ways. Prof. Ypma and the Geological Survey will now undertake further tests and analyses of samples in an attempt to find a satisfactory answer to the question of determining diagenesis. So this matter is receiving the attention of the Geological Survey. I am very interested in this matter myself, and I have handled various letters on the subject. Consequently I want to assure hon. members that they need not fear that we are not making use of the best and latest techniques in this field and in the interests of our oil search in South Africa.

The hon. member for Von Brandis said that certain of the oil companies had discontinued their prospecting work on the West Coast of South West Africa.

†It is true that certain foreign companies which have fulfilled their obligations under their prospecting leases in South West African waters have discontinued their operations. We hope, however, that it is only temporary. I can say a lot more about that, but for reasons which the hon. member can understand, I do not think it will be in the interest of the country and of the various other interested parties if I say anything more. The hon. member is most welcome to come and discuss the matters with me at a later stage.

You have not replied to all his questions yet.

I shall come to the other questions. The hon. member for Von Brandis also asked whether better co-ordination could not be brought about between the various departments who are now concerned with energy matters. My reply to that is that we are giving attention to this matter. Of course, it is not such an easy matter which can be solved before breakfast. We have a system dating from before 1910. However, there is a desire for greater co-ordination. I want to assure the hon. member that there has to be co-ordination and where I can do something to bring it about, I do so. I think that we are making progress in this regard.

In connection with energy the position is, as I explained earlier, that we already have a central policy committee on which all the bodies concerned with it are in fact brought together. I do not disagree with the hon. member: I think that it would be a good thing if there could be greater co-ordination in this connection as well, and I hope that I shall be able to tell the hon. member more about this matter next year.

Then the hon. member said that there should be better living conditions for miners. He also referred to the family basis, which was referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg-North as well. I may just tell these hon. gentlemen that we have had many discussions with the Chamber of Mines on this matter during the past two or three months. There are problems in this regard on the part of the Chamber of Mines and the mining companies. There are also problems involved in such a scheme as far as the Government is concerned. I want to say that in spite of this we have made good progress, and that certain decisions have been taken which are very acceptable to the Chamber of Mines. I believe that as the mines succeed in recruiting more local Bantu to work on the mines, it will also be possible to create better conditions for the miners. So I am optimistic as far as this matter is concerned.

I think I have replied to the questions asked by the hon. member for Carletonville, except that he …

Mr. Chairman, there is one more question to which the hon. the Minister has not replied. It concerns the question of UF6. As the hon. the Minister will know …

Order! The hon. member is not asking a question, but making a speech.

No, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question. There are three stages in the processing, or refining, of UF6. First there is the processing from U₃O₈ to UF4, and then from UF4 to UF6. I want to inquire from the hon. the Minister which stage is now being developed by the Atomic Energy Board. Is it the entire process from uranium oxide up to UF6, or is it only from UF4 to UF6? I ask the question because the processing of the oxide up to UF4 is already being done by private industry.

I am not a scientist, and for that reason I do not have all the expert knowledge and particulars in connection with this matter available to me. If I do not answer the hon. member’s question quite correctly, therefore, he will understand that it is because I have not been trained in that direction and this is a highly sophisticated matter. As I have already told the hon. member, the manufacture of UF6 on a commercial basis is the result of a co-ordinated attempt on the part of private enterprise and the Atomic Energy Board. As far as I know, this applies to the whole process from uranium oxide through UF4 up to UF6. The UF6 is then used as feed material for arriving at the enriched uranium. I hope that answers the question asked by the hon. member. I am sure that my reply is absolutely correct. However, I am not a scientist, and if I left out a technical point, I apologize in advance.

The hon. member for Carletonville raised an important matter, namely that if a miner has worked on the mines for 25 years or longer, something must be given to him for faithful service. I want to tell the hon. member that I personally take a very great interest in this matter. I should like us to reach the point in my time where it will be possible to make such an award to our miners. The fact of the matter is that I had various discussions in this regard with the Miners’ Union and with all the other mining trade unions in the course of this year. We reached the stage where I could tell them: “You formulate a proposal which is practicable; then submit it to me, and I undertake to hold another round-table conference with all the trade unions within a month of your having submitted the proposal to me, to see whether we cannot give effect to it.”

That is wonderful; thank you very much.

I should be very glad if we could do something about this problem sooner or later.

The hon. member for Parys made a very fine speech, in my opinion, in which he made two very positive suggestions. The one was to award a bonus at the end of every year to the workers on those mines where no riots took place, to the workers on a riot-free mine, therefore. This seems to me to be a very positive idea. There is a commission which is going into the question of riots at the moment, and I shall have this idea submitted to them for their consideration. I think that this is something one could go into.

The hon. member also suggested that we have a kind of medal struck for our esteemed State President. This too seems to me to be a positive idea which one could consider.

The hon. member for Rosettenville, who is a medical doctor, made a strong plea here in regard to the question of accidents on the mines. I want to tell the hon. member that I personally take a very great interest in this matter. Yesterday I spoke of the necessity for trying to combat accidents on the mines as far as possible. I also said that we should attract our young people in particular to the mines. To the extent to which we are able to eliminate accidents on the mines, we shall achieve success in our attempt to attract young people to the mines. I agree with the hon. member that although there has been an improvement recently, the improvement is perhaps not so striking as one would like it to be, especially in view of all the research which is being done in that connection. I want to point out to the hon. member that we must bear in mind that the mines are becoming deeper and deeper, and that for this reason it is becoming more and more difficult to ensure safety, in spite of all the research which is being done in this connection. Something we must be grateful for is the fact that our record in this regard is much better than that of any other mining country. Most important of all, perhaps, is the fact that, seen over a period of ten years, there is one thing which is beyond any doubt, namely that there is a downward tendency in the number of deaths and injuries caused by accidents on the mines. I should like to quote certain figures in this connection. In 1964 the death rate on all mines was 1,34, while it is now 1,19. The accident rate was 48,46; now it is only 43,02. On the gold mines, the death rate was 1,26 in 1974; now it is 1,21. The accident figure in 1964 was 59,92, as against 55,56 at the moment. So the tendency is for these figures to keep going down, and we are doing everything in our power to bring this about.

The hon. member for Brakpan pointed out the necessity for recruiting more people for our mining industry. I can only say “Amen” to that. I hope that this debate will help to achieve that object. The hon. member for Virginia made a very fine plea in this connection and I hope that it will be heeded.

I have already replied to most of the questions put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, except that I still want to tell the hon. member that where we, the department and the Government, can be of assistance—in fact, this has already been proved—in expanding gold mines, we shall render the necessary assistance. As far as the families of miners are concerned, I have already replied to the hon. member. The hon. member for Rustenburg made a very fine speech. He emphasized that we should take very good care of this industry, because it is our best industry. I could not agree more with any hon. member and I hope that the hon. member’s plea did not go unheeded in this House and that it will receive attention outside the House as well.

The hon. member for Losberg made two very important points, in my opinion, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Firstly, he pointed out that there are not enough students in mathematics. As Minister of Mines, dealing as I do with metallurgists, chemical engineers and mining engineers, I know that this country does not realize how essential it is for our boys as well as our girls to take mathematics as a subject for matriculation exemption. One of South Africa’s greatest problems in the years to come will be that we shall not have enough people with technological training. We cannot have a person trained in the technological field if he did not have mathematics at school. I want to associate myself with the hon. member by saying that we should all make a combined effort in this connection. We must realize that boys are not the only ones who should obtain positions in this important industry, but that our girls, too, are most important in this regard. For this reason, boys and girls must be encouraged to study mathematics as a subject.

The hon. member made another important point in connection with the houses of miners. I want to give him the undertaking that I shall discuss the matter with the Chamber of Mines, for I share his view that these houses must be such that miners will be proud to buy them. I am very glad that the hon. member for Marico made a plea here and gave facts in connection with mining development in Bantu homelands. The Bantu Mining Corporation is doing excellent work in this regard. The hon. member really wanted to emphasize here that our Bantu homelands, Bophuthatswana, for example, are rich in minerals and have a great potential and that we have to investigate this matter very thoroughly.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp also made a good speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to an expert. The hon. member is a medical doctor and he spoke with knowledge and insight of a serious problem on the mines, i.e. risk work. I want to congratulate him on the fine way in which he did so. I shall use his speech in negotiating with miners on the question of risk work.

Finally, there is the hon. member for Etosha, who is not here at the moment. It is true what the hon. member for Carletonville said, that our country has a distinguished geologist in the hon. member for Etosha. The development which is taking place at Palabora is the result of his research. It is a good thing that this House has been reminded of this. I want to tell the hon. member that we have granted permission in the meantime for the open file card system to be made available to South West Africa as well. I have particulars of this matter as well, but I shall leave it at that. We shall give all possible assistance with the statistics of geological surveys, as the hon. member asked us to do. It is a great pleasure to me, too, to announce something else. The hon. member spoke of the frustration of the officials who are concerned with geological surveys. I shall take this up with the Geological Survey personally. If an official cannot have his material published, he will be frustrated. I had not realized this, but now that the hon. member has drawn my attention to it, I shall take it up with these people personally. I think it can be rectified. What gives me pleasure, however—and I know how much pleasure it will give the hon. member—is that we pointed out to the Public Service Commission last year that the geological survey is intended basically for South Africa’s mineral industry, and that they fortunately agreed to have the number of posts in the section for geological surveys increased from 416 to 722, at an extra salary expenditure of R1,2 million a year. If it had not been for the hon. member for Etosha with his expertise and ability, who explained to me many times how important this was, so that I was able to realize it too, I would not have been able to make this announcement now.

To everyone who took part in the debate, I want to express my sincere thanks once again for a good discussion. I appreciate it very much.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 23.—“Immigration”:

Í

Mr. Chairman, with the lyric notes of the hon. the Minister still fresh in our ears, I think he should be brought back to the realms of the situation in that he must appreciate the importance of manning the tremendous development of which he talks and the tremendous future in which he believes, and which I think we are prepared to accept, the country must look forward to. I think the hon. the Minister will remember that during the debate last year we particularly drew his attention to the importance of a dynamic policy in respect of immigration. The hon. the Minister accepted that that was the ideal and that it was important, and in fact he alleged that he himself was engaged in a dynamic policy in his Department of Immigration in order to ensure that South Africa had the skills and the manpower it needed in order to deal with this development. However, I would like to be somewhat critical of the hon. the Minister and to take him to task because I do not think that, last year, he gave us a realistic picture of the policy which he intended to embark upon in order to meet the shortage of skilled persons in this country.

If one looks at the figures for immigration over the last 13 years, one finds that there has been a constant effort to try to reach a mean figure of 30 000 immigrants per annum. However, on the average the total number that came into the country was only 25 000 per annum. That is far short of what was intended and, in fact, in the last EDP that was put before us for the 1973-1979 period, the target was set at a minimum of 30 000 immigrants per annum. If one looks at the development of South Africa in the economic field over the last 15 years and if one assesses the large growth of population in our country over that period, one must realize that the country is able to absorb and has in fact an absorptive capacity much greater than the figure of 30 000 persons per annum. Bearing in mind a growth rate of 6¼% per annum and an internal population growth of 3% per annum, I think the figure of 30 000 is completely archaic and, if anything, the target of the Minister should be somewhere in the region of 50 000 to 60 000 persons per annum.

It is interesting to note that despite what the hon. the Minister maintains with regard to his immigration programme, voluntary organizations such as the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, a welfare body which has been established and which receives State aid in order to assist in the cultural, physical and spiritual integration of the immigrant into the social and cultural life of the country, have become aware of the importance of immigration and are very critical indeed of what is taking place in the country. They, too, have become aware of the importance of immigration and are very critical indeed of what is taking place in the country. I think that I can do no better than to refer the hon. the Minister to their latest report, the 1973-’74 report. I refer to page three of the report where they make the following statement—

The report states further—

It is important to note that even bodies of this nature are aware, because of their experience in rubbing shoulders with immigrants and becoming alerted to the situation in the country, that the shortage is far worse than the hon. the Minister indicated in his address to us last year. I know that the hon. the Minister will tell us that during last year the figures improved considerably and that they jumped from 21 300 odd to 28 500. If we examine the figures for the years 1970 to 1973, we find that the average number of economically active immigrants that came to the country is no more than approximately 13 000 to 14 000. Despite the fact that there was an immigration figure for 1970-’71 of nearly 30 000 the economically active numbered about 14 000. For the year 1972-’73 the net immigration figure was 21 349 and the economically active figure was 9 419. We do not have the figures for 1974 with regard to the economically active immigrants. I do not think that the hon. the Minister is meeting the situation in a manner which it warrants and demands.

The organization to which I have referred also draws attention to something which we all know, but it is interesting to note that they themselves deal with the shortage of building workers, engineers, mining, engineers, metallurgists, medical men and nurses. This is just to indicate some of the particular difficulties that we experience in this country with regard to the shortage of professional and skilled personnel. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us today what steps he intends to take in order to alleviate this situation. We in South Africa, through our support of the ICEM which is the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration, as well as other branches of the department that have been established in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, have spent quite a fair amount of money in supporting these bodies in order to enlist their assistance. I find that in the present Budget figures as compared with those of last year the only figure of any significance which seems to indicate the intention to do something is the amount of money provided for Publicity which has been increased by R25 000. The fact that the assistance to immigrants has been increased by over R1 million is merely indicative of the increase in State aid with regard to fares to bring immigrants to this country and other forms of aid to assist them to settle in South Africa. But that, Sir, is not indicative of the increased number, and this is the issue on which I think the hon. the Minister must give us an answer today. I do not think it is sufficient for him, as he did last year, merely to endeavour to defend one or two criticisms that were made with regard to detail, because detail is something that we can always discuss from time to time. Sir. I think the position has become very serious, and as long as we remain satisfied with a target of 30 000 immigrants per annum, we are going to find ourselves in very serious difficulties over the next decade, and certainly by the end of the century at this rate we are going to find ourselves extremely short of skilled people in this country. [Time expired.]

Sir, I think that the arguments which the hon. member for Jeppes raised this afternoon enabled us to have a slightly closer look at the basic differences between the United Party and its way of thinking and the actions of the Government. During the course of my speech I shall try to come back to some of the matters which the hon. member referred to. During the course of his speech—and I do not intend doing this at this stage—he also referred to the number of immigrants. Sir, I think the hon. member will agree that we all of us should be thankful that this department last year succeeded in bringing considerably more immigrants to South Africa. There was a great improvement on the previous year. [Interjection.] If one takes all the factors into consideration, one should be very grateful that the number of immigrants increased to more than 350 000 last year. Another hon. member on this side will say more about the number of immigrants in a moment, but the image is not as bad as the hon. member tried to make out. Sir, lied up with this is the fundamental aspect, i.e. that this side of the House also believes in a dynamic immigration scheme and the success it achieved in the past years testifies to the fact that it believes in a dynamic scheme and that it succeeds in drawing immigrants, but the principal difference boils down to the fact that South Africa with a National Party Government will never allow the sluice-gates to be thrown open and that, as the hon. member for Hillbrow pleaded here last year, immigrants be allowed to enter on a massive scale, because by implication this means that one should bring in “the good and the bad”. This is the policy which the United Party has always been advocating. They said: “Let them all come in”. Sir, we should take a close look at what is at issue as far as this government is concerned. This Government is concerned about one thing, and this is expressed very well and neatly in the annual report on page 2, chapter 3, where we read the following—

Sir, this is the essence of the matter. The Republic’s interests are placed first as far as this Government is concerned when it comes to the admission of new citizens to South Africa.

Because this is so—I will presently pose a few questions in this regard—it is obvious that South Africa, unlike the USA— the hon. member for Hillbrow last year drew a parallel between the USA and ourselves—or as is the case in Australia, will not get immigrants on the same scale. This is so because this Minister with his vision, his dedication and his enthusiasm, together with his senior officials, ensures that, in the selection of immigrants, South Africa and the interests of her people are placed first. I want to tell the hon. the Minister without any reservations this afternoon that as far as the people of South Africa are concerned, the Government, the Minister and his Department enjoy their wholehearted support as far as this matter is concerned.

We should now take a closer look at the matter to see what the reason is for placing a damper on this. Apart from economic and other factors, there are a few other matters we should consider. If one now wants to bring in immigrants on a large scale and one wants to say that the “good and the bad should come in, one should consider simply throwing overboard all the valid conditions. The hon. members for Jeppe and Green Point should tell us this afternoon whether the United Party is in favour of the abrogation of these conditions which are laid down by the Act and which the Minister and the department have to comply with in the selection of immigrants. They should say which conditions should be abolished, because if one abolishes conditions, one could just as well throw open the gates of one’s country and say: Let “the good and the bad” come in. What are these conditions? The conditions are, firstly, that immigrants or aspirant immigrants should be of high moral conduct. Now I am asking the United Party whether they are in favour of this condition simply being abolished and that we should say that anyone can enter South Africa, irrespective of his conduct, because we would rehabilitate him here. The second condition is that such a person should, within a reasonable time after his arrival in the Republic, associate himself with the White citizens of the Republic and become a desirable citizen of the Republic. Sir, should these conditions be abolished? Should we simply allow anyone throughout the world to come to South Africa, or should there be a condition that he can be assimilated with the local population of South Africa?

Of course.

The hon. member says this is how it should be, but then it is obvious that one will never get those large numbers of immigrants for which the hon. member for Jeppes pleaded. The third condition is that the immigrants are unlikely to prejudice the welfare of the State. I obviously think that one could accept that the Opposition would agree with this, but then again it is a question of applying a process of selection to determine who may be admitted and who not. The occupation of the aspirant immigrant or the occupation he is likely to practise should not already be practised on such a scale here by other people that it will be conducive to unemployment. Is it not in the best interests of the local population that we should have this condition? One finds many cases of this nature. People come along and plead with one that their families should be admitted, but in spite of the very sympathetic ear of the department and its officials, it is obvious that one cannot admit people in occupations in which there are sufficient workers in South Africa already. This is another reason why immigrants cannot be allowed on a large scale.

Give an example of occupations where we have sufficient people.

I can mention whole list of them, but I do not have sufficient time to do so. One occupation is the catering industry in respect of which I had a great many people during the past few months who intended coming to this country but we are told that we have a surplus of these people already. There are also other occupations. The Opposition pleads for the admission of immigrants on a large scale. Which of these conditions do they want to be abolished? We in South Africa should be very grateful for the fact that the basic policy of the department and the Government is to see to it that only the best is good enough for South Africa. Although it is not my intention to discuss this matter, I just want to make one statement here this afternoon. A week ago we once had an excellent example again of the kind om immigrant that comes here. We noticed his willingness to assimilate with the people of South Africa. We had occasion to visit the 1870 Settlers’ Association. We saw what they were doing there and I want to pay tribute to them this afternoon. We saw what they are doing to get these people assimilated. I also want to pay tribute to them for the work they do to provide language classes for immigrants. People who have been here for just over a year, are able to communicate with any White person in South Africa in his own language in any sphere of the society. This says a great deal for the kind of immigrant who comes to South Africa, and this is only possible because of these restrictive measures, if this is what one wants to call them. Those measures have been introduced to ensure that the interests of South Africa and its people are placed first in selecting people who intend coming to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member has just said. I should like to add something to the point which the hon. member for Jeppe was trying to make when his time ran out. We can never have enough immigrants in the skilled tradesmen class. This is impossible. There may be a glut in certain occupations, but certainly there can never be enough skilled tradesmen because they are the people who are going to train our Blacks to become producers. We can never have enough of those people. There is now such a scarcity that according to a report there are not sufficient trade instructors. Apprentices cannot be put through, their trade tests at Olifantsfontein because there are no skilled men to test them. Industry as a whole is being held up by this shortage of trained technicians who are able to give classes. However, I do not wish to speak about that primarily.

I wish to speak about the integration of immigrants into South African society and into the South African way of life. I find that a lot of immigrants in South Africa are unhappy. A great many of them are not happy with the way of life here. I have discovered that many immigrants have again moved on, some back to their home countries and others to other countries. I have also found out that immigrants frighten off their friends overseas by the kind of propaganda they write about South Africa. I have wondered what the cause of this dislike is for the South African way of life. We think South Africa is the best country in the world, so what makes them think it is not such a good country? I have tried questioning them. It is not easy to question an immigrant because they have some or other fear that one is a policeman and they do not want to speak freely.

They may think you are a politician.

No, they do not know I am a politician. One day I told an immigrant that I was an M.P. and he said that he had nothing to do with the army and I must please leave him alone. Most of them complain that the life here is dull. The Sundays here particularly are terribly dull in comparison with Sundays in Europe. For them a Sunday does not mean driving around in a motor car. Other immigrants again are afraid of the future. Some are upset by the hypocrisy—as they call it—of the White people. The great majority speak of the unfriendliness of the South African people. They say this is one of the hardest societies to get into and that the people are most unfriendly. I can believe this of the English-speaking people, particularly the English-speaking people in the cities because they are very, very standoffish but it seems hard to believe this of the Afrikaans-speaking people who are renowned for their friendliness and hospitality. I was at Vanderbijlpark over Christmas where I encountered a marked antipathy among the people of Vanderbijlpark towards the immigrants. At clubs and at other places there the people speak of the immigrants as if they were on a plain below their’s. A few days later at Germiston Lake—it was on a public holiday—I heard many people complaining about immigrants, particularly about Portuguese immigrants. There seems to be a lot of ignorance about this. Some people refer to the Portuguese immigrants as Frelimo although I do not know why. Every immigrant is classed as a Portuguese whether he is Italian, Dutch or German. People are very unfriendly towards these immigrants. There must be something wrong with us if the feeling grows among these people that we are hostile towards them. We know that the women are the people who suffer most because once their husbands have gone to work and the children have gone to school, the women are lonely. If a woman cannot speak one of the languages well, she is handicapped. We know that shop assistants are not very friendly these days—they are not even friendly towards their own people—and they do not help these people at all. When they cannot make themselves understood it must be very frustrating for them. I can honestly say that this is something which we do not encounter when we go overseas. Even when one cannot speak the language of the overseas country which one is visiting, they are friendly towards one and they try to understand one, but here I am afraid it is just the opposite. I was standing behind an Italian lady in a Germiston Post Office the other day and she was trying to tell the man behind the counter that her telephone was out of order. He kept on pushing an application form in front of her and telling her to take it home and get her husband to sign it. This did not help her at all. I wonder what is being done to integrate newcomers into our South African society. The hon. member who has just sat down mentioned the 1820 Settlers’ Association. I know that they do a wonderful job of work but mainly among the English-speaking immigrants. Those people have an advantage over European immigrants in that they speak and write English, one of the official languages. The Association for European Immigration, the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, known as MEI, does a wonderful job as well. This association has been in existence for four or five years and it is trying to cater for the non-British immigrant; in other words, those who come from Europe and who cannot speak English. There is no doubt about it that their objects are most praiseworthy. They try, as the hon. member for Jeppe mentioned, to integrate these immigrants into the South African way of life, into the South African cultural, social, working and religious life. I must say straightaway that it appears to me that this MEI is Afrikaans-orientated.

*The first thought which will occur to hon. members, will be that I am anti-Afrikaans. There is no such thing. My mother-tongue is Afrikaans and I married into an Afrikaans family. Let me say immediately that there is no better family in the world. My best friends are Afrikaners, and not all of them belong to the United Party either. I should like to say that the MEI is Afrikaans-orientated.

†I do not think that this is actually serving the purpose of integrating European immigrants. It says its aim is to promote the Afrikaans culture through the S.A. Academy for Culture.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. Its aim is also to encourage the Afrikaans language and to encourage and absorb them into the Afrikaans religion, being the Dutch Reformed Church. There is nothing wrong with that. I merely want to make the point that not everybody wants to be integrated into the Afrikaans schools or the Afrikaans religion. There are many immigrants who are just not orientated that way. For instance, they are not all Protestants—far from it. What happens to the Catholics? Who looks after them? Who looks after the agnostics? One of the gentlemen of the MEI complained to me just the other day that most of the immigrants today have no religion and that it was very difficult to get through to them. This is so. This is the pattern of life today in countries like Holland where people no longer go to Church or belong to any church. Who is to look after these people? They must be looked after. The only way we shall integrate them and get them back into the Church is through this type of association. We have in South Africa two cultures, which is very unfortunate. I see no justification for it. Amongst the White people there is an English culture and an Afrikaans culture. This is nonsense, but it is unfortunately a fact. However, we are not unique in having two cultures. The same pertains in Canada where there is a French culture and an English culture. However, when immigrants land in Canada, they are not automatically sent to the province of Quebec if they happen to be French-speaking. In the same way, the English-speaking immigrants do not all get sent to British Columbia. All the immigrants are welcomed and integrated into the Canadian society. They are sent where they are needed. The Canadian committee responsible for integrating the immigrants in Canada is neither French nor English, but strictly Canadian. The English, French, German, Dutch and other languages and cultures are represented on that committee. The different churches are also represented there. This is the right way to go about it. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give thought to this. The MEI is a very praiseworthy organization, but perhaps its scope could be widened to absorb some of the other cultures, religions and languages as well to take care of the other immigrants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I honestly cannot understand the hon. member for South Coast. Today he delivered a plea here that we should bring artisans of quality to South Africa, because we need skilled workers. Last year, however, after he had requested the Department of Immigration to recruit artisans for him who had been trained in the metal industry, he alleged that those immigrants were “frauds” and referred to them in a scornful and humiliating way. This is recorded in column 5236 of last year’s Hansard. He would do well to go and read what he said there.

