In accordance with Standing Order No. 14, I have to inform the House that I have been designated by the State President to present the Decoration for Meritorious Service to the Honourable C. M. van Coller, a former Speaker of the House of Assembly. I shall accordingly be absent tomorrow in order to officiate at this ceremony during a civic function which will take place in Queenstown tomorrow evening.

*The Chief Government Whip, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for South Coast, the Secretary to Parliament and the Secretary to the Prime Minister will accompany me.

Mr. Chairman, there are four amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have already, during the Second Reading, referred to the matters covered by these amendments, and it may well be, Mr. Chairman, that you may rule that in so far as these amendments are concerned, they have financial implications. Sir, if you rule that the extension of the definition of “child” to include children who are not at a university or other educational institutions, as well as other descendants, and the extension of the definition of “parent” to include parents-in-law, do indeed have financial implications, then I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to take over these amendments and move them so that they can be accepted. If, on the other hand, Sir, you are prepared to rule that these amendments are permissible, then I shall move the four amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 15, after “institution” to insert:

1. (2) on page 3, after line 18, to insert:

1. (3) on page 3, in line 30, after “child” to insert “or other descendant”;
2. (4) on page 7, in line 14, after “parent” to insert “or parent-in-law”.

Before proceeding further, I should like to hear your ruling and the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville since they all involve increased expenditure and accordingly require the State President’s recommendation. I shall, however, allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of his amendments, in order to attempt to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister to take over the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly comply with the request of the hon. member by dealing briefly with the amendments printed in his name on the Order Paper. The first amendment of the hon. member has the effect of making provision, in addition to the provision made for children at universities, etc., for children “who are otherwise undergoing training for an occupation”. Unfortunately, it is impossible to entertain any idea of conceding to this request. I should like to outline the reasons for this attitude. I had someone ascertain the earnings of, for example, the apprentices to whom the hon. member referred in his Second Reading speech. The earnings vary from trade to trade, but the fact of the matter is that apprentices in the building industry, for example, earn up to 59,15 cents per hour. The amounts earned in this way are, in some cases, full salaries. In this regard I should also like to refer to a point which was raised by another hon. member during Second Reading, and that is that when a person is dependent for his education on the maintenance which is paid, this requires further defining. I pointed out—and I should like to repeat it now—that paragraph (d) of the definition actually covered the whole object of the proposed amendment of the hon. member. I quote—

†“Educational institution” could embrace quite a wide area of what the hon. member has in mind in his amendment.

*Secondly, the hon. member proposes the insertion on page 3, after line 18, of “(e) who is a descendant of such member”. I think what the hon. member has in mind with this amendment is the kind of provision made in another Act, and that is that a grandchild, for example, may be the responsibility of a grandparent. For that reason we have gone into the matter thoroughly, and I have been informed by a senior member of the legal profession, who has been dealing with this for years, that in all his years of experience there has been one case only where something of this kind has happened, where a grandparent has had to look after his grandchild. Moreover, it is possible to make provision for such a child in terms of other measures, if it is necessary that provision be made for him in any way.

The third amendment deals with a child “or other descendant”. What I have said before covers this point as well. The fourth amendment refers to parents-in-law. In this regard I may just say that in all cases of a parent-in-law being dependent on a child, generous provision for such a person exists in the ordinary pension laws for such a person to apply for the ordinary social pension or other benefits, such as a disability allowance and, in some cases, even an attendant’s allowance when this is justified. If we were to extend the scope of this legislation so as to include a mother-in-law as well, we would be giving the legislation a basis which would render it impossible for us to have justice done to all the cases which might be brought to our attention.

Since I am on my feet, I should also like to say that the proposal of the hon. member for Umbilo was dealt with in full at the Second Reading. This has also been moved as an amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to other provisions. What I am referring to is the omission from the legislation of the definition of the population groups.