Read the whole speech.

This is the picture he painted of immigrants last year. This year, however, he accuses the National Party Government of not being able to attract people to South Africa. The basic difference between the approach of the United Party and that of the National Party is very clear. The hon. member for Springs has already referred to it. The United Party sees the success of immigration simply in terms of the number of immigrants. As opposed to this, the National Party sees the success of its immigration effort in terms of the selected immigrants which it brings to this country to the extent to which a need exists for these people. This is the basic difference between the two parties. The National Party has always said—this is very important—that we only want to recruit skilled people overseas, people for whom there is work in South Africa and whose services are needed here. We do not want people of whom we already have a sufficient number. The United Party wants to create a labour source and therefore wants to allow immigrants into the country freely. Then the industrialist can select those of them he wants; the others may then loaf about here. I have said that we want skilled workers, of whom we have a shortage in this country. There is still another important aspect, namely that we should keep the law in mind as well. When permanent residence is granted to a prospective immigrant in order to draw him to South Africa, we should satisfy ourselves beforehand that we need him here and that we do not have enough workers in that particular occupation in South Africa already. This is logical, after all. Anyone can understand this.

Then there is another matter that I want to stress. We do not want immigrants in South Africa as people who are looking for employment. When the immigrant comes to South Africa, he must be assured that employment is awaiting him here. I want to stress this. On the other hand I also want to stress the fact that it must be very clearly understood that the National Party Government has never seen immigration as a means of improving the numerical strength of the Whites. We want those people to be able to make use of their labour and their skill and not to create a better numbers ratio between Whites and non-Whites by means of immigration. Numbers are not the determining factor. This is the basis upon which the Department of Immigration functions. The question which now arises is whether the Department of Immigration is performing its function properly. This is a very important question. On the fundamental principles which I mentioned, I want to congratulate the Department of Immigration and the hon. the Minister on having achieved very great success, sometimes under very difficult circumstances—their circumstances are not always very easy. The figures which I shall furnish later will prove that I have good reason for saying this. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow, who is now speaking over there, said in October last year that it was no longer as easy to attract immigrants to South Africa as it had been a decade before. The hon. member agrees and I am very pleased. What did he say then? How did he motivate his statement that immigrants do not want to come to South Africa? He said that immigrants did not want to come to South Africa because conditions here were deteriorating. I would simply like to refresh the hon. member’s memory in this regard. In Hansard, Volume 52, col. 5219, the hon. member said—

This is the picture which the hon. member paints of South Africa and then they still expect immigrants to come to South Africa. Fortunately the prospective immigrant pays as little attention to the Opposition as the South African citizen does. He does not allow them to nut him off. Is South Africa responsible for the situation in Lourenço Marques and Angola, as well as elsewhere in Southern Africa? No, this National Party is responsible for conditions within South Africa. Here we have stability, security, prosperity, a democratically elected Government, which has been ruling this country for 27 years and which has made havoc of this Opposition, with the result that they are at one another’s throats today. They feed on one another like parasites. The prospective immigrant looks at these things and wants to come to South Africa because of this. Here he sees a future and security for his descendants. This Government has created that climate. Even the prospective immigrant does not allow himself to be put off by the climate and the conditions which those hon. members try to create.

The figures I am now going to furnish will prove that I am correct. Immigration has increased, while the emigration figure has decreased. In 1973 we had 24 000 immigrants, and in 1974 the number was 35 600. When emigration figures are subtracted, the net gain in 1973 was 17 700, and in 1974 it was 28 600. In 1974, therefore, we had nearly 11 000 more immigrants than the previous year. Let us look at the emigration figures. The hon. member for Jeppe is always the person who wants to exploit this by stating that immigrants are leaving South Africa in large numbers. In 1970, 9 000 emigrants left South Africa; in 1971, 8 300; in 1972, 7 800; in 1973, 6 300; and in 1974, 7 055. Calculated in terms of percentages, 1974 is the first year since 1970 in which less than 20% emigrants in relation to the number of immigrants left the country during the same year. Is this a sign of deteriorating conditions? Do immigrants see South Africa in the same light as the hon. member for Hillbrow? No, they do not see it in this light. As far as 1975 is concerned, the position also seems very promising. During the first three months of this year, approximately 10 000 immigrants entered the country, as against 1974, which was a good year, when the figure for the same period was only 6 000. So the indications are that if nothing unforeseen happens, we can easily get 40 000 immigrants during the coming year. From Belgium we have received 40% more immigrants; from Denmark, 129% more; from Germany, 26% more; from the Netherlands, 9% more; from Austria, 49% more; and from Switzerland, 17 more. Is the situation deteriorating if there is such an increase in the number of people who come to South Africa? No, Sir. I want to state as a fact that those people see security in South Africa; they see a future here for themselves. That is why they come to South Africa. I think that this department may rightly be proud of what it has achieved.

There is one matter I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The air tariffs have increased tremendously since the latest adjustment of the subsidy on the air tariffs for immigrants. This subsidy was increased on 1 December 1973. Since that time we have had further increases of 6%, 7% and 2% in air tariffs. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to request the Treasury to increase this subsidy. We do not want prospective immigrants to get the impression that there is not sufficient financial aid for them to come to this country. We need these people for growth in South Africa; we need these people’s skill. We must make them feel at home here; we must let them feel that they belong in South Africa. Then they will also accept citizenship of this country.

Finally I want to say that we should not see the immigrant as a threat. Every immigrant who comes to South Africa creates work for at least three to five non-Whites in our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will forgive me if I do not follow him on his tempestuous way. I was not always sure where he was going in any case. Nor do I wish to join in the fraternal feud he started with the hon. member for South Coast about the politics of immigration. I should like to speak on a far more practical matter.

†I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to two fields of recruitment particularly in which I believe the need for skilled people can hardly be exaggerated. I call there two fields crises areas because they are fields in which South Africa is at the moment looking for skilled or professional workers for whom there is an urgent if not a desperate need. Unless something is done about the manpower situation in these fields, we are going to find ourselves in a crisis situation of immeasurable proportions.

I think the Committee will agree with me that the first of these fields will obviously be that of telecommunications. In this regard I think particularly of electricians, technicians and mechanics for the telephone department of the Post Office. I believe that the need for skilled workers immediately—not people we can start training now or in due course—can hardly be overstated. I wonder whether the public realize—I know they are irritated by it— that the crisis in the telecommunications field is of an almost unprecedented nature and that we dare not leave it unattended to. We must do something about it immediately. I am told that Britain and Germany are the countries from which we can obtain workers of this nature, and we know how difficult it is to obtain their services. I know that the Immigration Department is on the look-out for such people. But the point I want to make is this: whether, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the Department of Immigration and its offices abroad are imbued with the necessary sense of urgency in trying to find such people? What is the procedure they adopt? Are they in fact geared to normality rather than to the abnormality which I believe a situation of this nature demands? I know that Holland, Belgium and Switzerland are other recruiting fields. We know the difficulties that are experienced in finding suitable people. However, I believe that with more vigour and imagination we can produce better results in this particular field. I would go so far as to say that if the immigration officials could concentrate on this one particular field in the months that lie ahead, could concentrate on finding people skilled enough to do this work, we would see some results from it. The position at the moment as far as telephone technicians are concerned, as we know, is that the Post Office has to run very fast indeed to stay in the same place. Ten days ago the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told me that in the first four months of this year the department had lost 554 skilled people or people in training. This obviously is a rate of loss which the telephone department cannot tolerate. Moreover, I do not think that when it comes to looking for workers of this nature we should be over-fussy. I believe that, unless we want the telephone system to break down in certain sectors altogether, we must bring in any and, certainly, as many qualified people as we possibly can. We have to have a far more flexible and generous approach to bringing in people as long as they are able to do this work. We believe that this is very necessary. That is the one field I wish to refer to.

The second field in which the Department of Immigration could make a very big contribution is that of education. I know that we will be told that this is a provincial matter and that it really falls outside of the scope of the Department of Immigration. But I do not believe that this is necessarily valid. Once again I know the difficulties in this regard, but, once again, as in the case of the telephone system, we are facing a grave situation. I believe that with the correct approach we might just be able to cope with the situation. Let me refer to the situation in Transvaal, as this is the situation I know best. There is a shortage of English high school teachers of at least 400 men and at least 200 women. These are conservative figures. It is estimated that at the moment the University of the Witwatersrand is training only one-third of the annual requirement of English-speaking teachers. Unless we want the community as a whole and the children to suffer, we have to make good the shortfall immediately. Obviously the greatest need is for science and maths teachers as well as for teachers of English.

*Half an hour ago, in one of his many other capacities, the hon. the Minister spoke of the necessity for mathematics to be taught at school. But these people do not exist, and we have to bring them in, and I shall tell the hon. the Minister where we shall find them.

†As it happens, there are more trained teachers looking for jobs in Britain today than we could possibly accommodate.

Yes, but they are not bilingual.

Yes, but we shall have to forget about bilingualism for a while in this context.

†A survey in London colleges of education a couple of weeks ago revealed that up to one-third of the students who qualified this year would have no job to go to when the new academic year starts in Britain in two or three months’ time. In the whole of Britain there are no fewer than 7 000 men and women who are qualified as teachers at this moment and for whom there are no posts. This is partly a result of the recent budget cuts. I suggest that we have an absolutely ready-made field for recruits, if not a ready-made solution to our problem. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Immigration should use his considerable—if I may say so—qualities of persuasion to convince the hon. the Minister of National Education and the four provincial administrations of this tremendous opportunity they have in hand for solving at least some of the teacher problem by making use of immigrant teachers. I suggest that the hon. the Minister of Immigration should say to the country that he will bring these people in. In both the fields of the telephone technician and the teacher, the right approach combined with the necessary sense of urgency is something the hon. the Minister should bear in mind. If he does, he can make a real contribution in fields where the situation is quite desperate.

Finally, there is one other plea I would like to make to the hon. the Minister. I would like to ask him to get the Immigrants Selection Board to speed up its procedures and processes. We know the difficulties and the problems. We know that the wheels of officialdom grind exceedingly slow, but I wonder whether it is really necessary for them to grind quite as slowly and as deliberately as often happens. I know of two instances—and the Minister himself knows of these two cases—in which an inordinate amount of time was taken in the one case, and is being taken in the other case, to come to some kind of decision. Sir, it is hardly necessary to underline the hardships and the disabilities which are caused by delays of this nature. There is the disruption of family life; there are the lost opportunities; there is the expense unnecessarily incurred and a host of other things, including, I am afraid, in some cases the loss of immigrants. I believe, Sir, that these hardships can all be mitigated. They can certainly be reduced to an absolute minimum, given the necessary determination and will, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will in fact do something to bring this situation about.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown, who has just resumed his seat, referred to certain aspects of the labour shortage. One can agree with him in sortie respects. We admit that there are labour shortages, but I am afraid that this side of the House cannot agree with the solution he suggested for these shortages, because, in the first place, we have certain standards we lay down and this side of the House is not prepared to sacrifice those standards. Sir, I shall make further reference to the other aspects he mentioned during the course of my speech.

During the time at my disposal I would like to deal with the extremely important aspect of the incorporation and assimilation of our immigrants. The first basic fact I want to stress is that the incorporation of newcomers is not only the duty and the responsibility of the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” and the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association. We are so ready to expect that these organizations should do everything. Sir, the incorporation of immigrants is the responsibility of everyone of us. Every South African has a duty to make the immigrants feel at home in our country. I want to plead today for a greater degree of involvement on the part of every South African. I even want to go as far as to make an appeal today to my fellow Afrikaners to make a more positive contribution in this regard than in the past. Sir, if we are successful in incorporating immigrants, it will mean that these people will become good South African citizens and will accept South African citizenship. The following aspect I want to stress is the extremely important role women play in this regard, especially the South African housewife. The role which she plays in making it easier for the newcomers in our country to adapt themselves is extremely important. I shall come back to this aspect later during the course of my speech.

I want to say at the outset that the Department of Immigration locally and overseas is doing extremely fine work in the interests of immigration. They are doing remarkable work. Here I want to stress in particular the work which is being done by the Immigrants’ Selection Board. The result of the application of the Nationalist Party’s sound principles of selection, of recruitment and the application of our high standards was that I am able to say specifically today that we have every right to be proud of the legitimate immigrants we have in our country. On the whole the immigrants we have in our country today are first-class, industrious people who have proved over the years that they are an asset to South Africa. I believe we do not really appreciate how important it is for an immigrant family to be happy here and what a valuable asset a happy immigrant is. Sir, every happy immigrant writes letters to people in his country of origin, and a flood of valuable, important information and guidance goes back to those countries in this way to create a better image of South Africa there. After an immigrant has been in this country for a short time he wants to return to his country of origin to visit his family, parents and friends again. These people who go back take with them knowledge and the spirit of South Africa and they go back there as fine ambassadors of our country. It is also a fact that one sees an immigrant beaming with happiness when he meets his mother or his father or other relatives when they come and visit him here. When these families come from overseas to visit their children or relations, the immigrants are normally exuberant in their endeavours to show their people this country and to boost this country. It is also true that we gain new immigrants for South Africa in this way, a gain which, in fact, does not cost us anything. There are of our other departments which spend large sums of money—and I have no objection to this—on bringing people to South Africa to show them the country, but these people come to South Africa to visit their children or relatives and they return to their own countries as ambassadors for South Africa, and this does not cost us anything. I think it would be interesting to establish how many immigrants come to South Africa on the very grounds of the good example set by immigrants living in this country and the correspondence which they conduct with their friends overseas. The secretary recorded this single idea in his annual report, which I should like to quote—

In this regard I should consequently like to express my appreciation to the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, as has already been done, for the excellent work they are doing in this regard and the work they are doing in lending a hand in this matter of the integration of immigrants. Unfortunately I do not have the time at my disposal now to refer to all the aspects of the good work they are doing.

There is a next point which I want to make. As I have just said, we get many things free of charge. The integration of people with our society does not cost money. We can do this at no expense. This does not require special training or special learning. Everybody can do this. This is the important aspect I want to stress today. It is a child in the playground who makes his contribution towards the integration of immigrant children in this country. It is the child who goes to church and Sunday school with the neighbours children who brings about the eventual integration of the immigrant child in the ecclesiastical sphere. The housewife performs this task of integration over a cup of tea or where she and the immigrant woman talk to each other over the fence. No more than the right attitude and goodwill are required for this. All that is required is our natural, spontaneous hospitality and friendliness for which we in South Africa are so well-known. Apart from the fact that integration can take place without its costing money, we have another very important ally in this regard, and I should like to refer to this in brief. When one talks to an immigrant and one asks him what he liked best after he had arrived in this country, the first thing he tells one is that what he likes best was the country’s climate, its sunshine, its scenery, its vegetation, its wild life, its mountains and its plains and our golden beaches. In these things we have a valuable ally for making people feel at home and happy in this country. The immigrants enjoy our climate and our scenery in an exuberant way. Sir, I must make haste. In the last instance I also want to refer to the first generation immigrants, those people who still have strong ties of language and tradition and are handicapped by a strong feeling of dual loyalty. These people who come here, are still tied to their countries of origin by all these factors. We are no different. We still boast of the fact that our people who went to other countries 50 years ago—in this regard I am thinking of Argentina, for example—still speak Afrikaans in those countries and maintain Afrikaans traditions. We should also be prepared to tolerate that dual loyalty, especially as far as first generation immigrants are concerned. Matters have rectified themselves by the second and subsequent generations. It is this country with its stability and prosperity which hold people captive here. Most of the immigrants who come here, actually come here with the idea of returning to their own countries. While they are still thinking of returning, however, they discover they have ties binding them to this country. Their children no longer wish to return. Salaries and employment opportunities keep them here as does the country’s prosperity. Their children marry here and as soon as grandfather and grandmother have a grandchild on the lap, the idea of returning to their country of origin fades away. [Time expired]

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park. I should like to compliment him on his positive contribution today. I shall come back to his speech later.

In 1961 the Republic of South Africa became independent. This country is inhabited by people who can stand on their own feet and who are proud of the fact that they are independent of the whole world. And despite the predictions made by the large number of prophets of doom at the time, this country has grown in the economic and industrial spheres and has gone from strength to strength. During the past five years in particular, we have been experiencing unprecedented and accelerated economic growth. I believe we are all in agreement that this accelerated growth should be maintained, and for three reasons in particular. In the first place, it should be maintained so that we may develop our homelands so that they may generate their own infra-structures and so that their standard of living may rise. In the second place it should be maintained so that the White nation may be able to defend itself, in the economic sphere, and in the third place, so that we as a country of Africa may assist in the economic and industrial development of Africa so that it, too, as a continent may take its place in the community of nations. As far as these three objectives, which I believe we will indeed achieve, are concerned, there is only one restricting factor, and that is labour.

Raw materials and capital we can obtain, but the one restricting factor with which we have to contend, is the shortage of skilled White workers, and for that reason we are dependent on immigration to provide us with between 13 000 and 14 000 skilled labourers per year at least, so that we may be enabled to maintain a sound growth rate. When we look at the birth rate in South Africa, it is clear that we shall not be able to obtain our required manpower from our own ranks. Neither does it seem as though we shall be able to do this in future. For that reason it is clear that immigrants are indispensable to us to enable us to maintain our growth. Without the addition of immigrants our labour force will start stagnating and our industrial development will be retarded. This is a fact because even today, immigrants supply approximately 45% of the increase in the number of economically active White workers who are required annually for maintaining this sound growth rate. Fortunately it is also a fact that South Africa at present has the will to absorb these immigrants into and integrate them with our culture. Fortunately it is also possible for South Africa to do this. Thanks to the endeavours of the National Party the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking White South Africans are undoubtedly developing a proud South African patriotism and a sense of belonging to Africa.

We all realize that right-minded immigrants are needed here for us to be able to achieve our objectives. They must be immigrants who do not simply want to enjoy the life here, but who also want to plough something back into this country of ours and who are also prepared to do something for the development of South Africa. The more and the sooner we realize that immigrants are needed, the sooner and more thoroughly we achieve growth for the industries of Africa, the sooner our homelands reach their envisaged level of development and the sooner living standards rise, the less time there is for our enemies to create chaos in Africa and the less time there is for our enemies to exploit the riches of Africa. We believe that the riches of Africa belong to Africa. The extent to which the Republic of South Africa has succeeded in obtaining the necessary man power, will be revealed by the figures which I shall give hon. members in a moment. I want to divide the figures into a few specific categories to prove that a tendency exists to attract more and more immigrants to South Africa. In the first place I want to point out that between 1961 and 1968 there was a gain of 14 500 people who came to South Africa and fell under the professional and technical group. From 1969 to 1973—i.e. in four years’ time—the net gain in immigrants in the professional and technical group who immigrated to South Africa was 16 000. So we had an accelerated rate of immigration in this regard. The gain in factory workers and construction workers revealed a similar tendency. From 1961 to 1968 there was a net gain of 37 300 in this category while in the period from 1969 to 1973—i.e. within a period of only four years—there was a net gain of approximately 24 700. So once again we had a tendency of increasing numbers of immigrants coming to South Africa.

It is also necessary that the citizens of the Republic of South Africa, and the immigrants should come to gain a somewhat better understanding of one another as regards certain aspects. It is of cardinal importance to our mutual happiness in the country for us to realize that there are a few points on which we shall have to find one another. The first point is that the immigrant must realize that we have three important aspects in South Africa, which we cannot overemphasize, the first of which is that we as Whites are going to govern ourselves here in South Africa for all times. In the second place we want to maintain our White identity for always and we will maintain it. In the third place we believe that levels of friction can be eliminated if we are able to acknowledge the human dignity of the other groups. That is why we ask, in the first place, that our immigrants observe, realize and pursue these three things and not isolate themselves into small groups. I want to put it in this way: They must not stick together in their own communities, because then they do not learn our language, they are not taken up into our community and their children do not learn to play with our children. I want to request immigrants not to try and make South Africa their country of origin in the small, but to accept South Africa as it in fact is, because we in South Africa are part of Africa and we cannot duplicate a European country in Africa.

To my own countrymen I also want to say a few things. In the first place I want to say that we should not expect of the immigrant to change his whole culture and way of life all at once. Indeed, we do not want cultureless, rootless people in our country. What is required on our part towards immigrants is time and sympathy.

In the second place we as South Africans should realize that the immigrants are people who were selected on a proper and sound basis. They are people with useful training, people who know that they are coming to a strange country where they will have to work hard and stand on their own feet. But they are people who have self-confidence and who believe that they are, in fact, able to do this. They are people who will be an asset to us. We should realize that the people come to us in spite of the fact that the world does not encourage them to come to us. We need them and we should appreciate this willingness on their part. The aspect of the woman who should help with the assimilation of the immigrants, was discussed thoroughly by previous speakers such as my hon. friend the member for Kempton Park, and I am not going to elaborate on that any further. One thing, however, is perfectly clear and that is that we cannot import South Africans. The Department of Immigration should not be expected to import South Africans, because that is simply not possible. Only we in South Africa, who love South Africa, can make South Africans of the immigrants. We should realize this. We cannot import South Africans; we can only make them here, and we need them. Consequently I ask the immigrants and my South African fellow-citizens that we find one another and to co-operate so that we may, together, fulfil our calling not only in South Africa, but also in Africa, and so that we may all live happily.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing, really, that in a debate such as this on a subject which is of so much value to South Africa, a subject which ought to be discussed in a calm and sensible atmosphere, we should hear speeches such as the first two from the other side, viz. the verkrampte Hertzogite speeches of the hon. members for Springs and Vanderbijlpark. I was absolutely amazed when I heard what they had to say. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, in his typical hectoring fashion, was shouting and throwing buckets in every direction as though he worked in a charnel-house. That is the sort of speech we get from that hon. member.

What we are seeking here is something which is to the good of South Africa. What we are trying to establish from the hon. the Minister is whether his department is using the right approach overseas to bring the people here that we need. Not only the White people need them, but also the Black people. Everybody in South Africa needs them, and they are needed in ever-increasing numbers. The hon. member for Jeppe said he thinks the hon. the Minister should raise his sights to 50 000 or 60 000 immigrants per year. But now hon. members on the opposite side have a fit. We have to bring people in on a massive scale. Do they not realize that things are going forward on an accelerating basis and that one sets one’s target for, say, 30 000 people in order to service the thing which one is creating? One must bring in more highly skilled technical people and every year one must raise one’s sights higher and higher.

I want to put a proposition to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him why all the immigrants are basically coming from Europe. We can understand why people wanted to leave Europe after the war and why they wanted to leave Europe in the last century. At those times there was a desperate situation in Europe. There was hunger and a shortage of every single thing one can conceive of. The mass migrations from central Europe and Italy in the last century were caused by that sort of thing. However, what is there in Europe today to cause the ordinary man, and particularly the man who has some technical training, to leave a society with which he is familiar and in which he has an honoured place? What is going to cause him to leave that behind him and come to a country such as South Africa with the clouds that hang over us? Even the hon. the Minister will concede that, rightly or wrongly, there are clouds hanging over the image of South, Africa. I believe we must instil in the minds of the people in Europe that we in South Africa are engaged in one of the great adventures in history. White South Africa and Black South Africa together are changing the history of Africa by what we are doing here. People who come to us with that frame of mind are not exploiting Black people, are not taking their jobs away from them or getting in their way, but are merely strengthening the economy on which is based the future hopes of the Black people, and not only of the Black people in this country but also of those in Africa to the north of us. I think it is vitally important that we should stress this point. Because the immigrants come from a European source, they strengthen the White influence here which is leading us in the direction in which we are now going. I believe the hon. the Minister has a very vital part to play in this regard.

Today I saw in an overseas newspaper of 9 June an article on the position in Western Europe. In that article this question is asked: “After the vote in Britain on the European Common Market, what next for the world?” The question is posed in what direction Europe and the Western world is going to go now. I would like to quote the following—

In other words, you are seeing in Europe itself a new look being taken at the world and a new move being made out into the world. The one thing that has to be done in this country, and I urge this on the hon. the Minister, is that in all the literature or whatever it is we distribute to attract immigrants to this country, emphasis should be placed on the fact that this country is one which is based on free enterprise. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will not be to South Africa’s advantage if people, especially young and skilled people in Europe, who come to South Africa, know that they have the ability to create for themselves businesses which can grow into empires for themselves. Who in this House does not know of people who have done just that? Painters, electricians and technicians in many fields have come from Europe and have founded flourishing businesses here. These are the sort of people we want to attract. There has never been a more favourable atmosphere than that which is prevailing now for that sort of appeal to be brought home to the young people there. I mentioned before that I had an opportunity last year to discuss with one of the leading members of the German Bundestag the question of socialism in Europe and the extent to which this is cutting into the capacity of the individual to get ahead and to create something for himself. On Sunday there appeared in the Sunday Times, which is not a newspaper I read very much, an article by somebody who is not a regular writer for the Sunday Times. It was written by someone who came from overseas and therefore I accept that it has some measure of validity. I saw this article quite by chance. I would like to quote a few passages from it and I believe that every member of this House should read the article with concentration. It shows the direction and the depth to which socialism can take a country like Great Britain. I think that members should have a very clear look at this and understand it. The first paragraph I would like to quote reads as follows—

I think that this country offers a golden opportunity to people who are looking for that sort of outlet for themselves, for those who have a whole life to invest, who have perhaps a little bit of capital and who have a skill to market. I believe that the hon. the Minister, in everything he does overseas to attract people to come to South Africa to make a contribution, should give this sort of emphasis to his propaganda. He should say to the people: “Here the future is yours and open to you. Whatever you yourself are capable of, you can live it out here in South Africa without being ground down by the Government.” In the words of the member of the Bundestag I spoke to, West Germany, which was the last country in Europe which basically free-enterprise orientated, is now sliding towards socialism. I think the hon. the Minister himself plays an important part in this. One of the hindrances to people emigrating to South Africa is the length of time it takes to get settled, to get nationalized, etc. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister’s attitude is one of helping them, of cutting the red tape, of hurrying up the process of enabling people who have come to invest their lives and their time here in South Africa to become citizens as fast as they can. I know that there are thousands and thousands of people in this country who have come from Europe particularly and who have not taken out citizenship in South Africa. I think that we should find a means, a campaign of some sort to encourage them to do so. When one finds people who are leaving Europe today for the reasons which I have mentioned, they are the people who will turn their backs on the system which they have left and they will identify themselves far more positively with what we have to offer. I think that the hon. the Minister, in hurrying up this process, getting rid of the red tape and simplifying the procedures, can play a great part in encouraging people to come here.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mooi River on a positive contribution to the debate, but it is a pity that he unnecessarily hit out at the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark at the beginning of his speech. [Interjections.] Basically he hon. member does not differ from the two hon. members on whom be made such a sharp attack.

This was only politics.

What he pleaded for was that which the hon. members tried to state in their speeches. The hon. member for Mooi River said at the outset that we should accelerate our immigration campaign and that we should set our goals. This is exactly what the Nationalist Party is doing. We have set for ourselves the goal that we want to maintain a growth rate in South Africa of approximately 5½% per year. Our immigration campaign should also be seen within the framework of the growth rate and goal we have set for ourselves and which is being realized with great success now, and it should also keep pace with this. We should however always bear in mind that we depart from a specific premise, as was formulated in the National Party’s programme of principles in 1915 in which it is stated (translation)—

What the hon. member said does not differ from this; the hon. member agrees with this. Because the hon. member, like myself and the hon. Minister, wants a particular kind of person here, it is necessary that we will try and find that particular kind of person. Therefore it is stated that when we select people to come to South Africa to share our destinies in this country it should be ensured that the aspirant immigrant complies with all he conditions. He is expected to furnish documentary proof of his descent, his character, his religious convictions, his marital state, his age, his school education, his professional training, his experience, his financial status and his health. Attention is also given to the periods during which he was employed by various employers, as well as to the references given by such employers, ministers of religion or other prominent people. Interviews are arranged with applicants, among other things, with a view to determining the adaptability to South African circumstances, habits and traditions. These include the specific matters to which the hon. member referred.

In this regard I would like to say that we try to bring a particular kind of immigrant to South Africa. This is difficult at times. The question as to whether one will get the particular kind of person, is related to the kind of propaganda which is made against South Africa overseas. Unfortunately it is a fact that some of that propaganda is negative propaganda which discredit South Africa overseas and unfortunately originates in this country. Unfortunately it also originates in the benches of those people who are sitting diagonally across the way from me in the Progressive and Reformist benches. I can mention at least four or five speeches which the hon. member for Bryanston made in this House in less than two years’ time which were aimed at frightening people away from South Africa. [Interjection.] These are factors which influence the whole question of the recruitment of immigrants and one will have to take these factors into account when one tries to get immigrants.

When a person applies, one has to determine whether he is a stable citizen in his own country since we do not want unstable people here. Because he is a stable citizen in his own country, he applies. What he is actually doing, is to make inquiries and one should persuade and help him to uproot himself in his own country and: to settle here and become part of South Africa. He should share our destinies. For that reason there are certain forms of State assistance we grant these people. In this year’s Budget an amount of R5,4 million is appropriated for assistance to immigrants. I think this is a particularly insignificant amount and that we are making a particularly small investment in this regard. This is an insignificant amount for an enormously large investment in human potential for South Africa.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the increase in passage-money. I would like to associate with this aspect. If one looks at the annual report of the department, one notices that the maximum amount allocated for passage-money initially was R120. In October 1972 it was increased to R150 and now the maximum is already R200. This maximum of R200 represents 80% of the aspirant immigrant’s passage-money. On page 4 of the report a table is given of the increase in the air tariffs from various countries in Europe. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that serious attention should be given to doing away with the maximum of R200. Let us rather pay, for instance, 80% of the aspirant immigrant’s passage-money irrespective of how much the air or passage tariff for the trip to this country might be. If possible, we could increase the 80% to even 100%, where necessary. It is said that it costs South Africa at present approximately R200 to get an immigrant to South Africa and to settle him here. This is a very small amount we are investing in that human potential, especially when one considers the bursaries which are made available to people to study at universities, and also when one considers what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, namely that large sums are being spent to bring people to South Africa in order to give them a better image of the country. With this in mind, I think that R200 per immigrant is a very small sum, a sum which we can easily double. If we were to double this, it would mean that we would hardly be spending R10 million per year on this project.

I also want to refer to the other assistance which is given to immigrants when they arrive here; assistance, for instance, in connection with board and lodging, and local transport; assistance at the points of arrival and assistance which they receive when they come through the customs. I am very grateful for this and I want to ask that this kind of assistance should be adapted to the most sophisticated and best assistance we are able to give them. First impressions are always lasting. That impression which he gains of his host nation is the impression which will remain with him for the rest of this life. It is that impression which is or is not going to make of him a good South African. Therefore I want to ask that we should not be afraid of spending money when it concerns the transition of the new South African citizen. I want to ask the hon. Minister to submit a plea to the Treasury not to economize in his regard.

Mr. Chairman, it is as a grateful man that I rise to reply to this debate. As a person who has been closely associated with immigration for many long years, for more than 25 years, I am grateful for the spirit that was revealed in this debate, being mindful of debates on immigration which have been held in my time in this House of Assembly which were characterized by viciousness and acrimonious remarks. That is why I say I am eternally grateful, in the first place for the high level on which this debate was conducted and, in the second, for the very fine attitude and goodwill displayed by hon. members on both sides of this House. Sir, I have been following these debates for many long years, and I can tell you that since the immigration scheme was commenced in 1961, there has never before been a debate on immigration in which there were no discordant notes. In this debate, however, there were no discordant notes. This debate centred primarily around two important aspects. The one was the question of assimilation, and I am very indebted to hon. members who raised this matter for having placed so much emphasis in this debate on the assimilation of immigrants, or new South Africans as I call them.

The other matter which was raised here in general, more specifically from the Opposition benches, was whether, in the present climate and circumstances in Europe and Britain, we were doing enough to attract the maximum number of immigrants to South Africa. I should like to deal with these two aspects, and reply to each of the speakers who participated in the debate.

Sir, as far as this question of assimilation is concerned, you will permit me, by way of introduction, to tell you a personal story which I think is a moving one. When my wife and I arrived in Oxford in 1950, on a very cold day, 6 October to be precise, we went into the city to do our usual shopping. Shortly after our return there was a knock at the door. The visitor was our landlady—as they are called there—-a Mrs. Cowan, who had just come to tell us that she realized that we were South Africans and that we did not know how cold it became in England; that while we were away the door had opened accidentally and that, unlike South Africa, it took 14 days to get the cold out of such a place in England; and that she hoped we did not mind but she had closed the door while we were away. This was our first meeting with Mrs. Cowan. Sir, six months later we were invited to supper by this woman. Her husband had been a clergyman. She was getting on in years. She had lost her husband a year or two previously. That evening, at the supper table, she asked me to say a short prayer and to read a passage from the Bible, which I did. She then asked me whether I would read a specific passage from Tagore. Hon. members who know his works, will know that he is a wonderful writer. I then read out a beautiful paragraph in which he wrote on character, etc., in a lyrical manner as only he can do. I noticed that there was a feeling in the air that evening. The tears were rolling down Mrs. Cowan’s cheeks while I was reading this passage from Tagore. I then asked her what the problem was.

†She then told me that that evening was the anniversary of the death of her only son in the Battle of Colenso in South Africa. I then remembered her knock on the door the first day we arrived there and her statement that she hoped we did not mind that she had closed the door to keep us comfortable and warm.

*Sir, when it comes to the assimilation of immigrants, there is nothing more important than this kind of friendliness, affection and hospitality. The fact that a person who had lost her son on the battlefield here in South Africa could behave in this way to South Africans who were studying there, taught me a lesson which made me decide that I would in future contribute my share as well in regard to this important question of the assimilation of immigrants. I hope you do not misunderstand this. I, who have dealt with this matter for many years, can tell anyone who is interested in the assimilation of immigrants nothing more and nothing better than this, and everyone who deals with the assimilation of new South Africans will tell you precisely the same, namely that if the people of South Africa are friendly and hospitable to the new South Africans in a perfectly friendly way, there is no better method of assimilation. That is all I am asking in this context, and all I want to say to this House.

It is true that we have two assimilative organizations, the 1820 Settlers’ Organization and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, which are doing brilliant work in South Africa. It is also true, as the hon. member for South Coast said, that to a certain extent the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie confines itself more specifically to the non-English speaking new South Africans who settle in South Africa, while the 1820 Settlers’ Organization confines itself more specifically to those who came from Britain. I said “to a certain extent” because in this respect as well a change has already begun to take place there. On 31 May I attended the function of the Kultuurakademie of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie in Vrededorp at the Kultuurakademie building. It was my privilege to establish that Kultuurakademie ten years ago. Attending that function of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie there were new South Africans from Britain and elsewhere. On that occasion the language medium of these people could only be English, because they were predominantly new South Africans who had come to this country under the auspices of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie and who were also English speaking. Therefore, as far as this assimilation programme of these two major organizations is concerned, good progress is being made. But I want to make a very friendly appeal through hon. members of the House of Assembly. The Government is helping the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie and the 1820 Settlers’ Organization; financially we are helping them well, but these are cultural organizations which ought not to be dependent on the State only in doing this work. The public should also realize its responsibility and contribute more, financially, to the 1820 Settlers Organization and to the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, the only two assimilative organizations we have in South Africa. On this occasion I want to make a friendly, but serious, appeal to you as members of the House of Assembly to help call upon the public to render the maximum financial assistance to these two organizations. Financially these people are struggling. I know what I am talking about. Both of them are struggling financially. For example I have had a request from the 1820 Settlers Organization for more funds from the Government. I can tell you that I am going to consider this very sympathetically, and we are going to help them with more funds. But in spite of our assistance and in spite of the fact that we are giving the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie considerably more money this year than previously, I know from experience and from what these people tell me personally, that this is not nearly enough. That is why all of us here are in duty bound to assist in making more funds available for this purpose.

I tell you it is amazing what progress South Africa has made with the assimilation of our new South Africans. There was a time, only a few years ago in fact, when this was a problem in South Africa, when there were many people in South Africa who commented sharply on new South Africans. But I am eternally grateful to be able to say that there has been a great change in this regard, and that assimilation is far easier today. As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark rightly pointed out, our emigration figure—th.ose who leave South Africa again—has dropped considerably during the past few years, and one of the reasons for this is the fact that our people are more receptive of these new South Africans, and are going out of their way to a greater extent to treat them in a friendly way and to be hospitable towards them. [Interjections.]

Then there is the other major point which was raised here, namely the question of whether we are now doing enough to attract immigrants to South Africa. I want to tell hon. members that they need have doubt at all about one thing, and that is that the Department of Immigration is doing everything in its power to attract the maximum number of new South Africans, who comply with our requirements, to South Africa. I want to say at once that under the circumstances which are prevailing in South Africa it would be a fatal mistake to lower or water down the standards which are set for immigrants. We dare not do so, for then we would be creating local problems, as well as problems for the persons who come to South Africa. We will for example have dissatisfied immigrants in South Africa, and this we must prevent. Therefore it has been the policy from an early stage to bring only skilled immigrants to South Africa, immigrants who comply with certain basic requirements. We are doing the maximum which can be done to attract the greatest possible number of immigrants of this nature to South Africa. Last year we achieved very good results. In 1973 we were able to attract 24 000 immigrants to South Africa, while in 1974 we attracted 35 747 to South Africa.

Net figures?

The net figure is 28 600, which was an outstanding achievement. The year 1966 was of course the absolute record year. In that year we received the largest number of immigrants, namely 48 000 gross. The net figure was just under 38 000. The year 1974 was also a record year as far as gross and net figures were concerned, and this was under very difficult circumstances. I should not like to say anything about those circumstances now. If we consider the months of January and February, then 1975 appears to be a very promising year, if nothing unforeseen happens of course. Perhaps we shall outstrip previous records. In January 1973 we had 2 300 immigrants. In January 1974 —which was a record year—we had 2 800 immigrants. In January 1975, however, there were 3 687 immigrants—an outstanding achievement. In February 1973 we had 1 800 immigrants. In February 1974 there were 2 000 and in February 1975 3 348.

What about Rhodesia?

I am coming to that. Hon. members on those benches have often asked that question during this session. For some reason or other they are under the impression that these increased figures include large numbers of immigrants from Mozambique, Rhodesia and Angola. Let me say straight away that that is a total erroneous notion. In 1974 we had only 348 permanent immigrants from Mozambique.

Applicants?

No, not applicants, but immigrants who actually received permanent residence. I know the figure from Angola was about 58.

Were applications turned down?

In reply to a question from the hon. member for Sea Point a month or so ago, I told him how many applications there were from Mozambique and how many of those applications were acceptable. I think the figure was about 2 400. Our policy is very clear. In terms of Act No. 1 of 1937, each and every immigrant, from wherever he comes, must comply with certain pre-set conditions and qualifications. It is as simple as that. That applies to each and every immigrant from wherever he comes.

*The reason why we are receiving very few immigrants from Mozambique, Angola and Rhodesia, as I have just indicated with figures …

How many from Rhodesia?

The number from Rhodesia is so small that I cannot even remember the figure. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that if anyone should be under the impression that the large number of immigrants whom we attracted in 1974, and whom we are again going to attract this year, came from Mozambique, Rhodesia or Angola, then I have said enough to prove that this is not the case. This is really not the case. We do not intend abandoning our standards. The important point I want to make is that hon. members should remember one thing, which is that we do not have an absolutely free hand in the European countries to advertise, and so on. The circumstances under which we have to attract these new South Africans, or immigrants, are not always the easiest of circumstances. This has to be taken into consideration. Now, the hon. members will understand that the Department of Immigration is literally doing everything in its power to apply new methods and so on, as the hon. member for Mooi River requested. We are doing all these things, and these figures testify to the successful results of all those modern techniques which are being used to attract the maximum number of immigrants to South Africa. The hon. member for Jeppe, as well as other hon. members on the opposite side of the House, also raised the matter that although we had set a target of 30 000 immigrants, we were not receiving enough economically active people. That is not true.

Those are the facts.

No, it is not true at all. What are the true facts? The Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister draws up a programme every year in which they say that an economic growth rate of, for example, 5% or 5,5% should be maintained for the next five year period. Subsequently the Economic Advisory Council works out that in order to maintain this growth rate of 5,5% over the five-year period we require a certain number of economically active persons. The hon. members on the opposite side of the House try to make out a case here every year that although we are receiving a certain number of immigrants, we are not meeting the need for economically active persons. We must consider this matter over a five-year period, because the economic growth rate is not worked out for a single year, but for a five-year period. What are the facts if we do this? From 1964 to 1973 there was a gain of 175 382 economically active immigrant workers. Hon. members must bear in mind that it was only in 1964 that our immigrant scheme really got under way, and for that reason I am taking the figures for the ten year period. This means that we gained an average of 17 538 economically active persons per annum in this country over that ten year period. If the immigration figures, which include a reasonable percentage of South African citizens, are included in the calculation, it means that there was still an additional gain of an average of 12 801 economically active persons per annum. This brings the annual average gain in immigrants for the period between 1964 and 1973 up to a total of 30 664. The number of economically active persons whom we gained was in the region of 17 000. This means that we gained considerably more than the required number specified for every year over five years by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. Take the 1974 figures for example. In 1973 we had a bad year. I remember that in 1973 I put it to the present hon. member for Umhlatuzana that although we had gained a small net number of immigrants, we had almost gained the number of economically active immigrants which we required. When we consider the position in 1974 now we see that in that year we gained more economically active people than the target of 13 000 set by the Economic Advisory Council.

I hope that I have with this replied effectively to this point which is made year after year, namely that we are not recruiting enough economically active immigrants. Over the ten year period we gained more of them than the target set by the Economic Advisory Council. But what is more, the indication is, as I have already said, that we will do far better this year than we did last year. With that, I think, I have replied to the questions of the hon. member for Jeppe. It is true that I have advocated the recruiting of more metallurgists and chemical engineers, but I also want to point out that, although we are not able, particularly in that category, to meet the need in any way, we are receiving many of them in the form of new South Africans, or immigrants. If it had not been for that, our mining industry would most certainly have been experiencing more problems than is the case at present.

The hon. member for Springs made a very fine speech here. I am aware of his great interest in immigration over the years. I know with what dedication he works for this cause. He is the chairman of the immigration group of this side of the House. I want to thank him very sincerely for the contribution he made. The question which he put to the hon. members on the opposite side is an important one. There are certain conditions which we impose, for example that the prospective immigrant should be of sound moral conduct and that he should be able to fit in comfortably into the South African community. The hon. member has asked whether hon. members on the opposite side want those conditions abolished. The reply is of course that they do not want them abolished. They simply cannot be abolished.

I have very great appreciation for the speech made here by the hon. member for South Coast. When I compare this with the speech he made last year, I do not know who instructed him or who took him under his tutelage. In any case, I want to pay high tribute to the person who did this, for he made a very good job of it. This afternoon the hon. member made a very good and positive contribution. I have already replied to his questions with regard to the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. I am grateful that he singled out the 1820 Settlers’ organization and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie here, and requested that more attention be given to these bodies.

My good friend, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, undoubtedly made an impressive speech here. What he said was true: We do not want only work-seekers in South Africa; we want people who can make a contribution. I just want to say that of the breadwinners who immigrate to this country without employment arranged in advance, suitable employment is found for 77% within ten days after arrival, while suitable employment is found within 20 days for a further 16,9%. After a little more than 20 days suitable employment is found for every new South African. What country can improve on that? This is an outstanding and wonderful record. I want to express my thanks and pay tribute to the Secretary and the Department of Immigration for the outstanding and brilliant work they are doing in this regard.

I do not want to take up much of the time of this House. I have now replied to almost all the questions. Let me just read two extracts from letters, testifying to how well South Africa is dealing with this matter. I quote—

I am the fortunate person who is able to convey those words to this House. Frequently we hear only the other side of this matter. I must say that if I were to quote from all the letters of appreciation and tribute which the Secretary to the department and I personally receive from new South Africans, I shall keep this House occupied until tomorrow morning. Let me quote just one other passage—

Rustenburg is the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Rustenburg. I quote further—

If we continue in this wonderful manner, we shall produce a brilliant result. The hon. member for Vanderbijl Park, as well as the hon. member for Koedoespoort, put questions in regard to air tariffs, and I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that approximately a week ago I approved a memorandum in which we request the Cabinet and the Treasury to grant a considerable increase in regard to their passage to South Africa. However, I cannot speak on behalf of the Cabinet at this stage, for it still has to be considered by the Cabinet. However, we are giving serious attention to this possibility. I honestly think that we have such a good case to present to the Cabinet that the Cabinet will probably accede to this.

The hon. member for Parktown made a very responsible speech here this afternoon, and because one did not really expect it from that side of the House, I want to express my personal appreciation for the hon. member having been an exception to the rule this afternoon. The hon. member referred to the lack of telecommunications staff.

†There is continuous recruiting of telecommunication’s technicians in conjunction with the Post Office, who also have regular recruiting campaigns.

*They have regular campaigns, and I help them with these as far as I possibly can. They are doing their best, for as the hon. member rightly said, we have a crisis situation here.

†However, we have to operate within the laws of the countries where recruiting takes place. Especially in European countries, there are restrictions on advertising and we can only go as far as we are allowed to.

*However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are doing our best in this regard. The hon. member also referred to staff shortages in the “field of education”, as he put it. I should like to be of assistance in this regard, for it is a fact that we are experiencing a serious shortage of teachers, especially mathematics teachers, in this country. However, I am not the only person with whom this matter should be raised. This is really a matter which falls under the Department of National Education. However, I feel so strongly about this question of the shortage of mathematics teachers, as well as the fact that so few scholars take mathematics as a subject, that I undertake to discuss this matter seriously with my colleagues. The Cabinet has appointed a small committee, on which I also have representation, to go into this entire question. I shall raise this matter as well on that committee.

The hon. member for Kempton Park made a very good speech on assimilation here. He also referred to the 1820 Settlers organization and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. I greatly appreciate his doing so. I was also very impressed by the way in which the hon. member for Pretoria West addressed South Africans who also played their part in this regard, as well as the new South Africans who have to take cognizance of important matters in this regard. It was with appreciation I took cognizance of his statement that the sooner South Africans realize that we really need immigrants for the expansion of our economy, the better. As the hon. member said, it is also important that immigrants should not be grouped together in small groups. The 1820 Settlers Movement and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie are doing everything in this connection to help immigrants to become assimilated as quickly as possible.

I cannot but express my appreciation to the hon. member for Mooi River for the important speech which he made. He made an excellent speech, a speech which I was in fact unable to fault. I hope my officials will take cognizance of it. As the hon. member said, it is true that England and other countries are experiencing major problems. The article to which the hon. member referred is one I also read with great interest last Sunday. This is an important article, and I agree that great possibilities exist for us in those countries. We are called upon to make the most of those opportunities under the circumstances.

The last speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, also make a very wonderful contribution. He also requested that we should increase air tariff concessions. I have already replied to that. What impressed me personally, and what I have great appreciation for, is the fact that the hon. member pointed out that in this small but important department we are in reality spending only R5,4 million on immigrants. As he rightly said, this is a small amount but an enormous investment. I cannot do more than stress this, and hope that in future our requests for these amounts to be in creased will not fall on deaf ears.