He has not moved it yet

In order to anticipate that, I should just like to say that I have replied to that in full. During the Second Reading I furnished detailed reasons why, in my opinion, we were unable to accept this amendment at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for giving us his reaction on the amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Towards the end he mentioned the position in regard to the various population groups. However, this is the definition clause, and before moving my amendment there is one aspect which I would like also to raise with the hon. the Minister, and that is on page 7, the definition of “parent”. In paragraph (xx) a parent is defined, in relation to a member, as “his lawful parent and includes any person who, in the opinion of the Secretary is or was his foster parent and who was immediately prior to the member’s death dependent on such member for his maintenance”. Now, if we look at a clause which is still to be dealt with, clause 4—if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to refer briefly to clause 4(f)—one finds that provision is made whereby persons are entitled to receive pensions. In paragraph (f) there is reference to each parent of a deceased member who is not survived by a dependant, and it is stated that such parent will then be entitled to a pension which will be 20% of the amount of pension which would have been paid to the deceased member. On the basis of the figures which the hon. the Minister gave us in the Second Reading debate, this, on a pension of R300 a month, will be R60 a month. Now, the basis on which the parent of a deceased member may claim a pension is that the deceased’s parent would have been dependent on such member for maintenance. I should like to have some clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to what will be the basis of young men who undertake their military training straight from school. Therefore there will be no basis which, immediately prior to that member’s death, this person might be dependent on such member for his maintenance should his death occur at the very commencement or early on in his training. It would then be difficult to prove that that parent was in fact dependent on the deceased member. That is my first query concerning the definition of a parent. I would now like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

We have specifically indicated that the system of having pensions based on a formula, is acceptable to this side of the House and we believe this is a considerable improvement as compared with the existing position in terms of the Acts which are now to be repealed. However, the whole basis of calculating what pensions are to be paid depends on the amount or the number which is published and determined by the hon. the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance and which is published in the Government Gazette. This means that the benefits which are derived from the basis of applying the formula, is fully dependent upon the amounts that are determined by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette. At this stage we do not know what the figures will be, because it still has to be published in the Government Gazette. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the Second Reading debate what he had in mind. He indicated various categories on which the formula for the relevant amounts would be based. He indicated a ratio which would roughly be 6 : 4 : 3 based on the pre-disablement potential earning capacity of the members concerned. We believe this is sufficient means for calculating what amounts shall be determined and published in the Government Gazette, and for ascertaining the application of the formula or the factors to be involved so that the amount of pension or benefit to be paid can be based on that category, bearing in mind the predisablement earning potential of the person concerned. We believe this is sufficient grounds, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, on which to base benefits that will be paid without the need to include in this clause the population groups.

The Government policy has been to move away from discrimination, and we believe it is desirable to ensure that legislation does not lay down by definition the various population groups as a basis for the hon. the Minister’s decision in determining the relevant figures. It is preferable to base the figure that is to be printed in the Government Gazette on the potential earning capacity of the member concerned. We believe this can quite easily be done on the basis of having the various categories determined in relation to the potential earning capacity.

Let us look at the position in regard to certain other Acts, for example the Unemployment Insurance Act, in terms of which there are various benefits derived from various groups. Although there is legislation now before this House to amend that basis for the granting of benefits to a certain degree, the principle involved takes the earnings of the contributor concerned as the basis, with a classification into 14 income level groups. Consequently the benefits derived from members of the Unemployment Insurance Fund are based on those 14 categories or groups as far as the level of income is concerned. We consider it undesirable to have, in the legislation, a differentiation between various population groups, when the matter can be based purely on the different categories, depending upon the potential earning capacity of the people concerned.

The hon. the Deputy Minister and other members have said that at the present time this legislation only affects White persons. However, provision must obviously be made for the future, and we believe it is quite sufficient to ensure that there is a basis for awarding benefits purely in terms of the different categories which will be determined by the hon. the Minister in relation to the earning capacity of the members concerned. This would then meet the necessary requirements. We believe that it is necessary that there should be different categories, and that is why we have not suggested that the categories be omitted from this clause. It is necessary to have various categories. Obviously there will be people whose earning capacity, as a result of their academic and other qualifications, will be potentially higher than that of others. Consequently it is necessary to have different categories. On this basis, therefore, we believe such a system would obviate the charge of discrimination being levelled when future legislation involving differences in colour or different population groups is passed or reviewed in this House. This portion of the clause should be omitted so as to obviate such a situation and to bring about a degree of equality as far as benefits are concerned, at the same time bearing in mind that different categories are to be applied when the hon. the Minister determines the amounts to be applied to the formula as it is to be published in the Government Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. During the Second Reading debate I tried to underline and make the same point that has now been made again. I do not want to indulge in unnecessary repetition, but we believe this is a point which needs urgent attention from the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Bill itself goes even part of the way because it is interesting to note that if one looks at this particular clause, one sees that it is framed in discretionary terms rather than in mandatory terms. Subsection (2)(a) provides in line 57, page 7—