I conclude by saying that I am truly grateful for a very good debate, and I can tell you that Immigration is doing well. In regard to assimilation, I cannot put it better than the late President Paul Kruger did more than 70 years ago when he said: “Ik plaas de nieuwe Zuid Afrikaners onder de zorg van die oude Zuid Afrikaners”. (I entrust the new South Africans to the care of the old South Africans.) South Africa has a very splendid task to perform here and I think that South Africa is carrying out this task in a commendable and in a very excellent manner.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24.—“Sport and Recreation”:

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we had the opportunity of discussing merit selection in sport in this country after the hon. the Minister had announced that a multi-racial invitation team would be permitted to play a match against the French rugby tourists who are present touring South Africa. Today we are able to deal with his Vote, after the match has taken place. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that Saturday 7 June 1975 will prove to have been an historic day for sport at Newlands. It was historic not because of the rugby match that was played and because of the results of that match, but because it was a multi-racial team approved by the hon. the Minister and selected by invitation to represent South Africa, a team which played before a crowd of 35 000 White, Brown and Black spectators. The hon. the Minister has given his approval to this game. It was welcomed as ® timid step forward—as I have said before—but at the same time there were murmurings from what was described in Die Vaderland of 10 March as—

There were these fears and anxieties from the constituencies of Carletonville, Innesdal, Rissik, Sunnyside, Waterberg and elsewhere.

Were they there?

Surprisingly enough, that match has been played and we find that our civilization has not collapsed and our cultures and heritages remain unblemished. Because of that match, we have had an unforgettable experience of a spirit that has been so long dormant in this country, because of Government policies, namely the spirit of a united South Africa. That is what we experienced with this match. A spirit of a united South Africa is more important, if I may say so, than all the efforts which the hon. the Minister may make, as he has been talking under the previous Vote, of bringing immigrants into the life of this country, because we want that, first of all, to happen to the people of this country. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he is listening, and if he is not listening to me, I want him to listen to the 35 000 Black, Brown and White voices on Saturday which should dispel any hesitancy there may be as to where he should go in regard to the sport policy in this country. There has been an enthusiastic reaction throughout the country; there has been front-page treatment and I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that nothing could be more indicative of what the public thought, than a report in Rapport on Sunday on the front page—

This is the response to that match. I believe that we in South Africa have many problems in regard to co-existence in this country on the social, economic and political planes, but they are problems mainly of our own making and I believe that the spirit which was evident at Newlands on Saturday can create in all of us a new hope and a new confidence for the future. The hon. the Minister will know from his days at Oxford that it is recorded in the history books that the Duke of Wellington 150 years ago said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. I may remind the hon. member for Waterberg that it was Napoleon who said that Waterloo was always cast in his teeth, and that he ought to have died in Moscow. I think the situation we have got to at the moment is that the hon. the Minister, by courageously following up what has been done at Newlands, can make that match at Newlands the beginning of the end of the isolation of South Africa in international sport. Perhaps then the hon. member for Waterberg and his colleagues may be constrained one of these days to say: “Newlands is thrown in our teeth; I ought to have held my tongue in Pretoria”. That is the change which is taking place, and we on this side say to the Minister: “Our policy is clear. Give sport back to the sportsmen. Let them run it; then we will get somewhere in so far as South Africa is concerned.” I believe that the Government must turn its energies and its financial resources to promoting sport by providing adequate facilities, instead of interfering in sports administration.

In the first place, I notice from the Estimates which we have before us that of the total of R21 million on this Vote, R1627 000 will be paid out by way of grants for Whites. I find from investigation that the Coloured community in South Africa will have available, through the CRC, R734 000. So far as the Indians are concerned, this House has voted the paltry sum of R20 000 odd for Indian sport. As far as the Bantu are concerned, all the homelands will receive a total grant of R142 500 from the Bantu Trust, and, believe it or not, a grant of R56 000 is being made in respect of the Bantu in the urban areas. Public concern at this is eloquently proved by the fact that the Bantu Sports Trust has been able to collect R1 million from the public to provide for sporting facilities. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the provision of facilities for sport, especially amongst the Bantu people, is the first priority for any money that is available from the Exchequer for sport in this country. I know this is not the hon. the Minister’s responsibility, but if that money is available for sport, it can be channelled through other Ministries to be used effectively. Furthermore, I want to say to the hon. the Minister straight away: Forget about even investigating an Olympic city between Johannesburg and Pretoria. Forget even about investigating something that is going to cost R152 million. That money, if it is available, can be used in other ways. Sir, we are not going to get back into world sport by building an Olympic stadium between Johannesburg and Pretoria. We are going to get back into international sport through changes in the sports policy of this Government. Before I leave this question, I want to say that what we need is a confident policy, not the policy of Black versus White at Hartleyvale, but the policy which came to the surface in this game at Newlands. To quote the Transvaler of the day before yesterday—

That is the message to the hon. the Minister.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to re urn to the publication Top Sport. The hon. the Minister, in reply to questions, has indicated that the Government has committed itself to paying R144 000, over two years to Nasionale Tydskrifte, a subsidiary of Nasionale Pers, for this magazine. The Government seems to think that there is an unlimited amount of paper in this country, judging from the magazines and periodicals, unnecessary ones, springing up from every department. If ever there was an unnecessary publication, it is this one. As I told the hon. the Minister, the first edition was a propaganda hand-out for him. There we had a statement from Minister Koornhof. The second edition went a bit further; he became “Dr. Piet”. I cannot wait for the third one to come out, Sir, when he will become “Oom Piet”. I want to say to him that if he wants to do anything for sport and if he wants to acquire the name “Oom Piet” amongst the sportsmen of South Africa, he must get on with the provision of facilities. There is something I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity. I know that he has to deal with a vast number of problems and that he has to balance all sorts of ideas and philosophies in trying to do what he knows has got to be done for South African sport. I think he can take courage from what he has seen and from the reaction of the people in South Africa as a whole and, I believe, to a great extent also in his own party. Sir, South Africa expects him to act, and it expects him to act in one simple way, and that is to give the control and management of sport back into the hands of the sportsmen of South Africa. Let them run sport for the benefit of this country and return us to the international field of sport.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely this evening. He is performing his task with distinction in the face of onslaughts from the world outside and from all sides. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point. The special spirit which prevailed at the match at Newlands last Saturday delighted all of us. We are grateful for that.

You learned something from it.

Sir, what have we achieved? Hon. members on that side do not want to realize this. What have we achieved? In that same week, that same team played a match against the team of the Bantu Rugby Union of South Africa, the Leopards. In the same week, on the Wednesday afternoon, they played against the Coloured XV at Goodwood, and that Saturday afternoon, they played against the invitation team. Sir, each of these matches was a brilliant success. Sir, what have we done? We have built nationalisms.

They do not understand that.

Hon. members on that side do not understand that, nor will they ever understand it, but it is exactly that we have done in South Africa; it is what the hon. the Minister is doing every day with a great degree of success and with great distinction. South Africa and its sportsmen can feel nothing but gratitude towards the hon. the Minister. Sir, the manager of the French team said here the other day that there is not a Minister of Sport like Oom Piet in the whole world. We are proud of him, and we are proud of what the National Party has achieved. I want to agree with the hon. member for Green Point on one further point. I think that too little is being spent on non-White sport. I think that more facilities should be created for these people. Let us not argue about that. We accept it, I think that to achieve more success in this direction, more sports-fields must be established for these people, and I believe that the hon. the Minister, together with us on this side, will endeavour to do that in future. But there is a further thing which the non-Whites must undertake—they must obtain unity in their own ranks and stop arguing amongst themselves. Only success, phenomenal success, can flow from unity in their own ranks. That applies to both the Coloureds and the Bantu. Sir, I have an idea that there are opposition groups who also keep these differences going among these people, for their own deep political reasons. I want to appeal to those people to bring about unity in their ranks. Then I see a rosy future for us. Then I look forward to the day when the Coloureds will have a touring team which will tour South Africa, and their selecting an invitation team and inviting Bantu and Whites to play with them against a touring team from overseas. That is how we want to bring about unity and peace in this country. We are grateful for that spirit which was created. We are grateful that sport can create it, and we have always said, as the hon. member for Green Point does: Leave it to the sports administrators, but— as they always add a “but”—within the framework of the policy of the Government, the policy of multi-nationalism. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh. All of you sitting over there would very much like to see things go wrong. In fact, there are hon. members who look forward to seeing things going wrong, because they do not have any hope of governing this country in the future by means of the ballot box, nor are they preparing themselves for that. They have other plans in their heads. That is why they want to see chaos. What is the United Party’s policy? I shall read it to you. They say that the United Party believes—this is according to Hansard, and the hon. member for Green Point repeated it just now—that the control and administration of sport should be left to sportsmen who act on all levels by means of their own elected bodies which should decide without hindrance on, inter alia, the membership of clubs. Why only sports clubs, Sir? Why do they not extend this to other clubs? Why do they not include the Rand Club? Why are they prepared to ask here for absolute, direct integration, but why do they speak of separate clubs, of separate residential areas and of separate schools, This being so, surely they are politicizing and trying to pull the wool over the peoples eyes. Then I should rather respect the people who say they believe in out-and-out integration. But the United Party speaks of “elected”. They want to allow everyone to the same club, and then everyone must play within the same White residential area, or whatever residential area, and at the same school. So why do they want separate residential areas? This thing is not as easy as the hon. member for Green Point wants to make it. He must just realize, Sir, that sport will remain one of the instruments of international vendettas for many years to come; one cannot get away from that! One of the greatest antagonists of sport in South Africa, is a man called Peter Hain. He did not leave this country because he wanted to play mixed sport here. We know what the circumstances were in which he left the country. What do they do? Everywhere in the world there is interference in sport. Last year, when the Lions were here, the British Government brought the strongest pressure to bear on them not to come. When they did eventually decide to come, what did the British Government do then? Not only did they not entertain the people; they also placed them incommunicado. One of the most terrible things which can happen to one, is that one’s country and one’s people want to know nothing of one. The British ambassador was forbidden to go and watch any of their matches. Surely that is a fantastic insult! One must not think that everything is so easy. There was the case where table tennis was left to the table-tennis administration. The whole administration consisted of Indians and the whole team consisted of Indians. In spite of that, those people were refused visas and entry into India. These things are not so easy. One cannot simply say that people should be allowed to play together and that everything will then be hunky-dory. No, it is not so easy. It is not so easy to solve the problem. I repeat: In the face of these tremendous forces, the hon. the Minister of Sport has succeeded in keeping the roads to world sport open for our people. Where we are excluded, it is not for reasons of sport. The reasons definitely are political and communistic. We can never be at peace with those people.

Order; I am sorry, but I have to blow the whistle. The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Fauresmith has said. He spoke about all the clubs being thrown open. The United Party does not look upon clubs as being dictated to by some central bureaucracy, as the Nationalists would have it. We leave matters to the freedom of sports administrators. We do not have a better example of United Party policy than the sports policy operating in Pietermaritzburg. There, some clubs are mixed and some clubs are open. This has not led to any friction or problems. People play the game and not the colour. This is what must be understood. A difference of philosophy is involved.

I should now like to get down to the main part of my speech and follow up on what the hon. member for Green Point had to say about Nationalist sports policy. I think that probably most of the hon. members in this House attended the very significant matches that were played not very far from this Parliament. I refer to the Hellenic-Kaiser Chiefs soccer match, and the rugby match between the S.A. Invitation XV and the French Tricolors. These were games of great historic importance. They were important because for the first time we had a Black side playing a White side in the one case, whilst in the other game, for the first time, we had a mixed Black and White South African side play-in together. In the Hellenic-Kaiser Chiefs game we saw epitomized the results of the Nationalist Party policy of multi-nationalism. What did we see? We saw unruly crowd behaviors, police dogs being brought in, bottles being thrown and inflamed racial friction. I wonder if the hon. member for Fauresmith still thinks that their policy leads to peace in this country. In the second game, the S.A. Invitation game where Blacks and Whites played together, there was racial harmony. For the first time in 25 years all the South African spectators were united and cheered a South African side.

You are talking nonsense.

I was privileged to attend both these games and I should like to add my voice to the praise of those sports administrators and sportsmen who have worked so tirelessly for these fixtures. My lasting impression of those games, however, is that as a consequence a tremendous mark now hangs over Nationalist sports policy. There is a doubt which I suspect the whole of South Africa now feels, and no amount of glib talk is going to dispel this doubt. The warning to the Government is that is cannot turn a blind eye to the salutary lessons of these games. The warning is that if they persist with the policy of Black versus White, they will be responsible for promoting an inflammatory and dangerous state of affairs in South Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

What is the opinion of Mr. Jack Taylor, who has probably seen more soccer games than anybody in the world and who is recognized as the top soccer referee in the world? After he had refereed both the games of Hellenic vs. Kaizer Chiefs, he said: “It would be far better to mix the sides”. One does not have to be an expert to realize the truth in that statement. In fact, only a few weeks later we did have the sides mixed and the comparison gave the lie to the government’s policy of separate White and Black sides. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind, after seeing the South African Invitation XV play, that the sports policy of this Government is in need of radical review. What is this policy? I quote the hon. the Minister as reported in Senate Hansard, volume 7, col. 1652—

This statement was made by the hon. the Minister a couple of weeks ago in the Other Place. This is just the old apartheid theory of equal and separate development. In practice we find that the very opposite of this theory occurs, which makes a mockery of this definition.

Let me look at the question of separation. The Government talks about separate club, provincial and national sides. Yet we had an invitation XV which was mixed. We also have the Aurora cricket side in Pietermaritzburg which is mixed. We have had the world famous Comrades Marathon which was also mixed. On many occasions mixed teams participated in sport in this country. The tendency in sport is towards competition and not towards separation and the Government cannot put a stop to it. They have tried but they have failed. That is why the United Party says that the sports administrators must be trusted to administer sport within the demands of the society. We have all seen how well Dr. Danie Craven and his administrators organized the game on Saturday. Dr. Craven himself said that this was the highlight of his career. The 64 000 dollar question which arises from that game is whether the Government will permit mixed South African sides to tour other countries. This team would be chosen from all the nations of South Africa, as the hon. the Minister always tells us, the British teams are chosen from the nations of the British Isles. When the Lions toured the country they were a mixed side chosen from the players of all those sides. We urge the Government to follow the sports path that has been so well lighted for him.

The second problem we have with the Government is the claim of unrestricted development. This situation shows up clearly in terms of expenditure. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned these figures and I want to repeat them. The amount of money to be spent on White sport amounts to R1 627 700, while the figure in respect of Coloured snort is R734 000, the figure in respect of Bantu sport is R50 000 and that in respect of Indian sport is R23 200. The very inequality of expenditure between the various race groups spotlights the restrictions placed on their sporting development. There are five White snorts bodies alone which receive individual grants in excess of the total financial aid given to the Bantu population of South Africa. The Gymnastic Union receives R84 000, the Bowling Association R80 000, the Cruising Association R75 000, the Athletic Union R50 000 and the Bodybuilding Union R50 000. We do not begrudge these grants and we do not doubt that these sports bodies benefit by this aid, but what we do doubt is the Government’s credibility to expect us to believe that there is equality in the sporting development of our national groups. Disproportionate financial allocations to race groups of South Africa by this Government are the grossest example of blatant discrimination. How can the hon. the Minister say in the Other Place (Hansard, No. 9, col. 2315) that the Nationalist sports policy affords the national groups “the fullest opportunity, (absolutely the fullest opportunity), to reach the highest level in sport without hindrance”? That is a laugh!

In conclusion, it is obvious to all that the Nationalist sports policy should not be in a nutshell as described by the Minister; it should rather be in a nutcracker and it should be cracked open to reveal its bad and discriminatory core. With respect, I submit that equal facilities and opportunities for sportsmen will never come via this Government’s sports policy. In fact, it has been and still is this policy which has prevented South African sportsmen from competing in international sport. We believe that the invitation game showed the Government the way. The time has come for the Government to ring the changes in South Africa and to discard its anachronistic sports policy.

In the short time left to me, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the shortage of trained coaches in our schools. Women are replacing men more and more in the schools and I feel that the quality of coaching will decline unless women are trained as coaches. In this respect I wish to compliment the Western Province Cricket Association for their efforts in this direction. Just the other day Mr. Eddie Barlow was telling me that in August the Western Province Cricket Association are running a course to train women as cricket coaches. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should give every support and encouragement to the training of both male and female coaches at school level.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North was guilty this afternoon of a gross misrepresentation of the real facts. I think it was a misrepresentation which one could almost regard as incitement. The hon. member said here this afternoon that when Whites played against non-Whites at a sports meeting, chaos resulted. The hon. member knows that in the case of that soccer match which he mentioned, there were almost twice as many spectators as there was room for. The hon. member wanted to allege that a situation of confrontation arose between White and non-White. The hon. member knows that we have seen a White matched against a non-White in the boxing ring on a few occasions at our multinational boxing tournaments. Can he tell me of one occasion at which an incident took place at such a fight? He knows that we have had situations in which White and non-White athletes have sprinted for the finishing line together, but have we had a confrontation in that sphere? The hon. member also made a great fuss about the position of cricket at Pietermaritzburg. Can he give us the guarantee that the non-White club’s survival will be guaranteed if we allow something of that nature in South Africa? Will there be the opportunity for the non-White player or sportsman who is at the beginning of his sporting career to compete? No, Sir; we are protecting and training and educating as well. Therefore the Government will continue to give everyone the opportunity to compete at the highest level for his people, who have an identity of their own in South Africa.

Since we discussed this Vote last year, we have had a very interesting development in the approach of the South African to fitness. Since then we have passed the 1 million mark in the number of young people as well as adults participating in our fitness campaign in South Africa. I should like to express a word of appreciation and thanks towards the many individuals who, often at great trouble and at their own expense, have made it possible for our young people and others to spend their time on the sports field, on the road, or on the track, so they do not simply while the time away, but are kept fit. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to these individuals for devoting their own time to making it possible for our young people to get fit. I cannot substantiate my statements with statistics, but I believe that since this fitness campaign has been launched, literally thousands of people have succeeded, through this fitness campaign, not only in avoiding illness, but perhaps also in avoiding fatal diseases, which could have afflicted them if they had not kept their bodies fit. One is also grateful that his department has been able to look beyond the achievement of fitness on the track, the field or the road, but that it created the opportunity, especially for our young people, to satisfy their love of adventure. According to the report of the Department of Sport and Recreation, there were 63 projects in 1973, in which 8 011 young people participated. These 63 projects increased to 70 in 1974, and 9 065 young people participated in these. The department also fulfilled a role in another field, viz. in affording the aged, of whom we have thousands in South Africa, the opportunity of becoming fit not only by means of projects such as spring walks, “run for your life”, the schemes for swimming and recreational gymnastics, “walk for your life” or cycling—which is in its initial stages—but also by means of other recreational projects which have been tackled. For our working youth, who have little time for recreation, adventure projects are tackled, of which four have already been launched. One is grateful that there are people inside and outside the department, who accept this responsibility, and we want to pay tribute to them for this. They are trying to keep our young people, as well as our aged, fit and healthy. One is grateful that there are thousands of young people today, people in the middle age group, and old people, who want to use their limbs and senses to participate in sporting activities.

This afternoon I should like to plead for a group of people who are less privileged than we are, viz. for the thousands of blind people, the hundreds of paraplegics, the hundreds of deaf people and for the many dumb people in South Africa. I think that this department can perform a very praiseworthy task if it can succeed in helping the as well, who have to rely on a white walking-stick and often restricted to a dark life, literally and figuratively, and are so often also dependent on the sympathetic arm of those who love them. Is it not possible for this department to establish a scheme affording blind people the opportunity of becoming fit in groups? I believe that means can be found and that methods can be developed so as to make it possible for these unfortunate people, the blind, to have the opportunity of becoming fit on the track, on the field or in the gymnastic hall. I believe that no matter what it costs this department, it is worth the effort to make the difficult lives of these persons a little more pleasant. Where we in South Africa have already seen in the past that people who have all their senses, sacrifice time and money, for example, in assisting blind bowls teams, a bowls team which has developed to such an extent that it qualifies for international participation, we believe that there will be hundreds of our friends who will help these blind people to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming fit. One does not only think of those who are blind, but also of those who are deaf and dumb, people who do not always feel at liberty to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming fit together with the masses. Therefore I want to ask this department to give consideration to making an inquiry into whether it is not possible to accommodate these people as well in our fitness campaign. Then there is also another group, which I believe will appreciate the help of our department, viz. our paraplegics, those who are crippled. From the report “Rehabilitation in South Africa”, we find that paraplegics did not look to others in the past to bring about recreation for them, but that they established means of physical recreation themselves. Today we have the proud position in South Africa, that 16 world paraplegic records in athletics are held by South African paraplegics. During 1972, South Africa came fourth in West Germany in the competition for the highest number of gold medals in which 44 countries participated. On that occasion alone, South African paraplegics broke 12 World records. I also want to ask that we find ways and means in respect of these people, since this will perhaps be more difficult for them in that they are confined to wheel chairs and in many cases, and consequently move with difficulty, so as to afford them an opportunity of becoming fit through recreation as well. I want to concede at once that this will possibly bring about expenditure which will make heavy demands on this department, but we who have the privilege of being able to use our limbs and our senses and who nevertheless do not make use of the opportunities we are offered, want to and will contribute, if necessary, to make it possible for these unfortunate people to become fit through recreational gymnastics or through exercises which they can be offered on an organized basis. I believe that these unfortunate people do not necessarily want our sympathy. Nor do I believe that these people want to lay claim to the sympathy of those of us who are healthy or of the department. However, I also believe that every one of us not only wishes these people to have the very best, but that every one of us also wants ways and means to be sought and found to make the difficult lives of these people a little more pleasant. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think every hon. member in this House will support the plea of the hon. member for Bethlehem that facilities be provided for the blind, the deaf, the paraplegics and other handicapped people in this country to enable them to participate as fully as possible in sporting activities.

I should like to start my remarks by quoting from the report of the Secretary for Sport and Recreation for 1974. That report commences with the following statement—

The report then goes on to enumerate a number of outstanding performances, which they indeed were. However, all of them were performances by White athletes. The report makes no mention whatsoever of the long list of countries and international sporting bodies that have either refused invitations to come to South Africa to participate in some sport or other in our country or refused to allow our sportsmen and sportswomen to compete overseas. To put it no higher, the objectivity of this statement can really be discounted as the realities seem to have passed the author of the report by, although naturally they have not escaped our athletes who are out in the cold. Moreover, unfortunately for our athletes the portents are such that they cannot look forward with reasonable confidence to the point where our country can again take its rightful place in the international arena. Neither has this fact escaped the hon. the Minister. To prove this I should like to quote from a speech he made here in Cape Town in which he said—

He went on to say—

That is true.

We are very happy that the hon. the Minister has said this and we will support him in it. I say this more particularly because he said that he had to achieve it and not just that he wanted to achieve it. Presumably, in these circumstances, he will be more than happy to take the steps which are necessary to achieve what is common ground in this respect between him and me. There is no doubt as to the road we should follow. It is so well-lit that all can see it. It contains no dark alleys where the hon. the Minister can be stalked by the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. the Minister will continue to be stalked and haunted by that hon. member and will not sleep well at night until he accepts the fact that merit should be the sole criterion for selection at all levels of sport. To this end he must abandon the delusion which was embodied in the statement which he made when talking about the sporting isolation of our country earlier during this session of Parliament when he said—I think this is in direct contrast to what the hon. member for Fauresmith had to say—that it had nothing to do with the Nationalist Party.

Ha, ha!

It has everything to do with the Nationalist Party and the policy of that party. If the hon. the Minister believes it has not, he must really have been haunted into cuckooland because he himself said later in that same speech—

And here comes the lulu—

That is neither more nor less than the policy created by this Government which it is attempting to push through and to coerce all of us to accept. On occasions that coercion has reached a pitch where facilities are denied to those who differ from the policy of this Government.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have no time. Even the hon. the Minister was a trifle embarrassed, because he then used a series of misleading statements and false analogies to justify or to try to prove that that statement meant that we were no different from anywhere else. He said it had got his point across to important people overseas. For instance, he said—

There is no argument with that. He also said—

Then comes the short sentence—

The hon. the Minister went on to use as analogies on the basis of his experience at Oxford that clubs should not be prescribed to as to whom they admit as playing members. He then went on to quote—again, as I hope to show, in a mistaken way—the example of rugby in the United Kingdom, and he mentioned the Lions, the Barbarians and the concept of invitation sides. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Johannesburg West is not present as I wanted to put certain questions to him. I was hoping that he would correct me if I am wrong because he played rugby in nearly as many countries, if not more, than I did. However, nowhere in my experience, at either Oxford or Cambridge, at any level of club, county, province or country—I am speaking about playing levels—has there ever been any trouble in the United Kingdom or in New Zealand or in France when a position was filled by the person who most merited it, provided that all the aspirants were given an adequate chance to show their mettle. Obviously, however, opinions may differ as to who the best person is at any particular point, but there was no argument that merit, in the eyes of all the judges, was the criterion for selection. The hon. member for Johannesburg West will know that Maoris play for clubs and provinces as well as for their country in the regular and normal way. It is only for one match against touring sides that they are picked as a Maori XV. The hon. member will also know that all those who go to Oxford, whether they are British, White or Black South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders or Black or White Americans play their sport together both at college and at university level, and that the same applies in club and country rugby. Finally, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister chose to allude to the fact—I find this difficult to take—when he was talking about the home rugby unions that there was even a time when they fought wars against one another—I refer to the four nations, namely England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland—the hon. member for Johannesburg West will also know that it is common practice to choose club and country sides in the United Kingdom on the basis of merit and not nationality, real or imaginary. The fact that these countries still play separately against each other is due to the simple fact that at the time when they started there was actually nobody else to play against, and this tradition, once established, is simply broken on occasion to play the South Africans or the New Zealanders. The hon. the Minister also talks about the Barbarians. Sir, the Barbarians in this context are totally irrelevant. That club throughout its history— the hon. the Minister is well aware of it, and certainly the hon. member for Johannesburg West is well aware of it—has existed to play rugby primarily at Easter in Waives, purely for the sake of the game, and each of these teams is simply chosen and invited for that purpose and on that basis. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North tried to show us how we should organize sport in South Africa, and he quoted Great Britain to us as an example. To me it is very strange that that hon. member, after he had played rugby for Great Britain, chose to come and live in South Africa under a National Government. Sir, I shall try to come back to the hon. member for Johannesburg North in due course, but I should like to react to a statement which the hon. member for Green Point made here, in respect of the sports magazine, Top Sport, the publication of which commenced recently. He made very nasty remarks in respect of this sports magazine. I want to tell the hon. member that representations were received over the years from sports organizers and sportsmen themselves, from physical educationalists, from the reading public interested in sport and from people who are interested in the physical welfare of South Africa, and that these felt that there was a great need for the introduction of a sports magazine of this nature. Sir, I and various other speakers in this House, advocated on various occasions the introduction of a sports magazine of this nature, one which not only meets the needs of the sports reader, but one which emphasizes the importance of sport and physical education, which offers encouragement to every sportsman and woman, and which can be of use to every coach and sports administrator. It is a magazine which can make a contribution towards making our nation a nation of participants instead of a nation of spectators, so as to build a healthy, strong and prepared nation here on the southern tip of Africa, to accept the challenges of the future. Sir, I want to make the statement here that we now have a sports magazine of this kind in Top Sport. Sir, it is because the Department of Sport and Recreation subsidizes this magazine via the Department of Youth and Sport and because Nasionale Tydskrifte were appointed as publishers of this sports magazine, that the hon. member for Green Point expressed tremendous criticism on this magazine today.

He has not read the magazine.

Sir, I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department on behalf of all coaches, all sport lovers and administrators, physical educationalists and all bodies who are interested in the physical condition of our nation, for their contribution to the establishment of this sports magazine Top Sport. I am grateful for the fact that the tender for launching this sports magazine was awarded to Nasionale Tydskrifte, because Nasionale Tydskrifte could offer the services of someone who is exceptionally competent and extremely well equipped for this specific job. Personally, I think that no more suitable person than Mr. Louis Wessels, the editor of Top Sport, could be found for the introduction of this sports magazine. Louis Wessels is a professional. He gained his degree in physical education, and he has many, many years of experience of journalism. He was a good sportsman himself and could wield a boxing glove just as deftly as he does a pen today. As I know Mr. Louis Wessels—and I have known him for many years—he will make Top Sport a magazine which will meet the needs of our sport lovers, coaches, administrators, scientific sport researchers and participants. Sir, J also viewed the first edition, of Top Sport critically. However, I did not try to make political capital, as the hon. member for Green Point did here today. I spoke to the editor and tried to keep myself informed about the aims of the editorial staff of Top Sport. Having spoken to the editor, I am convinced that it is the ideal of the editorial staff of Top Sport not only to help produce sportsmen of world standards, through their scientific contributions, but also to help build a fit, healthy, strong and prepared nation. They want to help in the building of a nation which is not a nation of spectators, but a nation of participants. In the leader of Top Sport, the third edition, the one which the hon. member for Green Point has not yet read —which is a pity—the editor says (translation): Top Sport only want to serve sport”. Sir, unfortunately it is true that not all talks concerning sport, serve sport. A large part of the debate on sport, here and abroad, is not intended to serve sport, but to achieve certain political aims. Certain organizations which operate under the flag of sport, are not intent on serving sport, but only on achieving certain political aims. I should like to quote from The Graphic, a Durban newspaper, of 2 May 1975—

The people who are mentioned as those who might possibly open this conference of the S.A. Council of Sport, are Peter Hain and Trevor Richards, chairman of the New Zealand “Halt all racial tours movement”. These are the people those people want to invite to their meeting.

Are you scared of him?

No, I am not scared. But immediately after this, a Black sportsman went outside South Africa’s borders to try to prevent South Africa’s sportsmen, Black and White and Brown, being isolated in the sphere of sport, and here we read in Die Volksblad (Translation): “Black Press man dismissed after breaking lance for sport in South Africa”. I quote further—

I should like to read for you what Mr. Sehume said with reference to his dismissal because he had tried to break a lance for South Africa’s participation in international sport. I quote from Die Volksblad on 15 May. 1975 (translation)—

He went on to say—

Then Mr. Percy Qoboza, the editor of The World, addressed a meeting of Young Progressives in Johannesburg. I want to quote to you from Die Vaderland of 15 May 1975. [Interjections] I want to quote what Mr. Qoboza said at this meeting of Young Progressives. The words are reported verbatim here. He spoke with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Sehume and an attack which had been made on him, Mr. Qoboza. He said (translation)—

These strange people, Sir, are the people who try to prevent South Africa being isolated in the sphere of sport. But he—i.e. Mr. Qoboza—went on to say that in England he had confronted one Peter Hain, the leader of the demonstrators, with allegations such as, “If you put a foot in Soweto the inhabitants will stone you”. Then Mr. Qoboza said, “That is as far from the truth as can be. The people in Soweto are great admirers of Peter Hain.” Now it would seem evident to me that Peter Hain, the non-raicial groups, the Eglins and the Suzmans may have the same object in mind in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was interested to discover that the hon. member for Kuruman is a close personal friend of the editor of Top Sport. I wonder whether the hon. member could not arrange for the other political parties in this House and perhaps the body of opinion represented by non-White sportsmen, to be given the opportunity in Top Sport, as the Nationalist Party has had, of putting their sports policies and of stating how they disagree with the Nationalists in their implementation of their racial sports policy. [Interjections.] I believe that this magazine can play a major role in telling South Africans and in telling the rest of the world that there are large bodies of people in South Africa who disagree totally with the policy of the hon. the Minister. I wonder whether that magazine will make space available also to other parties in this House, particularly since this magazine is utilizing a grant made available to it by the Government. I wonder whether the hon. member, who is a close personal friend of Mr. Wessels, could arrange this for us.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North made a passing reference in his speech to the Government’s attempts to push through its policy—and I quote his words—“by the denial of facilities to those who see it differently”. This reference arises out of two questions which were posed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North a few days ago in this House. The Minister, in replying to these questions on 6 June, confirmed that he had held a meeting earlier this year with representatives of various non-White and, I think, White rugby sporting bodies, in an effort to bring about co-operation between these bodies. We were told in the answer of the hon. the Minister that no agreement was reached at this meeting. We v/ere also told in reply to the second question that in Port Elizabeth recently permission was withdrawn for the use of a stadium by two non-White rugby unions and their affiliated clubs. The reason given by the Minister for this withdrawal of facilities was as follows—

This answer, I believe, speaks volumes. As tactfully as possible, I would like to analyse the content of this answer and the effect that it could well have on South African sport. I want to deal in the first place with the sentence in the hon. the Minister’s reply which reads as follows: “The unions concerned refused to comply with policy requirements regarding affiliation.” So, Mr. Chairman, we now have the admission that the Government has a distinct policy, a laid-down rule, a rule in terms of which sporting affiliation of non-White sporting bodies in urban areas is affected, a policy which clearly, in the circumstances as enunciated in the answer, overrides the individual desires of at least some of the sporting bodies concerned. Despite, therefore, all the protestations to the contrary, interference in the administration of sport is a fact of life and sportsmen, especially non-White sportsmen, are not their own masters in the way they would wish to be.

Presumably the policy of the Government is that the Black, Coloured and Indian sporting bodies are required to affiliate with or to establish a connection with the relevant White sporting bodies under the aegis or guidance of the White sporting bodies. Presumably the Kwazakhele African Rugby Union and the other union mentioned were unwilling to do this on the terms stated. Secondly, the hon. the Minister stated that the unions concerned refused to comply with the policy requirements in regard to making their plans available for the selection of national teams to play in international matches. This is another admission. It is obviously a policy requirement, though it may not be law, that non-White sporting authorities make their players available for certain national teams on certain occasions to play in certain international matches under certain terms and conditions. There would also appear to be a proviso to this, namely that if this policy is not complied with there are certain non-legislative but equally crippling sanctions which can be applied against those bodies. In other words, it is a nice, clean, sporting policy of non-interference! The final sentence of this section of the hon. the Minister’s reply was; “The attitude is not considered to be in the best interests of Bantu rugby.” I say that this is the most illuminating sentence of all. Considered by whom? Who is it who is making these decisions as to what is in the best interests of Bantu rugby? Is it the White unions? No, I think not. Is it the Bantu unions? Most certainly not. Is it the Government? I think now we are getting closer to the mark. So we have the situation where it is the Government and the Government alone which makes the final decisions as to what is in the best interests of the various sporting authorities. My contact with various sportsmen throughout South African tells me that this attitude is nothing short of aggressive, naked paternalism, coercive paternalism …

Blackmail.

Blackmail, as the hon. member says. It is unacceptable to the people of South Africa. What is the weapon which is being used in this case? It is the denial by the local authority or by the administration board concerned of the facilities which they control to the non-complying sporting authorities. This is wrong.

I wish to make one other point. The debate which is raging among Coloured, Indian and Black people in South Africa, not necessarily only sportsmen, is whether to make use of the facilities offered by this Government and thus by working under the system of separate development, to obtain certain advantages and advancement, or whether to set their face against the Government’s policy and to go it alone. This delemma we have seen manifested in the Coloured Representatives Council, in the development of the urban Bantu councils, in the sporting sphere and in many other spheres.

In the homelands too.

Yes, in the development of the homelands as well. Widely differing views are held within the ranks of all the sportsmen concerned although I may say that all non-White sporting bodies and many White sporting bodies are as one in striving for multi-racial sport and for merit selection. I must say that I agree with them. I would not, as the Government does, interfere in the decisions of these sportsmen, but I do believe that we should have an opinion and a view. It is not good enough to have no fixed opinion and to avoid problems by saying that we should leave the matter to sports administrators. My view is that sporting contact between the races at all levels, as also merit selection, will do much to uplift non-White sporting prowess in South Africa, and will do even more to ease tensions and to build up friendships which will yet be vital to all of us in South Africa. To apply sanctions by refusing facilities to sportsmen is to do what we decry in the rest of the world and to push away from us those whom we wish to draw nearer. My plea is for understanding and tolerance of opposition to the policy of the hon. the Minister and to avoid confrontation which is inherent in the answer given to a question a few days ago.

Mr. Chairman, the more the National Party’s sports policy develops, the clearer it becomes to us that the Opposition is becoming more and more confused. I can well understand the hon. members on the opposite side being confused about the success of the National Party’s sports policy. If one analyses the statement of the hon. member for Green Point, viz. that they want to leave sport in the hands of the sport administrators, any simple school-child can see what the absurd implications of that are. Just imagine the sports administrators of the different sports deciding what has to be done! They do not even agree among themselves. Obviously they are going to differ radically from one another from provice to province. The discord which would arise amongst sportsmen and sports administrators if things were to be left in their hands, would simply lead to a state of chaos which we should not be able to tolerate. I think they should just exercise some patience. Then they will see that the National Party’s sports policy, as it develops, will not only create a basis for good relations between White and non-White, but will also offer the opportunity to every sportsman, whether as a member of a team or as an individual, to progress to the top rung in his sport.

However, I want to confine myself today to another matter which does not have anything to do with the political side of sport. I want to say a few words about something which lies close to my heart, viz. professional wrestling. Professional wrestling in South Africa is controlled by the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, No. 39 of 1954, and by the regulations contained in Government Notice R424 of 22 March 1963. The problem I have with professional wrestling is that although it is dealt with and classified as a sport in South Africa, essentially, in my humble opinion, it amounts to an enormous farce, at least as it is presented and dished up to the public. Since there are major financial implications when a professional sport is involved, I feel that we should take a very serious look at this matter. I telephoned a few newspaper sports editors so as to test their opinions on whether they thought professional wrestling was a sport. As a matter of interest. I want to say that one of them replied, “Everybody knows it is a great farce”. Another said in a mixture of English and Afrikaans that it was the greatest “show” on earth. Another said, “We all know that it is not a sport; we should regard it as we do a film show”. Finally, there was one who told me, “It is a form of entertainment”. The problem is that very many of us regard it as a form of entertainment and as a farce. I have a photo here which was taken during a professional wrestling match, in which a so-called grip is shown. A big wrestler, Jan Wilkens, is standing with his foot on another man’s head. He also has his opponent’s arm behind his back. Anyone who knows something about wrestling, will know that this grip is totally impossible. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Houghton will be able to hold the hon. member for Durban Point down as it is done here. I also have a photograph here of the so-called ostrich kick, which has become widely known in wrestling. In all humility, I must say to these people that it is completely impossible to kick someone, who wants to block the kick, with the so-called ostrich kick. The only ostrich kick which struck home, was the 4848 ostrich kick with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn gave the United Party in the last election. If one looks at the rules which control wrestling, as contained in Government Notice No. 424 of 1963, we find a few rules which are very interesting. For example, it is stipulated that only wrestlers of outstanding skill are allowed to wrestle in masks. Another rule stipulates that it constitutes a foul for a wrestler to put his fingers in his opponent’s mouth, nostrils, and ears. It is also a foul to grab only one toe or one finger of an opponent. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that although she gave the hon. member for Yeoville only one finger, I am absolutely convinced that he will take the whole hand, because he is not a professional wrestler. Championships are dealt with in these same rules. The rules state, “A title holder retains his title until he is beaten at a championship tournament”. There is also mention of weight and the basis on which points are awarded in a professional wrestling match. Two points are awarded to the most aggressive wrestler; two points to the most scientific wrestler; two points to the wrestler who wrestles cleanly, in other words, who is not guilty of foul wrestling; and one point to the wrestler who provides the best and most attractive display throughout. The SABC also gives the results of professional wrestling matches in its news bulletins as though real fights had taken place. The newspapers also present these as though they were real competitions. In the light of the realities which most of us accept, I am obliged to say that we should look at the competition element of professional wrestling. The SABC broadcasted a cricket match on 8 March this year. Edwell van Aarde who broadcasted with Gerard Viviers, asked him what would happen that night in the world championship wrestling match between Jan Wilkens and his opponent. Gert Viviers answered that it would depend on what they had arranged that afternoon. On the following Wednesday, 11 March, an interview was held with Mr. Bull Hefer in the Monitor Programme, in which Gerard Viviers asked him, “Oom Bull, is professional wrestling a farce?” However, Oom Bull gave no clear answer to this question. Last year these professional wrestling matches brought in an amount of R138 882 in the Transvaal alone. R7 000 was set aside for the National Wrestling Control Board’s expenses. One and a half per cent of this amount, viz. R1 060, was set aside for the Wrestlers’ Aid Fund. There is a large group of our people, especially in the rural areas, who believe that these wrestling matches are competitions. Big money is involved, and these people pay for it. I want to ask the Minister seriously whether he would not be prepared to amend the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, as well as the regulations in connection with professional wrestling, so as to substitute the word “show-wrestling” for the word “wrestling” throughout. I believe that many people go to watch this sort of wrestling as a form of entertainment. However, where the public is charged money, the public must not be left under the impression …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I only have another half a minute at my disposal. I really do think that we bring discredit on our sport by regarding something which is really a farce and a form of entertainment as a sport. I concede that the people like to watch it, and attend such matches in their thousands. People enjoy it and women even throw their shoes onto the mat. I should rather not mention all the things which are thrown onto the mat by people. It is entertainment, and people want it. I believe that if we only change the definition in the regulations and in the Act by substituting the word “show-wrestling” for the word “wrestling”, we shall protect that section of the population that really believes that it is competition and also pays to watch the competition, because they will know that what they are watching is, in fact, only a display.

Mr. Chairman, I have inspected Jan Wilkens on more than one occasion and I should like to fight him, whether it be a “show” or not. In my opinion, the point is that this is professional wrestling. A profession is a job, and if it is his job to entertain people, and he makes money out of it, then I have no fault to find with what he calls that profession of his.

This history of sport over the past 3 000 years is so interesting, so edifying and often so dramatic that one can wax almost as lyrical about it as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Carletonville do about oil and mining. Looking at the history of sport over 3 000 years, we find that it has its roots in ancient Greece. We can follow the line of sport to the period when it acquired a more religious character, a development which gave rise to the Pan-Hellenic Games in the small town of Olympia from the year 776 b.c.; from there we can follow the line to that very well-known figure Plato, who was a well-known fighter at the Olympic Games—in fact, his name derives from the fact that he had broad shoulders; we can follow this interesting line of the history of sport to the Isthmian Games, where Paul earned money by making tents for the visitors, and that is where the expressions Paul uses in the Bible come from, viz. those which refer to a fight which is fought and won and a race which has to be run. It is very interesting history. We can also follow this line of history to where the Olympic Games and sport in general suffered a grievous blow when professionalism, immorality and bribery became involved with sport in earlier centuries. Then, too, there was the more serious blow dealt to sport at the time of the bloodthirsty gladiatorial games in the Roman period when Christian and heathen had to fight each other in view of thousands of bloodthirsty spectators. The situation today and in more recent history proves that sport has recovered from those blows in an exemplary way. In the year 1896 only 13 countries took part in the Olympic Games; and in the year 1960 the number of countries participating was already 84. There are probably more than 100 now. According to statistics, more than 500 million people take an active part in sport today, and the spectators’ enthusiasm is shared by literally billions of people. Reference has already been made to the fact that politics is beginning to play a progressively more important role in world sport and that today, sport is one of the most effective political weapons in the world. But scientists also say, and rightly so, that no state has ever become a political force in the world so quickly as has been done through sport. It is as a result of that very factor that we are now beginning to see the rot setting in.

Basically, sport ought to be about health, about the welfare of man. For example, there is physical and mental health. I think Prof. Hannes Botha puts the position very well in this study I have before me—Sport in Perspektief—from which I quote as follows (translation)—

He deals with this inactivity and shows what an adverse effect it has on the productivity, health resistance and capacity for work of a people, and continues (translation)—

He concludes the first chapter of the article by stating (translation)—

He concludes by stating (translation)—

Specifically on the basis of this vital aspect of sport, viz. health, I want to make two appeals to the hon. the Minister today. In the first place, I want to plead for more sports research and more financial assistance for sports research and in the second place I want to plead for the appointment of a sport doctor on the staff of the Department of Sport and Recreation and in addition, for the encouragement of the training of sport doctors at our universities. Sports research is dealt with more fully on pages 28 and 29 of the annual report, which I do not want to go into any further at this point. I could just say by way of summary that over the past two years, Parliament has voted almost half a million rand for sports research. At the moment there are 32 different research projects under way at our various universities and research laboratories, all of which are set out here. Although we can learn a great deal from the sports research, of other countries and other parts of the world, one cannot apply the results of that sports research here in an un-adapted form, since circumstances often differ vastly. Hon. members will understand that a scrum, a hot rugby oven at Loftus Versfeld, is surely entirely different to an ice hockey competition in snow-covered Innsbruck. We, too, have achieved success in sport research. I just briefly want to mention one example, viz. John Van Reenen’s world record in the discus event. This is, in fact, the direct result of research carried out by the University of Stellenbosch concerning the optimum angle at which a discus should leave the hand of the thrower. The importance of sports research is emphasized when we look at some of the subjects mentioned on page 29 of the annual report. We see the following—

Under “Human Sciences Laboratory” we see the following-

1. (a) Determining aptitude requirements for long distance athletes, R7 000, and
2. (b) the prevention of heat exhaustion during endurance exercises by regulating temperature.

We see that sports health research and mining are close linked as well.

As far as the sport doctor is concerned, there are two very interesting and illuminating articles, one by Dr. Koos van Zyl and the other by a Dr. S. P. Roy, in the fourth annual newsletter issued in 1974 by the Department of Physical Education at the University of Stellenbosch. They deal with this very subject, viz. sport doctors. In these articles it is very clearly stated, firstly that a sport doctor is essential to the research programmes of the medical faculties of the universities, namely physiology, prevention of injuries, improvement of apparatus and so on. In the second instance they are essential as advisers in regard to sporting injuries, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation after injuries. Thirdly, the role of the sport doctor includes lecturing programmes with the aim of education and training of other doctors —a vital aspect—coaches, teachers and umpires, in sports medicine and sports hygiene.

We can put it like this: basically, what this amounts to is that man’s spiritual and physical health is what sport is basically all about. We are already doing a great deal in this country, but owing to the important aspect of our national set-up and the enormous expansion of sport throughout the world, as I have indicated, in the first place we cannot do without the sport doctor, and in the second place we cannot continue to spend as little on sports research as we are at the moment. That is why I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to these two matters. I have a high regard for the capable hon. Minister and for what he has already done and I want to thank him for what he is doing. The sportsmen, too, thank him for this, and it is because we know that he is doing well that We are asking for more.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp spoke of the history of sport. I do not think there is any difference between modern sport and sport in Roman times. In those days they threw the Christians to the lions; today we throw the Springboks to the Lions. [Interjections.]

†I am not going to speak about politics in sport. I am afraid that I shall have to speak about the £. s. d. of sport. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the speech he made in the Senate after the near dóbacle at Hartleyvale in April when he said he would announce plans for providing better facilities for sport stadiums as soon as the feasibility study had been completed. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us whether this feasibility study has been completed and, if so, what has been decided because I feel that most local authorities are aware of the problems in regard to sports stadia and amenities. However, the cost is something they cannot cope with. As we know the costs of such places are astronomical. It is quite beyond most local authorities excepting, perhaps, those of the big cities. If the assistance they receive is on the lines of that which has been given during the past three years they cannot expect to do very much. According to the information on page six of the report, only ten local authorities were assisted in the year 1974-’75 and the total assistance amounted to about R200 000. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Green Point on 21 March 1975 the hon. the Minister said that for the year 1975-’76, 13 more local authorities will be assisted to the tune of R200 000. We are very grateful for the increase announced by the hon. the Minister and approved by the Treasury. This means that the grants have doubled; they have been raised from one-third to two-thirds of the total cost of a project to a maximum of R50 000. This is very much appreciated. However, if we are only going to spend R200 000 in assisting local authorities each year it means that we are not going to achieve very much. As it is, I see that of the ten local authorities, three received grants last year and the previous year which brings them up to their full total. I submit that this amount of R200 000 which the hon. the Minister has available for local authorities is quite inadequate.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us how he determines the priorities for awarding the money. Is there a method of grading on merit as to which local authority should get assistance before others do or as to which should wait? In the comments in this report it is stated that some of the local authorities have a low merit rating. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would explain how this merit rating is arrived at. Does he mean that the less affluent local authorities are going to receive more assistance than the wealthier or more developed local authorities or, vice versa, that the wealthier local authorities are going to receive the lion’s share?

Natal will receive nothing.

Natal has already received something, thank you. The grants-in-aid to sporting bodies for the year 1974-’75, as furnished to the hon. member for Green Point by the hon. the Minister in his reply, No. 21 of 21 March 1975, has some puzzling aspects. These are grants-in-aid to local sports bodies. The most obvious and glaring point one comes across is that no grants have been made to any Coloured or Indian sporting bodies. I assume that these bodies are taken care of. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us whether they are. According to the report the veteran car sporting bodies receive approximately R1 000 under the heading “Administration”. We also see that blind bowlers and paraplegics get only R500 each. Surely veteran car drivers do not need financial assistance? The blind bowlers and paraplegics could probably do with a good deal more assistance than they are getting at present. I see that they get no assistance for coaching at all. We also notice that tug-of-war and water-skiing rate very high for assistance for coaching. I cannot imagine how much coaching is done in tug-of-war, but this sport gets the same for coaching as in the case of football and badminton where there are far more participants. To me this does not seem logical but I am sure the hon. the Minister has a logical explanation.