This suggests that even here one is not laying down that it “shall be done”, but “may be done”.

Whatever the outcome is, the point that one tried to make in the Second Reading debate, and I believe needs to be made under this clause again, is that if one were to speak in ideal terms, then I would agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of my own speech in the Second Reading debate, namely that in ideal terms you cannot distinguish between one man and another when he lays down his life for his country. However, we are also well aware that here we have a situation where different people have different needs and are in different groups. The example has already been given by the previous speaker regarding unemployment insurance. Here you do have categories which are laid down. The point that I want to make is that it is possible at this stage where we have before us such an excellent piece of legislation, where we have such significant improvements made and where we have such a significant narrowing of the gap, for the hon. the Deputy Minister to go just one step further and to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like firstly to react to the hon. the Deputy Minister on the four amendments which I did not move and which he did not accept. The basic difference in approach, I think, between the hon. the Deputy Minister and ourselves—I am of the opinion that we should get this clear—is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made it clear in his speech that there are other social pensions that can be brought into the picture to deal with deserving cases, that there are other means of solving a problem based on an issue of charity. I do not want any misunderstanding, and therefore I say that the difference between the hon. the Deputy Minister and this side of the House is that we believe that a war pension is not an act of charity; it is a right. It is a right which every serving soldier has, and knows he has, that the State is giving it to him, because the State is asking him to risk his life and to risk injury. He therefore has a right to this. I think to approach it as if it were a social pension, as if it were an act of charity, is a wrong conception. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing a disservice to the whole concept if he leaves that uncorrected. I think it is very important that he does not do that. As far as we are concerned, the fact that there may be one grandchild in issue—and I dispute that, because I maintain that it is a problem which exists in many cases—one child of one soldier, is certainly something which should not be left without the needs of that soldier being attended to. That is what I think should be the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

When it comes to parents-in-law and the case that I made out, I believe that the responsibility of many serving soldiers to support parents-in-law is a very real one. To say to a serving soldier that if anything should happen to him, his mother-in-law could try to get a social pension or try to live on charity, is not the approach. It certainly is not the approach. I think the soldier should be confident that whatever the position is, the State will in fact care for those to whom he has a responsibility and that the State will not try to push that responsibility on to a charitable organization or on to a social pension situation.