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was referring to some of the statements made by the hon. the Minister. There was the reply of the hon. the Minister to a question put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North on 16 May, when the hon. member asked him about the small-boat harbours on the Natal and Cape coasts. The hon. the Minister mentioned two, Zinkwazi and Munster, amongst others, that afforded accommodation for pleasure craft on the Natal coast. Well, Sir, this came as a shock to me, and I am sure it was a surprise to everybody in Munster. I am glad that in the second part of the question at least the hon. the Minister said that he did not know how many pleasure craft were accommodated at Munster.

Zero.

In this report on page 18 the hon. the Minister makes mention of the question of an investigation into the question of suitable sites on the Natal and Cape coasts for pleasure craft, and he says that a committee has submitted a report to the Cabinet on this matter. One would infer from this, seeing that the hon. the Minister received this report, that Munster and Zinkwazi are mentioned as suitable sites and that he may have confused suitable sites with existing sites, but apparently this is not the case, because I put a further question to the hon. the Minister, Question No. 26, in which I asked him about Munster and he said that he had no knowledge that any investigation had been done into the question of harbours on the Natal coast. In the second part of his answer the hon. the Minister said that he would consider providing a subsidy for such a harbour, and he added—

Sir, this is a very cryptic answer—not a slippery one—and I would like to know what the hon. the Minister meant by this cryptic answer. Who must justify the need for a harbour; who must provide the necessary funds, and who must initiate the investigation? If the hon. the Minister will please tell me this in his answer, I shall be very pleased. If he will only indicate who must do these things, I am sure that we will be able to co-operate with him. The need for this harbour on the Natal coast is very urgent. It is something which the hon. the Minister of Tourism advocated in his report. Something of this sort is definitely needed, not only for pleasure craft but for tourism as well. I would welcome some assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will initiate this type of investigation.

The hon. member for South Coast who has just resumed his seat and I have one thing in common, and that is that basically we agree that the funds put at the disposal of the Department of Sport and Recreation are insufficient. However, Sir, I want to begin by conveying a few words of sincere thanks and appreciation to the Department of Sport and Recretion for the tremendous contribution made by this department to the relaxed race relations in South Africa. Our sport administrators and the department have passed safely through the minefield of international sport without there having been a single explosion. But, Sir, if we look at the budget, we see that the amount allocated to this department is only about R2 400 000, which is really small change as far as sport and recreation in South Africa are concerned. Looking, for example, at the position in Canada, where they are preparing for the Olympic Games, we see it will cost a total of R650 million to hold the Olympic Games in Canada. The most important aspect, however, is the fact that the federal Government of Canada does not contribute directly towards this R650 million. How are the funds collected? These people established something they call “an Olympic pool’’ which is based on horse-racing. The revenue from it is about R400 million per annum. They also receive an income from sponsors, stamp sales, gate-money and subsidies from the province in which it takes place. Looking at the sport of horse-racing in South Africa and in Canada, we see that there are major similarities. For example, just as is the case here in South Africa, horse-racing in Canada is regulated by legislation, and gambling is severely dealt with. In South Africa this sport is controlled by the provinces and organized by independent bodies. The same position applies in Canada. My plea is that we should create something similar to this “Olympic pool” in South Africa. Let us say that for our purposes in South Africa we will establish a sport development corporation with the same source of revenue, viz. that special horse-racing meetings be arranged in the various provinces and that a certain percentage of the profit be allocated towards the sport development corporation. We need only take a look at the totalisator revenue for the various provinces to see that the gross turnover of the totalisators in all the provinces from 1 January to 30 September 1974, a period of nine months, was an amount of R115,365 million, or an average of over R12,5 million a month. If we distribute this over a period of 12 months, we find that the average over 12 months is about R151 million. If, then, we take a percentage of the prize money, which at present represents 85% of the gross turnover— for example, just 10% of the 85% provided for the winners—this would mean that the Department of Sport and Recreation could collect an amount of R15 million per annum. If we could make it 20%, then the amount would be an astronomical R30 million or more in a single year, without costing the taxpayer or anyone else a red cent. All we do is simply reduce the prize money in the existing races on the totalisators. We could even go further and involve professional sport and allocate a certain percentage of the gate money or the money from tickets for standing room or seats on the pavilion, to such a corporation. And then we could also do something with some of these rich rugby leagues. In my opinion it is a shame that when a touring team comes here from abroad and we want to go and watch rugby, we have to pay R4-50 to sit on the railway pavilion at Newlands. If one lives far from the Peninsula, it costs one about R9 to watch rugby at Newlands with one’s wife, and that does not include what it costs one to get there, and, after all, when one gets there one feels like a cup of coffee or a meat pie, because that is part of the rugby.

You get something in the Transvaal.

No, there you get even less than nothing. There is another reason for my wanting to impose this sport levy on professional sport. Amateur sport is the source of supply of Professional sport. The best of our youth who reach the top as amateur sportsmen and women eventually enter the ranks of the professionals. It is true that the administrators of amateur sport voluntarily, and at great expense, coach and polish men and women to compete on the provincial and international level, but subsequently amateur sport loses many of these top sportsmen to professional sport. I fear that professional sport, in its turn, gives very little back to amateur sport. There is another reason for its being important that we should establish such a corporation. I think it is high time that we should place all the sporting activities of the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu under one central Department of Sport Development for the development of sport among all races in South Africa.

Now you are coming right—good old United Party policy!

Were we to do that, we should be in a position to allow sport, in a broad sense, to develop. At present South Africa is divided into eleven different sporting regions. In my opinion, the headquarters of each of these regions should have a large sporting complex at which competitive sport can be practised and at which coaching courses for every type of sport could be offered. The child from the platteland must be able to go there to undergo specialized training from men and women employed on a full-time basis by the Department of Sport Development. In order to make all these things possible, South Africa needs a sport and recreation development corporation. I believe that the child who takes part in sport is the man or woman who will be able tomorrow to play his or her part in society to the full. We have the material and the potential to be one of the greatest sporting countries in the world, and nowadays sport is of considerable political significance in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Kimberley South advocating the establishment of a sport and recreation corporation in South Africa. According to him, it would have to be a multi-racial corporation. I do not want to enter that field, but I shall be listening very attentively to the reply of the hon. the Minister, as well as to the reaction of certain other hon. members on the opposite side, to the hon. member’s plea.

This afternoon there was also another interesting sound which we heard from the mouth of the chief spokesman on Government side, the hon. member for Fauresmith. He thanked the hon. the Minister for and congratulated him on the task he was performing with so much distinction then he said everybody was overjoyed at “the exceptional spirit at Newlands last Saturday”. I found it remarkable that very few speakers opposite reacted to this; there were only a few “hear, hears”, little applause and no other speaker on the opposite side has congratulated him as yet on that contribution which he made to the debate.

What about the hon. member for Waterberg?

I shall listen to the hon. member for Waterberg, as well as other hon. members opposite, to learn what their reaction is to the two suggestions which came from the hon. member for Kimberley South and from the hon. member for Fauresmith.

†Not long ago I asked the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation if it was possible for him and his department to take over the responsibility of building small-boat or pleasure-boat harbours. The sport types which make use of such harbours are growing in South Africa by leaps and bounds.

As hon. members will know, we have a situation in South Africa where the main commercial harbours are built by the S.A. Railways and Harbours, whereas fishing harbours fall under the Department of Industries, which in turn falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Till now nobody was in charge of the provision of small boat harbours. When I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport under the Transport Vote, he said that there would shortly be an important announcement by the Minister of Sport and Recreation about the building of a harbour at Grainger Bay. I want to deal specifically with Grainger Bay this evening. I want to urge the hon. the Minister that if he is to build a sport harbour at Grainger Bay, he must not think in terms of money. He must think big and build nothing small. He must provide facilities which are worthy of South Africa and the reputation which we are enjoying in the aquatic sports world of today. I believe, and I have reason for saying this, in that I have had discussions with some of the people responsible for the extensions to the Cape Town harbour, that a harbour could be built which would embrace the present harbour of the General Botha Academy and would extend right up to the old breakwater. If that were to be done, it could act as the headquarters for the Rio race, which seems to be a biannual event, and a yacht basin could be built there because it is only going to be a matter of time before the yacht harbour in Cape Town docks has to be closed down and another yacht harbour of sufficient magnitude has to be built. In addition to that it could accommodate a very popular sport with which I am not particularly enamoured because of the noise, and that is power-boating. Nevertheless the power-boaters are a growing sporting fraternity and therefore I think of a complex which will extend from General Botha to the breakwater, and would embody facilities for the Rio race, for a new yacht basin and for the power-boats. When I think in these terms, I think also of the provision of residential accommodation for visitors to South Africa. If one travels in Europe and other parts of the world one finds many marinas and many harbours where accommodation is provided not only for the boats, but also for the maritime fraternity which use those boats, people who stay for long periods in the various marinas and harbours of the world. Therefore attention will have to be given to residential accommodation. I think attention could also be given to the provision of floating quays for deep-sea yachts and a club house for all the people who will use this complex. So, I urge the hon. the Minister to give urgent and priority attention to the building of this facility, which will be the first of its type built by his department. I cannot think of one harbour along our coastline where provision is made exclusively for pleasure craft or yachts of any kind. Our coastline extends for something like 3 000 miles, but I would say that in this type of development we must be at least 50 years behind the maritime countries in the rest of the world. We have miles of coastline without any harbours and without any launching sites whatsoever. If the hon. the Minister wants to make a name for himself in this particular sphere, I can think of nothing better to embark on than this project which I urge him to embark on.

I want to move on to the provision of small boat harbours in another area in the Peninsula. My arguments apply also to other parts of South Africa where there are no small boat harbours and where there is no accommodation for small pleasure craft. About three or four years ago the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs agreed to place on the Estimates—indeed the figure still appears on the Estimates—a sum of R1½ million for extensions to the Kalk Bay harbour. For various reasons, inter alia, the non-co-operation of the Cape Town municipality in providing under-the-rail access or over-the-rail access, this project has never got off the ground, the money is still available and I ask the hon. the Minister to look at the possibility of taking over that money which has been voted by Parliament for the provision of extensions to the Kalk Bay harbour from the Minister of Economic Affairs. We have also had the situation recently where the developers of the Marina Da Gama at Muizenberg have not seen their way clear to building the deep-sea harbour that they promised both in their prospectus and subsequently to owners of property in that area. I might tell the hon. the Minister now that this is a matter which will be raised in this House in future, but sufficient be it for me to say that this marina is apparently not going to include a deep-sea harbour and that is all the more reason why the hon. the Minister should build the extensions to the Kalk Bay harbour. The sooner it is done the better. When I talk about the building of extensions to the Kalk Bay harbour, I envisage that the development there will accommodate what I would call motor-boats, for want of a better description. I am not thinking of the development of Kalk Bay as a yachting harbour as there is not sufficient wind, but I have another proposal which I should like to make in that connection. Certainly, it could become the headquarters of the S.A. Marlin and Tuna Club, and international fishing competitions could be staged from the Kalk Bay harbour as it is not far from the famous fishing-grounds off Cape Point. I believe it would be well within the ability of the deepsea fishing-craft to be able to moor there. At the moment there must be accommodation for about 130 small fishing boats, but with the extension to the harbour it will be possible to accommodate another 200 boats. I should like to commend that project to him.

Then I want to raise the question of slipping facilities. False Bay which after all should be the playground of the angling fraternity of South Africa, has only one slip facility, and that is the one at Buffels Bay in the Cape Point Nature Reserve. That nature reserve closes at 6 o’clock in the evening and, I think, opens at 7 o’clock in the morning. What is more, it is completely inadequate, it is to the credit of the South African Skiboat Club which has a headquarters at Rumbly Bay that, with limited funds, it has at least made efforts to provide mooring accommodation for its small fleet of boats. Nevertheless the facilities are inadequate and they are having trouble with tides and currents Consequently I would ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the representations that I know are being made to him by that body for assistance in building a breakwater to accommodate those small craft.

I move on to the yachting fraternity. Traditionally the yachts of the False Bay Yacht Club have been moored in the lee of the Simonstown Dockyard. As the hon. the Minister of Defence will know, the dockyard is being extended and it is only a matter of time—indeed, I believe the time is imminent—before those yachts will have to be moved further down the beach towards Glencairn to unsuitable anchorages.

I would suggest that the hon. the Minister, having appointed a departmental committee to go into matters such as these, should give serious consideration to building a yachting harbour as such in the lee of the area known as Miller’s Point. If this were to be done, one would have the motor boa’s and the unny fleet accommodated at Kalk Bay, as well as facilities in the Cape Point Nature Reserve and, I hope, in other parts of False Bay where slipping facilities could easily be created, and also a yachting complex at Miller’s Point. The hon. the Minister has established this committee. On page 18 of the department’s report mention is made of its activities and the terms of reference of this committee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement tonight, if possible, in connection with Grainger Bay and also in connection with the other facilities for which I have pleaded in the False Bay area.

Mr. Chairman, fortunately it is unnecessary for me to cross swords with the hon. member for Simonstown. For a change, I think, he was sailing in safe waters. I hope that his bank will continue to voyage as safely in future. In my opinion he expressed positive ideas here about sailing craft, other pleasure craft and harbour facilities for those types of sport. We can only express the hope that we shall find the means to give effect to that. Actually, to a certain extent it is almost a tragedy that we with our beautiful coasts, have not become more ocean-minded or taken part in these types of sport to a greater extent. The reason is probably that it takes a great deal of capital to take part in these sports, and not everyone is able to afford it.

The hon. member also referred to the hon. member for Kimberley South, who referred to a sport development corporation. I want to tell the hon. member that this corporation need not necessarily be a multiracial corporation, as he maintained.

Yes, he did say so.

If the hon. member for Kimberley South did maintain that …

Do you not agree with him?

I agree about the development corporation. I see the necessity for it, but it is only an idea which has been expressed and which therefore needs to be planned further so that the needs of all the peoples in South Africa may be met. That is the idea which the hon. member for Kimberley wanted to impress upon us here.

Support him.

I support him wholeheartedly. I have no fault to find with that. When I look back on last year’s debate and the private motion on sport we had earlier this year, I must say that the opposition we have had from the other side this afternoon and this evening, too, has been rather feeble. I think this shows us that they agree with us, and are, in fact, very grateful that this party is governing the country and handling sporting matters, in particular, very well. The Opposition again adopted the point of view that we should rather leave sport in the hands of the sport administrators. That is exactly what we are doing. We are not interfering with the activities of sport administrators. They have every opportunity to plan, develop, expand and put life into their specific type of sport, but they must do so within the framework of the policy of this Government, the policy which is being followed in the country at the moment. If they remain within the framework of that policy, no one will take their work out of their hands. We, too, have the greatest respect for the sport administrators.

This evening I should like to express a few ideas concerning the role of sport. One hears so often that sport is exaggerated. I do not want to go into this statement this evening, except to stress that sport is important to everyone, among other things, to develop one’s character, and that competition on the sportsfield is a very good thing and very important. It is good in that it teaches us the winning attitude, but also the attitude of being able to lose. It also cultivates in us the special attitude of being able to play with others in a team and build a team together. Now, I do not want to maintain that there is no exaggeration. I believe that nowadays a substantial and sometimes indigestible bill of fare is put before one by the radio and the Press. However, it is particularly the attitude sometimes displayed by players and spectators that causes people to be uninterested in sport to a certain extent. Particularly in rugby and cricket, an attitude has developed of which we cannot approve. The incident during yesterday’s rugby trials in Bloemfontein simply cannot be condoned. Then, too, there is the attitude of spectators. In this regard we have in mind the incident last year when a spectator physically assaulted an umpire. I want to convey my thanks, too, to the crowds at Newlands last Saturday, but in the same breath I must express my disappointment at the conduct of the non-White crowds on Monday afternoon, when the SWD played against the French at Oudtshoorn. I think the time has now come for these people to realize that there are standards of conduct which one must maintain when one is attending a sports match, and that they will have to start maintaining those standards. Every spectator buys his ticket and would like to attend and watch the match under good conditions. Anyone is free to support a team, but when one sees a demonstration such as the one we had at Oudtshoorn on Monday, it is time for us to tell our Coloureds that we really expect them to behave themselves at matches of this kind.

I believe, too, that possibly there is too much emphasis on the champion and championships. The exceptionally talented individual and the personal achievement are emphasized too much today. We must have these, too; we must have the wearers of the green and gold, and I am happy that my colleague on my right, the hon. member for Johannesburg West, could have worn the green and gold, and others with him, but there must be the other teams, too, the second team and those who play in the third team. I believe that we should not allow the emphasis to fall only on champions, on champion teams and first teams, and that we should lose sight of the others. We in South Africa must guard against becoming mere spectators, with only a few people in the arena who play sport. I believe, therefore, that the task of the Department of Sport and Recreation is, in fact, presented in the wrong light and our approach to it is wrong. I believe that in the past few years we in South Africa, and we in this House, too, have made the mistake of emphasizing politics in sport, conducting long debates on politics in sport, and that we have omitted to talk about the recreation to be derived from sport. Looking at myself and my hon. colleagues, I think that all of us need this sporting exercise, and that we also need the recreation offered by sport.

The Department of Sport and Recreation performs an exceptional task in South Africa. This evening we want to pay tribute to them for having made it possible for everyone in South Africa to reach the top in the field of sport No-one in this House on the Opposition side has yet stood up and pointed out to us or given evidence of people who have not been able to reach the top and who are precluded from competing in the international sphere. The report before us reflects the wide range of activities of this department and we want to bestow the highest praise on them for that.

Since we are discussing the role and the importance of sport this evening, I want to emphasize another matter here, too, namely sport at school. We often forget the major task performed by male and female teachers when they teach our children the basic principles of sport. The spotlight falls on the coach of the Springbok team and the provincial team. However, the players in the Springbok teams and provincial teams learnt the game when they were at school. Many of these coaches have had no specific training. However, because they take an interest and show enthusiasm and a love for the game they are willing to devote many extra hours to teaching our children the game. That is why one learns with regret that it is often the case that physical education classes are so easily utilized for other activities, whereas they should be used specifically to build up our children physically. Taking into account the major task performed at our schools, it is a pity, too, that we do not always have all the facilities at our country schools. Driving through the cities, one sees that whereas the fine schools are still under construction, the tennis courts and netball fields are already laid out. I do not begrudge the schools in the cities this, but I want the children on the platteland to have this as well. The role of sport is that it develops the body and teaches discipline. I am therefore of the opinion that it is a great pity that many hon. members did not play sport when they were younger. Those who did play sport then, would not only have been able to enjoy the sport, but would also have been able to display the resultant discipline.

I want to express the hope and the confidence this evening that the Department of Sport and Recreation will carry on along this path, and I want to believe that we in South Africa will in future afford everyone the fullest opportunity to reach the highest rung in sport.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that all of us will take note of the useful hints proffered by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, when we take part in sport. The hon. member for Simonstown is clearly an authority on the subject he discussed, namely harbour facilities for the smaller craft, and I also want to congratulate him on the ideas he expressed there. I do not believe that I can find fault with any of the suggestions he made. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to that. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the little which the hon. member for South Coast had to say about it. I am sorry he is not present at the moment. He, too, spoke about harbour facilities for small craft. The hon. member for South Coast looks such a reasonable man but he really did not advance reasonable arguments this evening. I do not think he knows much about the matter. If one bears in mind that it is only recently that the hon. the Minister and his department took boating under their wing, I believe that the remarks made by the hon. member for South Coast are really unreasonable. In the past there was no government body willing to accept responsibility for harbour facilities. Natal and the Cape Province were simply unable to find the means and they simply did not see their way clear to assisting. It is true that the Cape Divisional Council provided valuable assistance. The hon. member for Simonstown is doubtless aware of that. The S.A. Railways and Habour Administration, and Fishcor, both which control the commercial harbours, were of course unable to accept responsibility for this matter either. Consequently devotees of boating are very thankful that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has now taken these sporting activities under his wing.

I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Simsontown said. We here in South Africa are privileged to have two oceans at our feet. From the Orange River to Ponto do Oro on the Mozambique border, we have a coast over 3 000 km long. One would have thought that we would be known as a nation who knew the sea and as a nation of sailors, but that is not the case. Bearing in mind this natural asset of two oceans, our people ought in fact to be able to manage a boat at sea with the greatest confidence, and skilfully defy the wind and the weather. Our youth ought really to be hurrying to queue up for admission to our Navy and our commercial fleet. Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. A major reason for our not really having a profound knowledge of the sea is the fact that our ordinary people do not have the opportunity to become intimately acquainted with the sea. The usual pattern for the thousands of holiday-goers who stream to the sea every year is to go and swim a little and look at the sea, but eventually the children land up in a play-pank eating ice cream. This is because the ordinary person, and the child, too, do not have the opportunity of having the wonderful experience of sailing on the sea in a small craft, because the facilities are lacking. Let us not try to score points by placing the blame on any local, provincial or central authority, but let us take the matter further and devise plans to rectify the matter.

The facts are that the boat owners, the owners of ski boats—these are the boats used for deep-sea angling—sailing yachts, powerboats and other pleasure crafts are increasing in number every year because, in contrast to what many people may think, this is something which is within the reach of the ordinary man. Whereas there is a growing number of craft, the facilities are becoming fewer. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Simonstown, it is a fact that in view of their own needs, the Railways can no longer accommodate these craft. This is the case in the commercial harbours, too. They can no longer accommodate pleasure craft. We are therefore faced with the grave risk of the already inadequate small harbour facilities being reduced still further within the foreseeable future. Although the hon. the Minister is being burdened with a type of sport for which there is a shortage of facilities. I can give him the assurance that he will be dealing with sportsmen of calibre. Clubs and associations have developed in South Africa under difficult circumstances, and their members dedicatedly devote their energies to this sport. There are various branches of the sport of boating and it is impossible to refer to all of them in the limited time available. For example, there are ski-boat anglers who practise their sport everywhere under the protection of the S.A. Ski-boat Angling Association. At present there are 43 clubs in South Africa and South West Africa with a total membership of about 8 000 ski-boat anglers. Over the past few years they have competed against foreign teams at the international level. They hold national championships and inter-provincial competitions every year. The steps already taken by the hon. the Minister and his department within so short a time are praiseworthy. Every ski-boat angler and sportsman who takes an active part in the sport of boating is aware that the department has already succeeded in identifying the problems and planning for the future within an exceptionally short time. On the Natal coast, too, the position is that facilities for small craft are almost non-existent. The boats of the Durban Ski-boat Club, for example, are not allowed in the Durban harbour. Nevertheless, despite the lack of facilities, in 1973 the boats of this club took 14 000 people to sea for a total period of 29 000 hours in the course of 4 000 trips. Sordwana Bay in the north will undoubtedly take the place of the world-renowned Mozambique fishing waters. There are no facilities there, either, and this is an important instance where facilities must be provided. There are so many good reasons for my requesting the hon. the Minister to ask for adequate funds to make up the vast backlog which already exists. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Eshowe will excuse me, because I am not a sailor and I do not intend following him in his line of argument. I would like to come back to the hon. the Minister. When I finished my first speech, I was talking about his allusions to what happened in rugby in Great Britain and the fact that he tried to demonstrate that there was no difference between what happens here and in Great Britain. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that certainly, as far as Great Britain is concerned, there is no element of compulsion upon players. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Johannesburg West has again left the chamber. The players may join any club which they wish to join and which will accept them. There is no basis of colour in regard to the membership of rugby clubs or in so far as the selection of teams is concerned. Furthermore, there is no element of interference by Government or by semi-Government agencies. The fact that 15 Black, White and Brown South Africans played against and beat the French touring team last Saturday, is entirely to be welcomed as a limited improvement which we hope in the future will become the rule rather than the exception. Make no mistake, it is a sign on the road towards merit selection even if the hon. member for Waterberg considers it to be in conflict with our social pattern. I would like to ask the hon. member for Sunnyside whether he is in favour of invitation sides. Will the hon. member answer yes or no?

I will reply later on.

Could I ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein West whether he is in favour of invitation sides or not? [Interjections.] As I say, I find it very surprising that the only member on the opposite side who has had any experience of international rugby, is notable only for his absence. If the hon. the Minister wants to get rid of this feeling of being haunted by his desire to take South Africa back into international sport, let him simply embrace merit and let him have done with the views of the hon. member for Sunny-side and the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] Let the hon. the Minister also ponder carefully the absence of any element of division along the lines of colour last Saturday at Newlands, as opposed to the trouble which arose during the multinational soccer match, which quite naturally and understandably tended to polarize on the grounds of colour. The only solution ultimately, whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not, will be multi-racial or integrated sport, and the arrival of that will also take us back into the comity of international sport. Sir, I was absolutely fascinated by an advertisement which appeared in The Times of London on 4 March this year. I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior is present, because he may have some knowledge of this. It is entitled: “Could the next Olympics be in Pretoria, South Africa?” Then it reads—

Does the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation believe that as of now, or as of last year, equal opportunity has existed in sport for all people of colour in South Africa?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “Yes”.

Did you expect me to say “No”?

Sir, I had some hope that the hon. the Minister would maintain a vestige of credibility, if not of honesty. Then the advertisement goes on to say, in brackets, which I find interesting—

Sir, how is that calculated? I look forward to hearing that from the hon. the Minister. Is it true, or is it false, and how is it calculated? Is he saying that that is the position in professional tournaments, which are mixed, or is he talking about the Black professional golfers in toto who play in this country and who most of the time are restricted to golf tournaments purely for Black South Africans? Sir, this is a remarkable advertisement.

May I put a question?

No, I do not have the time.

†Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us in his reply how much this advertisement costs—I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that—because as a distortion of the facts it is very good. It then goes on to say—

Then it says—

Does the hon. the Minister agree with that statement, yes or no?

[Inaudible.]

You see, Sir, we have our troubles with the hon. the Minister of Sport. Perhaps he should talk to the Deputy Minister of Information. This advertisement goes on to say—

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us the precise numbers from South Africa and the precise numbers from outside. It finally says—

Sir, it is a great question. On the very same day that presumably the Director of Information paid a great deal of money for this advertisement to be placed in The Times in London, there was an article in the same newspaper to say that a Black South African marathon runner had been threatened with arrest unless he shopped competing in a race in an attempt to compete in the Comrades Marathon. Where is the credibility of this Government? Where is the credibility of the hon. the Minister? He says that he believes that equal opportunity exists for all peoples of colour at this point in time in South Africa. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more we can say because there is such a wide gap between reality and what the other side would have us believe.

Mr. Chairman, peculiarly enough I very seldom reply to backbenchers. I like to go for frontbenchers. Sir, I should like to deal with the hon. member for Simonstown. I like that hon. member, but I am cold and stiff when he talks about the water of Simonstown and other things. You know, he is so verkramp that I get the shivers. I thought that hon. member, when he talked about pleasure harbours, was talking about submarines. I am sorry if I am wrong. But I want to come back to this hon. member, the man, I am sorry to say, who is now a South African but dislikes South Africa, its sports and its policy and its people.

Just the policy of the Government.

Wait a minute, you can justify yourself in a minute.

*The hon. member reminds me of Van der Merwe who went to the cinema. Groenewald bet Van der Merwe R5 that Buck Jones would not fall off his horse.

Was this at the races?

No, at an ordinary cinema. He said Buck Jones would not fall off his horse. Upon leaving the cinema Van der Merwe gave Groenewald his money outside and Groenewald said to him, “You see, Buck Jones did fall off his horse!” Van der Merwe replied, “Yes”. Groenewald then asked Van der Merwe, “Why did you take on my bet?” To this Van der Merwe replied. “I did not think he would fall off twice: I saw the same film yesterday”. It was impossible for me to imagine that hon. member making the same mistake twice in one debate, the mistake of attacking South Africa and its sportsmen, and being completely off the mark. I know the hon. member played for Scotland. I could not play for South Africa, because in the years when I played, we still had Springboks. Yes, at that time we still had men. But I want to tell the hon. member this: Scotland and England and Wales and Ireland had no one to play.

Yes, so he says.

We have nobody to play against because you and your associates are trying to keep us out of the sports world, so we play the Xhosas and the Zulus and the Vendas and the other Bantu nations. Is there anything wrong with that? You cannot do better than that. You are trying to keep us out of the sports world. The hon. member tells us, no they do not discriminate against people, but you blackball them. I want to ask the hon. member whether he would advocate that the Rand Club in Johannesburg should allow all people, everybody in South Africa, to be accepted?

Yes.

All right. The next one is the Country Club in Johannesburg.

I am not a member.

You are not a member? I thought there was something wrong. You see, the Progs say we do not differentiate and we do not discriminate.

Can I become a member of the Broederbond?

Yes, but then you shall have to mend your ways. However, I want to return to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. In the game of rugby or in the field of sport generally, a man has only a chance while he is between the ages of 15 and 35.

Black or White?

Black and White and even those people whom the hon. members are trying to prevent entering Kelvin Grove … [Interjections.] … and the swimming pool in Sea Point. A person has only a period of 20 years in which he can really partake in sport, but what those hon. members are trying to do time and again is to stop us from getting back into the Olympic Games.

It is actually the opposite.

We shall deal with the hon. member for Parktown some other time. I want to point out that a person only has a few years during which he can partake in sport, but the hon. members are now taking away from Black and White and the people not in Kelvin Grove the right to participate.

There is only one body who is trying to do that, and that is the Government.

The hon. the Minister is trying to do everything possible to get us back into the Olympic Games. What do the hon. members do? They humiliate him. They have the audacity to say: “Is this the Minister; is this our Minister?” How many problems did the hon. the Minister have abroad? The hon. members do not face such problems. [Interjections.]

Order.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton must please stay out of sport.

Why?

Because we do not want you to spoil it.

I shall take you on for a game of golf.

I shall take you on!

*I want to talk seriously to the hon. members. They should not try and stop us from going back to the Olympic Games.

Mr. Chairman, I told hon. members opposite earlier this evening, and I want to repeat it now—I address these remarks in particular to the hon. member for Johannesburg North—that they really should not be so naïve as to think that if we were to throw open everything, and everyone were to play together, South Africa would be welcomed everywhere, and everyone throughout the world would fall upon our necks.

You are right, of course, because what about Rhodesia?

The hon. members must please not be so naïve. The hon. members state that matters should be left in the hands of the sport administrators. Sir, the Olympic Games are in the hands of the sport administrators. The International Olympic Committee, the sport administrators, admitted South Africa to the Olympic Games in Mexico, but what did the Government of Mexico say then? [Interjections.] Are hon. members forgetting that time and again, repeatedly, decisions to the effect that South Africa is to be excluded from all sport are taken by the U.N.? Such decisions are implemented by member states of the UN. I could mention innumerable examples. As far as cricket is concerned, the Australian cricketers wanted to come and play cricket here, and Mr. Wallace wanted to go to Australia to put South Africa’s case. What happened?

You started that.

He was refused a visa [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member tell us who banned D’Oliviera?

I am glad the hon. member asked that question.

*D’01iviera was not admitted because the Government and the politicians of England interfered very specifically in his selection.

That is nonsense.

He was selected by politicians. Another member was chosen in his place, but politicians compelled him to stand back so that D’Oliviera could be selected for purely political reasons.

That is untrue.

Must that estimable hon. member for Griqualand East sit making such a racket all evening?

Order! I think hon. members should curb their enthusiasm in regard to this matter.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to a question. I want to refer to another matter and tell hon. members why we were excluded from participating in the Olympic Games. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, and his friend sitting diagonally behind him, the hon. member for Sandton, initiated the story this evening and took it to extremes when they asked what the Government was doing. They said that those people who did not want to play along with the Government’s policy were being banished from the playing fields. That is the story the hon. members want to tell the world. It is devoid of all truth. Those playing fields are not in the hands of the Government; they are not in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration, but in the hands of the Bantu Administration Boards, which are autonomous bodies.

Come on! What rubbish!

All right, I shall come to it.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Sandton must not wave his arms at me. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that home unions still played as home unions, because to begin with they played alone. Now we have the position that the Bantu Rugby Board, or rather, the South African Rugby Board, the S.A.A.R.B., was the first of the group. Now there has been one offshoot after the other. At the moment there is the Kwazakele Group, the Kwaru Group in Grahamstown and the Western Province Rugby Union in Cape Town. Must we now put rugby fields at the disposal of each of these groups so that they can play as they want to? Must we give a field to each new group which branches off, bearing in mind that there is already a shortage of fields? I admit that there is a shortage of sports fields. In fact, I freely admitted this to the hon. member for Green Point when I said that I agreed with him that there were too few fields and that we should provide for more. Let us not talk about it, but let us refrain from telling the world stories for political gain. The blow struck by the hon. members, was a foul blow aimed at South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the hon. member for Fauresmith in a few moments. Before I start to deal with the Government I want to deal briefly with my friends, the Reformed-Progressive alliance or the Progressive-Reformists—I am not sure exactly what they are. Tonight we have had for the first time a statement of policy from my friend, the hon. member for Sandton, in regard to their attitude towards sport in this country. It is quite obvious that he has changed his principles since he has left my party. When he left my party there was no difference in principle at all, but tonight he tells us that they are in favour of merit selection. So are we and we have said so all along, but where we differ. …

Since when?

The hon. member for Houghton must not ask “Since when?”, because she knows when.

Since last year?

I must say that where we differ is that the hon. member for Sandton says we cannot leave this in the hands of the sports administrators. It is a complete vote of no confidence in the sport administrators of South Africa. He also gives them notice that, like the National Party, he and the Progressives will force sport administrators to follow the policy of his party, if ever they come into power. I want to say that we have said all along that we trust the sports administrators and will entrust to them the administration of sporting matters in this country within the demands of society.

I want to deal tonight particularly with the whole question of national and international sport. The hon. member for Fauresmith twice got up and talked about this matter. He referred to the French rugby players playing against Black and Coloured teams and said that the Government are building up nationalism. That is the very thing we have against them, and so have the sports administrators and the rest of the world. Will he never learn? He went further and said that Black and Coloured unions must come to terms among themselves because there are opposition organizations and persons who are propagating division. He said that they must achieve unity within the Government’s policy of multi-nationalism. That is the whole point: If this Government would stop interfering in these sports administrations they would have unity. The only reason why there is disunity among the Black, the Coloured and the Indian sports organizations in this country today is that this Government has interefered. A further answer to the hon. member for Fauresmith is that the reason why we are not in the Olympic Games today is because of the interference of this Government. He said that Olympic Sports in South Africa were in the hands of the sports administrators at the time when we were thrown out of the Olympic Games. Of course they were, I concede that. However, this came after the Loskop Dam speech of Dr. Verwoerd and after the interference of this Government who refused to allow the administrators to choose teams on merit. That was why we were thrown out of the Olympic Games. It was not because it was in the hands of the administrators.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg West is very glib with his interjections, but I want to ask him why he has not participated in this debate. He has not been allowed to participate because his views are too verlig.

There are many able speakers on this side.

If there is one member on that side who is fully qualified to participate in this debate, it is that hon. member who was a Springbok captain. I am very proud to say that I supported him and was very proud of him as captain of our Springbok rugby team. Why has he not participated in this debate? The reason is that the hon. the Minister and other verkramptes on that side of the House cannot agree with him. Where is the hon. member for Waterberg? Where are the hon. members for Carletonville, Rissik and Port Natal?

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

I have no time. Where is the member for Klip River and the member for Sunnyside?

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

No, that verkrampte can talk if he is given the opportunity. All those verkramptes have not participated because of the divisions that exist in that party on this question of sport.

Let us deal with the whole question of sport at an international level. I have here the annual report of the department. Under “International participation”, we are told that only 14 of the 79 registered amateur sports in South Africa did not participate at the international level. The report specifies 50 types of sport which were participated in in this country at what is called “the international level”. One of those mentioned is athletics. I want to ask the hon. the Minister which one of the 49 teams that participated in the South African Games—I now exclude the Rhodesian team—was permitted to carry the flag of its country and was permitted to call itself a national team of that country. Not one of them was allowed to participate as a national team. They came as individuals at the invitation of our sports administrators in this country. That is what happened.

The USA was one.

The hon. the Minister includes cricket in that group. The report refers to the second International Double Wicket Competition. What international teams took part in that competition? Not one of those teams mentioned in the report competed as representatives of their country. The most amazing statement of all appears on page 25 of the report. I quote:

Sir, this team represented no country. It did not even play a South African side, merely a provincial side; yet the hon. the Minister calls the match an “Open International”! Until such time as we stop playing with words, until such time as we become honest and accept the meaning of words, we are never going to get back international sport. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn asked which sportsmen in South Africa were precluded from reaching the top in world competition. What about our athletes? Not one of them can go to the Olympic Games. Not one of them has run against a world class athlete in a world class competition. He has been able to compete against the odd world class competitor on occasions but he has never competed in a world class competition. What about our cricket team? When last did we play a truly national side, a side representing their country playing for their country against us representing our country? The hon. the Minister must now stop playing with words. I want to say further that that hon. Minister must keep his sticky claw out of our affairs in Natal. In Natal we have had a competition for individuals and for club teams of which we have been extremely proud. I now refer to the Comrades Marathon. It is a competition for individual runners and for teams representing clubs. Many people were refused admission to that competition because they were not affiliated to clubs and because they were not members of clubs affiliated to an athletic union, White and Black. However, we did have Black runners this year. But that hon. Minister sent his “handlanger”—I refer to Prof. Hannes Botha, the President of the S.A. Amateur Athletics Union—to go and interfere in our affairs. What did he do? He put tags on non-White runners reading “Xhosa” or “Zulu”. Then he said that this was Government policy. Referring to the tagging of Black runners according to ethnic groups, he said that this was the accepted sports policy since 1971 and that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Sport and Recreation and sports administrators accepted it. I want to say that what has been an individual and a club event has been totally ruined by the interference of this Minister and this Government. They tried to make this an “international” or “multinational” event, which it is not. We have had runners from many countries of the world, but not one has ever been tagged before. I believe it was an insult to every athlete who participated in that event. It was an insult perpetrated by this Government. It is because of these insults that we in this country today find ourselves to be the polecat of the world and absolutely cast aside by every decent country in the world as far as international sports competition is concerned. I am very grateful that the French rugby team is here, but apart from them, we cannot entertain a national team in this country, which will come here as a national team. We entertain groups of people who come as individuals and then this Minister claims that they represent a country after they get here. That is in fact what is happening. Let’s stop playing with words and be honest with ourselves and with the world and then we will have an opportunity to get back into international sport. We need visits by people like the Derrick Robins Cricket XI. of course we do. We need to send teams like the Steenbokke to the UK to keep our good name. However, what we need more than anything else is to get rid of this Nationalist Party and the interference which they are propagating in sport. Then we will get back into international sport.

Mr. Chairman, we have now been listening to the proverbial storm in a teacup here. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South always reminds me of an accident which is looking for somewhere to happen. Before I come back to the hon. member, I want to say that the National Party is always on the ball. The sport policy of the National Party is the right policy for South Africa in the prevailing circumstances. Despite the yapping and undermining on the part of the proverbial left and despite the undermining on the part of the contrary side, we have here a Minister of Sport and Recreation who has made a monumental contribution to the development and progress of sport in South Africa on the basis of multi-nationalism. I do not believe there is anyone else in this House who could do what he has done. The sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa whom I have spoken to, have only the greatest respect and admiration for and sense of gratitude towards our Minister of Sport and Recreation, because in spite of the difficult circumstances we are faced with, and in spite of the fact that South Africa’s cause is hindered by irresponsible speeches such as those made by members opposite, for example, the speeches made by that detribalized Scotsman sitting there, he has nevertheless made a success of the sport policy followed in South Africa. The sport policy of the National Party is right. To the hon. member who spoke until he was out of breath, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I want to say that the National Party is unanimous on this score and that every member on this side of the House supports the sport policy of the National Party. [Interjections.] I maintain that all members on this side of the House support the policy of the National Party.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who is sitting back there looking so satisfied with himself, made the statement that “The Nationalist Party policy kept us out of international sport”. If the policy of the National Party is keeping us out of international sport, have hon. members on the other side, who are so convinced of their case, looked at what certain countries of the world are demanding we do in order to be re-admitted to international sport? What their demands amount to is a demand for “one man, one vote”, a concept which is not even supported by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Their demand amounts to an abdication by the White people in South Africa. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must now tell me he is prepared to accede to that demand made by the world. The hon. member must reply now. Is the hon. member prepared to accede to that demand of one man, one vote? That is very clearly demanded of us.

Which countries demand it?

No, the hon. member must answer my question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? [Interjections.] Which country demanded that we should accept one man, one vote?

The hon. member said: “To abolish the whole policy of apartheid in South Africa.” The whole world demands it of us. I do not have the time to look it up now. However, it is on record.

I now come to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He said, “Merit selection at all levels is necessary”. I found this standpoint which was adopted here by the hon. member, a very interesting one. I now want to apologize to the hon. member for an idea I had of him. I listened to his explanation of why there were four Home Unions playing rugby in the United Kingdom. I really want to apologize, because I had always suspected and accused him of being an intelligent man, but now it has come to light that he spoke absolute nonsense in reply to that question. The hon. member for Johannesburg North played rugby in the United Kingdom on a specifically national basis. When we go there, then we, too, play against the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish.

But they are all of the same colour.

Oh, really, the hon. member for Houghton has no idea of what is meant by a national basis. She is so obsessed with colour that she is no longer able to differentiate between nation and colour. That is what is wrong with her.

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

No, sit down; the hon. member did not want to reply to my question just now. If the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has so much to say to us about merit, believes in merit as the only norm in life, then why do they have qualified franchise in their party? How can that be defended? If a person of another colour wants to buy a house in Houghton and he has the money— in other words, he has the merit to be able to buy it—will he be allowed to buy a house in Houghton?

Yes.

Right in Houghton?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point why he does not throw open the swimming bath in Sea Point. Why does he not stand up and say that that swimming bath must be thrown open?

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member say “yes”? Is the hon. member prepared to throw open the swimming bath in Sea Point entirely?

[Inaudible.]

I am very pleased to have that admission from the hon. members. Why, then, do hon. members not apply merit to the franchise as well? Why do they have a qualified franchise? Why do hon. members discriminate in that regard? [Interjections.)

Order! The hon. member should deal more specifically with the Vote under discussion.

I am talking about merit and the question of people being admitted or not being admitted in this country. Those hon. members say that we should leave it to the administrators of the club to decide. If we were to do that, you would see the most extreme discrimination. Just as the Progressive Party now discriminates against people on the basis of their education and their possessions, in the same way the membership fees of clubs will be increased to such an extent that only the rich will be selected so that they will still have a purely White membership. We know all about the club mentality of the hon. members on that side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, sport offers the best opportunity for healthy relaxation. Sport regenerates the individual through positive participation. That is why I believe it to be of real importance that opportunities to take an active part in sport should be created. In future, sport will be playing a role of increasing importance as regards the way we spend our leisure time. This applies to Whites. However, we must also recognize that sport is going to play a role of increasing importance in the way the non-White peoples of South Africa, too, spend their leisure time. Therefore it is important for non-White peoples, too, that the way they spend their leisure time also results in the regeneration of the individual, in the full sense of the word. The degree to which we can meet the sport and recreation requirements of the non-White peoples will, in my opinion, play a vital role in the successful implementation of our policy of separate development.

The policy of separate development rests on three basic principles. The first is that each national group must maintain its own identity. The second is that each national group must be afforded the fullest opportunity to develop as far as its sport is concerned, and the third is that friction must be eliminated. That is why it is important that the development of all peoples in South Africa in the field of sport should take place on this basis and relations between the national groups be normalized in this way.

Consequently, every people must be accorded the opportunity to regulate its own sport. Every people must be placed in a position to administer all sports for those members of the people participate in sport, and to establish facilities affording every member of that people the opportunity to participate in the sport of his choice. However, the provision of the necessary facilities and the establishment of an efficient administration to achieve this aim, is no small task. That is why there is an urgent need for thorough and comprehensive planning.

Through the years, the Government has accepted responsibility for the furthering of sport and recreation activities of the various population groups.

As far as the Whites are concerned, the service has developed into a highly specialized one since the establishment of the Department of Sport and Recreation in 1966. The Department’s aim is to provide technical and organisatory services to sport and recreation bodies. The whole essence and aim of this Department, therefore, is to promote sport and recreation. At the moment, the sport and recreation of the Bantu, Coloureds and Indians is still handled by the various Government departments.

At the moment, the Department of Sport and Recreation has technical staff and intensively specialized services which can be utilized for a number of purposes. I am therefore of the opinion that it is also equipped to make a valuable contribution towards the development of the non-White peoples in the field of snort. I therefore want to ask this question this evening: is it not time for these available services provided by the department to be utilized more purposefully for the promotion of non-White sport as well? In my opinion such a step could have many advantages.

The same expert service at present available to the White population group could similarly be made available to the non-White peoples. Through specialized training of non-White sport and recreation administrators, these people, too, can be trained to take over the administration of their own sport affairs. A valuable contribution could also be made technically, organization-wise, and by way of grants-in-aid. There can therefore be no question of control of or interference in the sporting affairs of the non-White peoples. The point here is that the non-White peoples must be assisted in this way to help themselves.

By involving the Department of Sport and Recreation more purposefully in this project, I believe that overlapping, as regards the duplication of staff, could be largely eliminated as well, and this in turn could result in a drop in financial expenditure.

But the existing sporting structure in South Africa, too, justifies the participation of the Department of Sport and Recreation in the development of the non-White peoples. At the moment there are national control bodies for all sports, and these national control bodies, in their turn, are affiliated to the international control bodies of the sport in question. Consequently, except for table tennis, international liaison takes place via the national bodies as far as Whites are concerned. That is why I believe that if the Department of Sport and Recreation could be geared to the development of the White peoples and the non-White peoples in the field of sport, this process of liaison would take place in a more co-ordinated fashion. It could also result in control of non-White sports fields being better co-ordinated.

Mr. Chairman, we are living at a time when the necessity for good human relations is being realized to an increasing extent. That is why I believe that in this respect, too, the Department of Sport and Recreation, in close co-operation with the other Government departments involved, could make a very positive contribution if it were to become involved with the development of the non-White peoples in the field of sport. We may not neglect the opportunities offered by sport for the cultivation of sound relations. Whereas it goes without saying that we may never dare interfere, we may never back away when our help is needed either. We must help where we can, and in the most effective possible way.

That is why I ask: Should the expert services of the Department of Sport and Recreation not also be utilized in this effort?

On this occasion, Sir, we have had an enjoyable sports debate.

You got a few bumpers.

Sir, in every debate that has been conducted in this House on this Vote since I became Minister of Sport and Recreation, the cry from the other side has been: “We do not understand your sports policy; it is incomprehensible.” Sir, we have conducted a debate here for three hours, and during these three hours not one of those hon. members came forward with that old hackneyed story that they do not understand our sports policy. Sir, they are learning; there is no doubt at all about that. I must inevitably infer then that they now understand our sports policy. They did in fact raise certain matters here, but one thing is certain, and that is that even the United Party, the Progressives and the Reform Party also understand the sports policy of the National Party Government now. We have therefor made good progress, and that is why I enjoyed this debate so much. The most important aspect of a debate, Sir, as you know, is frequently not what is said, but what is not said. In this debate we had a wonderful example of that. I am very grateful to hon. members for this. Sir, I was born under the sign of Leo, and I always look at the predictions in “The Stars Foretell”. This week the following was predicted for people born between July 23 and August 22—

But now I want to say at once that this was applicable to the mining debate, and not to the sports debate we are conducting at the moment. Sir, there is one thing I want to warn hon. members against. We had an enjoyable debate; I think it was a good debate, but now I want to issue a warning in regard to one matter, and that is that we as a country and as people should not lose perspective in regard to this very successful invitation team which played at Newlands on Saturday. It gladdened our hearts. Let there be no doubt about that, and with this I am immediately expressing my gratitude and appreciation to all concerned. But we cannot simply throw out the baby with the bath water now, as some of the hon. members did in this debate today, by trying to condemn multi-national sport. We are not going to make any progress in that way. In a moment I shall again state the sports policy briefly to hon. members, because I think it is necessary. But let me first deal with this matter. The hon. member for Green Point, who is now the main Opposition speaker, made a fine, choice and tidy speech, for which I am grateful to him. There was no venom in his speech and personally I appreciate this very much. But he said—

He contrasts these two things with each other, and I want to warn against doing that. Sir, I now want to mention a few examples to you. In respect of the multinational soccer which we had on the highest level in the Embassy Series and the multi-national soccer which we had on the other level, the Champion of Champions League, this country has never in its entire history witnessed such a sport spectacle as we had in these soccer matches at Hartleyvale and at the Rand Stadium. I am not referring now to the slight difficulty that arose there; I am referring to something entirely different. Sir, in 10 days more than 300 300 people, Brown, Black and White, turned up to watch these soccer matches. No branch of sport in our history has been able to arouse so much interest in 10 days as to attract 300 000 spectators. But now this is being condemned. For what reason, Sir? Do you know what the gate totals at those three matches in 10 days amounted to? A total of R243 000. In no branch of sport in South Africa has this ever been experienced before. Sir, do you know how that money was distributed? That money was distributed as follows: R64 000 for the White soccer association, R64 000 for the Black soccer association, R64 000 for the Coloured soccer association and R64 000 for the Indian soccer association. Those Black people told me themselves: “Jislaaik, Sir, we have never heard of so much money in soccer before.” After the match at Hartleyvale I walked about among the Coloureds to hear what they were saying, and this was a pleasant experience for me. When they realized that I was “Oom Piet”, as they call me, they carried me shoulder high. There was no difficulty among those spectators after the match. This was also the case at the Rand Stadium. This Opposition always speaks before it thinks, and here again we have a perfect example. Here I have in my hand the Sportsman: National Sport Monthly, June 1975. If I am right, the date today is 11 June. Let me quote to you from this publication—

Who is this person who has this to say? It is the captain, Keto Ten Ten Mzimande, of the Kaizer Chiefs. He went on to say—

Then there is a photograph.