When it comes to the question of the amendment dealing with people who are otherwise undergoing training for an occupation, I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister appears to have overlooked the words in the definition to the effect that the man must be a full-time student, whether at a university or at another educational institution. The fact that he may be a part-time student of some kind at some educational institution or that the particular educational institution may not be one such as is contemplated in this clause, again excludes people and specifically the sort of person who is least privileged. I would ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister should look again at these amendments. After the House has passed this Bill, let him consider them again and go into the possibilities of doing something for these people, because I do not believe that we should allow a serving soldier to be under the impression that, if anything happens to him, those who are dear to him will in these circumstances have to rely on charity. I think that that is an entirely undesirable state of affairs. I think that a person who becomes a serving soldier should feel that he certainly does not have to worry about his family, whether it be his immediate family, his wife, children, grandchildren or his mother-in-law. He should not have the worry that they may be in need if anything should happen to him. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he will not accept these amendments today, at least to ask his department to investigate them and possibly at some stage in the future make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cover the whole field again, but I shall refer briefly to the points raised by the hon. members. In the first place, to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, may I say that I have never looked upon providing people with social pensions as an act of charity. I have never looked upon it in that way because I believe that people, who live out their lives for this country, deserve something back. Therefore it is not an act of charity; these are deserving cases. However, I do follow the argument of the hon. member. I want to repeat what I said at the Second Reading, and that is that I have no doubt that improvements can be brought about to this Bill. I have no doubt that we will be coming with amendments, hopefully in the very near future. I also mentioned in my Second Reading speech that it has already been shown that we will have to look at the legislation again in respect of the soldiers who took part in previous wars and that we will have to bring this measure into line to some extent. In one of the newspapers it was reported that I had said that this measure will be brought on a par with what we suggest for the present-day soldiers. Of course, I did not say that, but I did say, and I repeat, that we shall at least have to narrow the gap between the pensions paid to those who fought in previous wars and those who are covered by this Bill. However, these things cannot be done merely by passing an Act of Parliament We also have to consider the opinion of the several organizations concerned with this matter such as the S.A. Legion and others. These organizations brought to our notice certain anomalies which do exist, and I do not deny that they exist. We can try to produce a perfect Bill and waste a lot of time straightening out every word, but this measure must at least correspond with legislation that is on the Statute Book at present. I want to give all three members who spoke on the matter the assurance that this will not be the final word on this measure.

I have indicated that we shall be having a look at the question of a brochure. I have also mentioned that we are having discussions with the Department of Defence in this regard. We have to consult them. I can mention today that only two days ago we received a letter from that department pointing out certain things which they thought should be brought in. We are most definitely considering all these things. I also mentioned that even the gap that exists at present between the different race groups in respect of ex-servicemen who fought in other wars must also be amended at some stage. I cannot say at this moment how it will be done, but in other cases it has been done by raising the percentage increase in respect of certain race groups so as to approach the ratio we anticipate should be paid out to present members of the Force. Therefore, I regret that, for reasons I have pointed out, I cannot accept this amendment. What the hon. member for Pinelands said, is perfectly correct. It is perfectly correct that this is a permissive measure. The clause does not stipulate that it is compulsory that it should be based on that alone. Therefore amendments can be introduced, but one must be practical about it too. To think that we could at the present moment increase these pensions, is wrong. We can only do so when we have the funds. When we do so, we shall have to face up to the fact that, in the case of soldiers of previous wars, there is a discrepancy which is much wider than is expected to be the case under this new proposed legislation.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked me what I thought the position would be in the case of a young man being called to war, should his parents be dependent on him. I believe that, whatever mistakes we may have made, it can be said to our credit that we listened to the appeals made by organizations such as the S.A. Legion and others. In the past, cases like this have been treated with the utmost compassion and understanding. Therefore, even in the case of a youngster, on whom his elderly parents would become dependent within five or six years, compassion and understanding will be displayed in dealing with his case. I have no doubt that this approach will remain unchanged in the future. If this does not happen, organizations representing ex-servicemen will certainly complain. I, for one, as well as all other hon. members of this House, I believe, will regard any such complaint as being fair and just. Those people who willingly sacrifice their lives for the country, should know that they and their next of kin are well cared for.

I do promise, therefore, that I shall again look into the points mentioned. In ironing out things with which we are not completely satisfied at the present moment, we shall bear in mind the points raised during the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, especially those points to which we cannot— for reasons stated—agree at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet replied to the point which I was trying to make, viz. why it was necessary to have incorporated in clause 1(2)(a) the question of the different population groups, because the hon. the Deputy Minister quite rightly referred to a matter which was raised during the Second Reading. It is true that this matter was discussed during the Second Reading, the matter of the disparity among the various race groups and the disparity between existing pensioners who will not derive any benefit from these formulae and those who will receive benefits after 1 July 1975. It is on that basis that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet justified his inclination to retain the present wording of clause 1(2)(a), where it refers to population groups.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke during the Second Reading, he indicated various figures in various categories. He also indicated that he had in mind six categories. It is true that he based it on the fact that there would be two categories for each of the racial groups—being the Whites, Coloureds and Indians taken together and the Bantu. The point I want to make, is that it is not necessary to have those population groups defined as such. The same object can be achieved in applying a factor to the various formulae if one merely had the six groups, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated he was going to have published in the Government Gazette, which was mandatory for him to do. It is stated in the clause that it “shall be determined by notice in the Government Gazette”. The hon. the Deputy Minister can have the members classified as either A or B or C members, or whatever the case may be. This, the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the Second Reading, was his intention. He intended to base it on six different categories, on six different figures, on six different pensions awarded. Surely, if the hon. the Deputy Minister is able to do that with regard to six categories of persons, based on the potential earning capacity of those concerned, he can do so without necessarily taking into account the population groups, but merely on the basis of the categories of the potential earning capacity of the people concerned. He intends to have six categories. We on this side of the House fail to see why the hon. the Deputy Minister at this stage wishes to retain the words “population groups” and to differentiate on the basis of colour or race, when it will not in any way materially affect his application of the formulae, if he bases it purely on the potential earning capacity of the people concerned. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate why he deems it necessary to stipulate population groups in addition to stipulating different categories.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member’s speech. I believe this field has been covered more than adequately by this time as a result of the various viewpoints which have been raised. Firstly, as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said, only Whites are affected by this measure. If a basis were to be determined on which the income group could be determined, hon. members would be able to debate the matter for a long time. However, it would mean, firstly, that many Whites who already find themselves in this position, would receive far less than the minimum amount of R300 laid down as the minimum amount. In the circumstances I do not know how I shall be able to justify such action to the people of the Legion and others. Secondly, it is said that discrimination on the basis of colour is to be done away with. I should like to emphasize that I have never understood this in any other way but that the hon. the Prime Minister has said repeatedly: “We are moving away from discrimination on the grounds of colour alone,” but moving away does not mean that one can create chaos by simply doing away with everything all at once.

Accepting this amendment will not result in chaos.

As I have pointed out during the Second Reading, this will have an effect on other pension schemes as well. I am not now going to repeat all those arguments. I have said, and I mean it, that this is a permissive clause. If the hon. the Minister decides in his wisdom to make use of the other categories and not the ones which he may also apply, then it is for the hon. the Minister to decide, be it this year or next year and on the insistence of whoever it may be. At this stage, therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one point very briefly arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister drawing attention to the fact that at the moment the serving soldiers who are not White are not national servicemen. In the same clause that we are dealing with we also deal with formula III. Formula III is specifically referred to in clause 8, which deals with the situation where the recipient of a pension dies. If one of the old soldiers, if I may use that term, dies, then formula III comes into operation. It is therefore clear that in so far as the retaining of this provision in respect of the differentiation between population groups is concerned, the immediate effect will be that the clause will be applied to formula III in terms of clause 8. The argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister is—and this will become relevant when clause 8 is debated—that he does not immediately want to make all pensions equal, because he has not the money. However, one can make the increases that occur from now on, on a completely different basis without having recourse to differentiation and discrimination on the basis of colour.

That is why we in these benches not only want this provision to apply in respect of formulae I and II, as the hon. member for Umbilo has argued, but also in respect of formula HI, as this is most important in respect of ex-servicemen of past wars. That is why we cannot accept that this provision should remain as part of this clause.

On amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield,

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. G; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Noes—41: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped. Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 5, to omit “outside the Republic”;
2. (2) on page 9, in lines 6 to 9, to omit subparagraph (ii);
3. (3) on page 9, in line 16, after “on” to insert “or returning from”;
4. (4) on page 9, in line 23, to omit “unprovoked”.

I motivated these amendments during my Second Reading speech. I should briefly like to point to the import of the amendments. In the first amendment I have moved that the words “outside the Republic” in line 5 on page 9 be omitted, and in the second amendment I have moved that the whole of subparagraph (ii) be omitted. As I have indicated, the reason for this is that, in today’s conditions, taking into account the type of activity in which we are likely to have our forces engaged, the distinction between service inside and outside the Republic is not a realistic one. There should not be a greater onus in respect of an injury which occurs in the case of service inside the Republic than in the case of service outside the Republic. To my mind the old distinction is a remnant of the last war and that it has become academic. That is why I have moved the first two amendments.