[Inaudible.]

Let me discuss this matter first. The captain of the soccer team that participated ended this article with these words—

This is a Black man who participated, who had this to say. Let us see what Thabe, the president of the biggest sporting body in the whole of Africa has to say. For many years he has been president of the Bantu soccer association. He is a remarkable person who has repeatedly represented South Africa overseas. He came to apologize to me for what had happened at the Rand Stadium. They were not pleased about this at all. He gave me his explanations, and so on, and also asked me not to stop matches of this kind. He said it was in their interest that such matches should in fact take place. I heard this from the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, but if hon. members think that these are the only persons who said this to me, I shall give the hon. the Leader of the of the Opposition another shock. I am holding in my hand now a cutting from the Cape Times of Thursday, 24 April 1975, in which two statements by Mr. Dave Marais are reported. I think the hon. members know him; he used to sit here in the House of Assembly [Interjections.]

Order!

The bagpipe from Scotland is alarmed even before I have said anything! The caption to the cutting read as follows: “Dave Marais backs Government on sport,” and the article continues—

The policy is, as I shall explain in a moment. …

Will you allow this?

Wait a minute! He is pleading for “multinational” soccer. [Interjections.]

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

I shall be prepared to reply to a question at a later stage. I first want to finish quoting this passage.

†I read further—

It was against this background that Mr. Dave Marais made his statement. Subsequently, Mr. Dave Marais, Thabe and Mr. Zagnov, as well as a few others, came to see me to discuss the position with me. They again told me that it was the correct procedure to follow to have at club, provincial and national level these teams participating against each other and then, at the top, in world sport, to have one representative team to represent South Africa. That is the policy.

Is that the policy in rugby too? [Interjections.]

I should like to dispose of this point. The hon. members must understand very well that at present we have 500 000 registered Black soccer players in South Africa. The Coloured and Indian soccer players are not included in this number. At present we have only 30 000 White soccer players in South Africa. Soccer is a world sport, one of the most popular branches of sport—it is called the opium of the masses—and if one does not have a proper standpoint in respect of this sport, what would the result be in South Africa where we have 500 000 Black soccer players as against 30 000 White soccer players? Surely it is understandable that the 30 000 White soccer players will under such circumstances, in the administration of the game as well as in the actual playing of the game, have no chance to protect their rights. If the hon. members sitting in those benches cannot understand this, I can tell them that the Black people are able to understand it, for they tell me, as Mr. Thabe has repeatedly done: “Dr. Koornhof, you must understand one thing …”

†He also said this to Messrs. Dave Marais and Viv Granger and others. “… I have 500 000 registered soccer players. If we have only one team at the top, then even if you have White players who are better than some of the Blacks, I and my committee would not be in a position to allow those Whites to play in that one 11-player team, because the Blacks would murder me and my committee if we should allow it.” They are very honest about it. [Interjections.]

*Why do the hon. members opposite not speak to those Black people themselves, for then they would hear this from the mouths of the Black people themselves; apparently the Black people have more common sense than some people give them credit for. Surely one does not really want such a mix-up in sport as one finds among the Opposition; we want something orderly in South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg North used to play rugby, and he knows as well as I do that in rugby one must have proper organization so that the clubs can be affiliated to one central organization. If that is not the case, there is a mess, and not rugby. If the hon. member understands what I am saying now, he must indicate whether he differs with it. Surely he cannot differ with it. Surely this is the way in which sport is practised throughout the world. Do hon. members opposite want to advocate chaos in South African sport? The hon. member should therefore be careful. I have just quoted an example of a case in which I was cooperating very well with Black people. They themselves said that this was the correct thing to do, as I quoted. They said: “Please do not stop it,” for it affords them an opportunity of playing against a White team which can offer them real competition so that they and the Whites, jointly, are able to reach the highest pinnacle in sport. Then, when they have to play against a world team, it is possible to select the best team, from all players, Whites and non-Whites, because the most was made of this matter beforehand.

I could now mention an example to you of a case in which precisely the opposite applies. Let us consider cricket. I had inquiries made, by way of a thorough investigation, into what interest is displayed in the various branches of sport by the Bantu in Soweto. Cricket is an extremely sophisticated White game, as anyone who has played cricket will know, after all, and with that I do not mean anything unfavourable to the non-Whites. The position is quite different in respect of soccer. In Soweto 89% of the people are interested in soccer, and that is why there is no stadium big enough to accommodate them all. What did the investigation in regard to cricket in Soweto disclose? Only 0,01% of the inhabitants of Soweto take an interest in cricket. I want to say that our Whites have extremely good cricket players and many cricket players, but the Bantu have only a handful—Habane, Nkitinca and a few others. They are struggling to make up two proper teams.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

I am referring only to the Bantu now; there is nothing I am afraid to discuss, but the hon. member must give me a chance. The hon. member had a chance to make a speech, but then shouted the House down. If the hon. member would give me a chance, I shall reply to him. This is the position in cricket, but what are we doing now in respect of cricket in terms of the policy of the Government? We are protecting the Black man so that he may be afforded the maximum opportunities on club, provincial and national level. That is why we have already afforded Habane, who is only 16 years old, an opportunity of participating against the world’s best cricket players—the Johnstones of Australia and the Greigs of Great Britain. How would he have had such an opportunity under another system? I am mentioning only these two examples to indicate that this policy should not be condemned so easily. There is real merit in our policy, and I shall tell you why. I want to repeat what I said a moment ago to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, when he was so surprised to hear that the reply to his question was: “Yes, of course, the reply is yes.” Under our policy we are affording every man and woman, whether Black, Coloured, Indian or White, an unimpeded opportunity to reach the ton in sport in their own national context. This applies to every branch of sport. The sky is the limit. There are no obstructions in the channels. I want to go further and I quote from the policy as formulated by the federal council of the National Party. We say (translation)—

As I have frequently explained, this means that if Uncle John’s Bantu servant, Aia Mieta from Koekenaap, who works for him in the kitchen, has a daughter who excels in some or other branch of sport— the 100 yards dash or whatever it may be— that daughter will be afforded the opportunity, under the policy of the National Party, to make progress until she is the best among her group. In addition every sportsman and sportswoman, regardless of their colour, is afforded the opportunity to compete against the best sportsmen and sportswomen of other peoples in South Africa, including the White sportsmen and sportswomen.

And to represent their country?

I am coming to that now. Such a person may compete against the best of the other national groups in South Africa and against the best sportsmen and women in the world. That is our policy.

To represent their country?

Yes, such a person may represent their country in 76 of the 78 branches of sport. This applies to the Olympic and world sports. In the interim period, until the Bantu homelands have become independent, our policy is that a representative team will be selected to represent South Africa at home and abroad. The only exceptions are cricket and rugby, and as far as cricket and rugby are concerned, we have now reached the stage of invitation teams. I explained the other day in regard to the paraplegic …

How many tennis courts are there in Soweto?

The hon. member may put that question to me later on; I shall reply to it. The other day I wrote a letter to a very famous overseas sports administrator, which I shall quote in a moment. If that hon. member thinks that I am not telling the truth, I want to tell her that I am a very honest man. I am a Christian. I try to be honest in what I say and do. Every word I have written in this letter is true, but the fact of the matter is that those hon. members do not know what the position is. They are a little behind the times, as with most things. I wrote to him—

†That is the team that is going to compete within the next two or three weeks in the Paraplegic Olympics in London—

Except rugby.

The hon. member does not understand. I quote further—

I could mention many examples in that regard.

May I ask you a question?

May I just complete my point; then the hon. member can ask his question.

You always say that.

I am not unwilling, but I have been in this House long enough to know that as soon as I get into my stride, hon. members on that side always try to put me off my stride by asking me questions. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that we are in this position in which we find ourselves at present, as far as sport is concerned, because our policy has been carried out logically, consistently and fearlessly. It is really extremely simple: We are doing what every other nation in the world is doing. What are they doing in America? The sportsmen and sportswomen in America are practising their sport as a nation on a club, provincial and national level. When they compete against other countries in the Olympic Games, or wherever it may be, they represent their country and their people. Britain does the same, France does the same, every nation in the world does the same. We in South Africa have eight Bantu nations and a White nation, and that is why the set-up here is what it is.

And a Coloured nation and an Indian nation as well.

Yes, and a Coloured nation and an Indian nation. As I have explained, we are affording those people the fullest opportunities of making progress on those various levels, and of then competing against the best in the world.

In this regard I cannot mention a finer example that that of the young Black boxer who came from the Koster area, namely Pangaman Sekgapane. What happened in his case? His father was a shepherd who came from the Western Transvaal. I also come from that area. I was born there.

In my constituency.

Yes, in the constituency of the hon. member for Marico. Pangaman Sekgapane is a young Black man who showed promise as a boxer at an early stage in his life. Under the sports policy of this Government, which is being condemned to such an extent, he was given his opportunity. By the way, my experience has been that if one comes forward with an idea, one may consider oneself lucky if it is universally accepted in two years’ time. This is a scientifically established fact. That is why I am so optimistic about the future. I believe that the world will within two years understand these things ten times better than they understand them at the moment, for the top sports administrators of other countries, with whom I have discussed these matters, have expressed their surprise at the facts I was able to present to them, because they did not know what was happening in South Africa. Instead of the hon. members on the opposite side helping us in this regard, there were a few members, inter alia, the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who with their speeches did not help to enable South Africa to participate again in the Olympic Games, and so on. They tried to disparage us. This was not a nice thing to do, and this is not as it should be. I think they did so merely because they do not understand these matters. What happened in the case of Pangaman Sekgapane? He came from the country, and made quite good progress in his club. He then went to Soweto, where he received very good training at the Soweto Club. He dealt with the other boxers very competently, with good blows from both fists, and proved that he was a good boxer. Eventually he became the champion of the Bantu nations in South Africa in his weight division. Because this is in accordance with our policy, we afforded him the opportunity of competing against the best of the other nations in South Africa. There, too, he showed his mettle. I was present myself on the first evening when he showed his mettle against a Norwegian, a White person from Europe. Pangaman Sekgapane knocked him out in the ninth round, and gave him a thorough boxing lesson. What happened then?

When does he become South African champion?

He can become South African champion, as I have already spelled out on a previous occasion here when I replied to the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. Harry Schwarz. There is nothing strange about that. Pangaman Sekgapane, a young Black man, in an elimination bout for the world crown, boxed against Gimenez here the other day. If he had beaten Gimenez, he could have gone on to conquer the world championship title from the next candidate against whom he boxed.

Therefore I can with honesty say that it is the policy of the Government to afford every Bantu, White, Coloured and Indian, man and woman, an opportunity to get to the top in sport, and to compete against the best of the other nations in South Africa, and subsequently against the best in the world. Therefore, the progress we are making in regard to this matter is excellent. It is very interesting to see now that sportsmen understand it well. In addition, it is very strange to find that some of the foreign sport administrators and people with whom I discussed these matters, understood them thoroughly. But when one discusses the matter here, and deals hon. members opposite a mortal blow, there is a death-rattle from the opposite side.

There are other very interesting aspects which I want to deal with. After every adjustment of the policy of the National Party Government in the field of sport, certain sections of the Press, in banner headlines, proclaim it to be a tremendous breakthrough, a so-called step in the right direction. They find it difficult to admit that the policy of the National Party Government is being implemented slowly, but purposefully and logically. What is the worst defeat for them is that this policy is being implemented successfully—to such an extent that it is accepted by almost everyone, and very rarely rejected. Every now and again banner headlines cry out that a specific adjustment is a step in the right direction. An hon. member on the opposite side referred this evening to a “timid step in the right direction”, referring to the invitation team which played against the French team here the other day. They are trying to indicate that this is a step in the direction of mixed sport, but they are finding that it is impossible to make this statement sound plausible, and to define that so-called step in the direction of mixed sport. I am proud to say that I feel free to challenge anyone to mention a single example of a sports meeting in South Africa which was officially approved by the Government, which was not a step in the direction of the implementation of the policy of multi-national development to its full and logical consequences. In this way South Africa is bringing itself fully into line, as I have already said, with other countries of the world. It is astonishing now that voices on the other side are not as usual asking: “What about the Aurora Club and the Green Point Club?” Let me tell the hon. members at once—I hope this reaches the right ears—that we are doing things in an orderly manner in South Africa. If we do this, there is no sport problem in South Africa or in the world which cannot be solved, and I mean what I say. But then we have to work together. Our policy is absolutely logical and correct, and it has been proved during the past few years that this in fact is the position in this specific regard. The sportsmen know— I am repeating this here—that they are my friends. They are also the friends of the Government. They can rest assured that I am their friend, and this is consequently the way they accept it. Let me say with great emphasis that these so-called mixed sport clubs are contrary to the Government’s policy of multi-national sport. I have on a previous occasion already made an appeal to the persons concerned not to make of sport a medium to try to force the Government to abandon the principles of its policy, which are correct, for they shall not succeed in doing so. Sport is very important, but our standpoint is that there are other things which are more important than sport. For the sake of sport therefore, and nothing else, I repeat my appeal to the sport administrators and participants concerned to avail themselves of the opportunities which are being created, and will still be created, within the framework of the policy of the National Party Government. I want to ask them very politely not to allow themselves, as sportsmen and sportswomen, to be used for political purposes. In any event, the Government will not allow this. If people do not wish to work and play in accordance with the guidelines which have been laid down—and it would cause me great sorrow if this were to be the case—sport will be the loser, for sport has to be practised in an orderly manner otherwise it is not a pleasure to practise sport. I have participated myself in various kinds of sport, and I know what I am talking about when I say this. There need be no doubt at all about my personal loyalty to our White and non-White sportsmen.

I do not think it is necessary for us to discuss our sports policy under this Vote year after year. However, on this occasion I want to place this so-called “step in the right direction” in its correct perspective. There are three fundamental principles in the policy of distinctive, multi-national development which are directly applicable to the implementation of this policy. The first is that every national group has the right to the preservation of its full identity. Now what is wrong with that? If the Bantu wish to preserve their identity, surely that is right. If the Whites, Coloureds and Indians also wish to preserve their respective identities, surely that is right, too. [Interjections.] The second principle is that everything is arranged in such a way that friction and disorder will be eliminated and prevented. The hon. gentlemen there congratulated us on the invitation team that played against the French team last Saturday. They could also have congratulated us on the invitation team that played against the Derrick Robins Eleven. This was also quite splendid; there is no doubt at all about that. It created very sound relations in South Africa.

It taught you a lesson.

But it is we who did it. Why should we then have learned a lesson? [Interjections.] If any person in this country wants to suggest that the soccer matches which were played between the various peoples, created anything but sound relations in South Africa, that person does not know what he is talking about. I want to issue the warning that people should please not arrive at the conclusion that when different nations play soccer matches or compete in other sports against one another here in South Africa, this mars relations in South Africa. If there is any person who thinks that, I challenge him to institute a proper investigation and to establish the facts of the matter. The facts of the matter are that relations are not being marred; on the contrary, sound relations are being promoted. One must realize that sport is a safety valve to allow bottled up emotions to escape. If someone therefore alleges that when a White team plays soccer, or whether it may be, against a Black team in South Africa, relations are being marred, he is making a statement without realizing the implications of his statement. It is absolute nonsense to allege that. I challenge anyone to speak to the participants and the administrators. Then they will then realize what the real situation is.

The third principle is that every national group in South Africa has a full claim to the same, maximum opportunities in all spheres of life, and therefore, too, in the field of sport. Surely we owe happiness, peace and order we have in South Africa to the implementation of this policy on the basis of this principle. Every step that is taken in sport can be tested against these principles, and it will be seen that it answers to all the principles.

Let us consider the control of sport in South Africa. The policy of the Government in regard to this control is very clear. Every national group must be afforded the opportunity of preserving its own identity, but simultaneously no restrictions may be placed on their development to full maturity. As I have also stated repeatedly, no restrictions may be imposed which would prevent people from competing in sport against the best in South Africa and the best in the world either. What is happening now? On a club, provincial and national level, as in every other country in the world, the various nations are practising and managing their own sport themselves. Therefore the possibility of one national group being dominated by another, for example as a result of a lack of knowledge, to mention only one example, does not exist. The policy provides that coordination may be effected on the highest level by liaison between equal representation of all the national groups in the form of a liaison committee or top-level body, as the sports body concerned prefers. This arrangement is being made in order to comply with certain requirements. In the first place, in order to make international liaison and affiliation possible for everyone, this may only take place in a co-ordinated manner on the highest level. Secondly: To be able to have sports meetings of an international or multi-national nature, everyone has to be afforded an equal opportunity, and every national group has to have a share in the administration. There are certain aspects of the administration of sport which are of general importance, for example the rules and the dimensions of playing fields, and equipment. These aspects are of the same importance to all, and should therefore be co-ordinated. I now wish to present a practical illustration. Hon. gentlemen on the opposite side implied here today that we are constantly interfering in sport. That is not the truth of the matter. The hon. member for Fauresmith rejected this very explicitly. We leave sport in the hands of the sport administrators in so far as this is practicable. I can testify here tonight that I personally—and I coach the Department of Sport and Recreation accordingly—I am trying to ensure that interference in sport is confined to the absolute minimum in South Africa. The Government is not prescribing to those bodies what they ought to do. I have now been discussing control on the highest level. We tell them what the policy of the Government is, and then we ask them to act accordingly. As regards the extent to which this matter is practicable, I want to refer to athletics for example. In the case of athletics, we have a body which completed its evolution, to its logical conclusions, with the establishment of the South African Athletics Union. What is now happening in respect of athletics, could happen in every other branch of sport in South Africa. Here we have a multi-national top-level body on which every national group in South Africa has equal representation. This body is internationally affiliated, and deals with international liaison and participation, as well as any multi-national meetings which are presented. There is also a South African athletics association for the Whites, for the Bantu, for the Coloureds and for the Indians. On the highest level, then, we have this body, on which every one enjoys equal representation and which acts in regard to international matters.

This is a federal policy. [Interjections.]

What I have now said in respect of control, applies to all branches of sport in South Africa. It therefore applies to cricket and rugby as well.

This is a step in the right direction.

Sir, mention is again being made now of a step in the right direction. It has always been the policy of the National Party to do this; this is, however, a question of the implementation of that policy. Every time that policy is implemented logically, it is said by hon. members on the opposite and by the Opposition Press that this a new break-through, that this is a step in the right direction, etc. I have gone into details now on the position in respect of athletics. This is the branch of sport which happens to have undergone the greatest measure of evolution. This will also happen now in the case of the other sports. This is the policy. But as soon as this happens in respect of the other sports, and particularly cricket and rugby, we will again hear from that side: “A step in the right direction”, “A new break-through”, and all that kind of nonsense. Sir, let me tell you now that one of the greatest problems in cricket and rugby is that they have not yet succeeded in forming such a high body, a Cricket Council, for example. This is as a result of internecine squabbles, not among the Whites, but among the non-Whites. Exactly the same applies to rugby. The non-Whites are squabbling to such an extent among themselves that they have not yet been able to link up with a national top-level rugby body. We are trying everything within our means to help them. In reply to questions put to me, particularly in regard to the position in the Eastern Cape, to which reference was made, I said that my door was always open to all sportsmen. When I was approached to discuss their problems with them, I said unhesitatingly. “You are very welcome”. I want to make it very clear that I do not have control over sports fields, etc. of the municipalities and of Bantu Administration Boards. This does not fall under me, but under other departments, such as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, etc. However, when these people came to us for assistance so that they could iron out their problems, I said: “With the greatest of pleasure. I shall help you if I can do so.” I made two attempts, for which they had a great deal of appreciation, but we were not able to succeed in ironing out their problems to such an extent that they were able to get together, as we would like them to do. Let me make it very clear to you this evening that if we were, in regard to cricket and rugby in this country, to reach the position where these non-White bodies were united, it would mean an important contribution to the entire South Africa, and also to the sports concerned on international level, for this matter is creating problems not only in South Africa but also abroad. That is why I shall continue in this way. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who is not present here at the moment, is very interested in this matter as a result of his department’s involvement in it. He then went to Port Elizabeth to discuss this matter with the people themselves, and the outcome of that was that Mr. Abass of SARU—this is the non-White rugby union which does not want to affiliate with the South African Rugby Board— said that they wanted to hold talks under my chairmanship to see whether we cannot solve the problems. Surely this is progress. I want to make an earnest and friendly appeal tonight, firstly to the official Opposition, secondly to the Progressives and thirdly to the Reformists … [Interjections] … for hon. members to help them so that these people are able to iron out their problems among themselves. It is in their interests that this should be done, and it is also in our interests. If hon. members would help them, then I am confident that we will be able to make excellent progress in this regard. Hon. members raised various points here. I shall reply to the hon. members …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes, you are very welcome.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, now that he has mentioned the control, or joint control, over cricket and other sports, he is also prepared to support the proposition that sporting activities of all the race groups in this country should come under one Government department and not under separate departments?

That is a very complicated issue. I and my department have been giving serious attention to that question for over a year now, but there are many complications in that respect. I do not know what the outcome is going to be. The position now is that the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs are prepared to accept that the Department of Sport and Recreation act as a service organization for those departments. In regard to the Department of Bantu Affairs and Development, the matter is more complicated because of the fact that some of the Bantu homelands are on the verge of independence. That makes it complicated at this stage, but we are giving serious attention to it.

*The question which the hon. member for Green Point has put, ties in with another important matter which the hon. members and people in the country must understand very well, namely that the Department of Sport and Recreation was established to promote White sport. This is the position under the terms of reference of the department. It does not behove the hon. members on the Opposition side to cast the position in respect of Bantu, Coloured and Indian sport into the teeth of the Department of Sport and Recreation, or into my teeth, every time. I have no say in that matter, and my department has no say either. Coloured sport falls under the Department of Coloured Affairs and Bantu sport under the Department of Bantu Administration and Indian sport under the Department of Indian Affairs.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who came here with a lot of nonsense and vituperation, did not know what he was talking about. He really did not know what he was talking about. If he wants to cast the question of the Comrades Marathon into my teeth, he does not know what he is talking about. The organizers of the Comrades Marathon applied to the Athletics Union of South Africa for permission to arrange a multi-national race. Those bodies dealt with that matter; it was not my task or my business. The point I want to make is that those bodies deal with these matters. Furthermore, if anyone on the opposite side says: “You are responsible for putting a tag on a Black man”, then this testifies to superficiality. It is a downright disgrace and an absolute reflection on the entire Opposition—and I include in this the official Opposition—to level the accusation that if a Black man runs under the banner of his own people it means “putting a tag on a Black man”. What a disgrace for the Opposition.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, if the cricket and rugby unions of the various national units form this new federal controlling body, they will then, be allowed, in terms of Government policy, to have South African multinational teams selected on merit, teams representing cricket and rugby?

The position is that with regard to cricket we were requested by Derrick Robins to allow an invitation side to play against the Derrick Robins XI.

Answer the question!

I am replying to the hon. member’s question. It was a request. We had the request from the French Rugby Union to allow an invitation side to play against the French and we gave approval for such an invitation side to play against them. At this stage there is great doubt whether, if a request were put to the Government to have rugby and cricket teams selected on merit, any non-White would have been eligible for selection on merit in any of those two teams. These are the facts.