As regards my third amendment, the wording in clause 2(l)(a)(iii) is designed to cover anybody who proceeds on authorized leave. I think the intention of this provision is not only to cover such a person while he is proceeding on authorized leave, but also while he is returning from authorized leave. Both these matters should be covered.

As regards my fourth amendment, the provision in clause 2(1)(a)(iv) reads—

Therefore, the issue is whether the fact that he is a member of the S.A. Defence Force is the cause for the assault. To include the word “unprovoked” once again creates an onus which I find undesirable. If a man is assaulted within the ordinary course of the term by reason of his membership of the Defence Force, then he should in fact be covered. Let me give an example. If somebody were to insult the Defence Force and a member of the Defence Force were to react, then as a result of this he would have been provoked. To my mind that would be a provoked assault. If anyone defends the Defence Force in these circumstances, then surely he should be covered. In my submission the word “unprovoked’ ’ in these circumstances can only result in difficulties, and that is the reason for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we in the official Opposition will not support the amendments of the hon. member for Yeoville. We find it strange that the hon. member for Yeoville should suddenly want to consider service beyond the borders of the Republic on the same basis as service within the Republic. We see a difference in the circumstances which can arise in the case of service within and without the Republic. If a person is beyond the borders of the Republic and serving outside the Republic, then he is the total responsibility of the Defence Force. Any injuries which he then suffers should be the responsibility of the State.

We do not believe that it is reasonable to say that you must remove all discretion from the Secretary and that if a man who is on military service anywhere in the Republic, under any circumstances, for any reason whatever, becomes injured, then the Secretary shall have no discretion in ruling that that injury was either due to factors which were not due to his service or to his own misbehaviour or to his own negligence. To suggest that a man, simply because he is wearing a uniform should be absolved from any responsibility for his own actions or behaviour is, we believe, not reasonable, and therefore we feel that the Bill as it stands draws a correct distinction between service outside the Republic and the need to impose a sense of responsibility on people serving in the Republic. Obviously, if conditions arose such as those which were visualized by the hon. member for Yeoville, a different set of circumstances would be created. We must surely not believe that the Secretary is going to rule out compensation for injury which is the result of a state of war or a state of active hostility within the Republic itself. So we think that this distinction is necessary.

As regards the third amendment, which relates to a person proceeding on authorized leave, I want to draw attention to the words “to or from his home”. If you are travelling to or from your home, that means you are travelling in either direction, to your place of destination. It is quite clear in the Bill and we are not prepared to split hairs over the meaning of words.

In regard to the last amendment, which relates to an unprovoked assault, again we do not believe it is reasonable to say that if a man who is wearing a uniform gets full of hops and punches somebody and then gets injured, that provocation should not count as one of the factors to be considered. If a man is assaulted without provocation, then obviously he should be protected, but we do not think it is reasonable to protect a man who provokes an assault and then as a result of provoking, becomes injured. So we do not support these amendments.

I just want to say that I cannot accept the amendments. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member said, but I just want to say that as far as the first two points are concerned, regarding service inside or outside the Republic, our standpoint is supported by the S.A. Legion and other organizations who try to look to the interests of ex-servicemen.

†I think that will be borne out by the hon. member for Green Point.

As regards the hon. member’s third amendment, perhaps the hon. member misread this provision, because it states very clearly “to or from his home or place of destination”.

As regards the last amendment and the example mentioned by the hon. member, I want to say that if a man insults the S.A. Army or insults his parents, then surely that is provocation and no Secretary or other official would be so foolish as to describe that as being unprovoked, if the person concerned defends his country or he defends himself. I can assure the hon. member that that will be regarded as a provoked assault. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept these amendments.

In regard to what the hon. member for Durban Point has said, I want to say that I do not intend to turn this into a petty political argument as he has obviously tried to do. I shall rather try to keep it on the level on which this debate has been conducted so far. I want to come back and deal specifically with this issue. In so far as the difference between “inside” and “outside” the Republic is concerned, let us look at how the Bill reads at present. Firstly, a person can only get compensation in any case “if it arose or became manifest during the performance of military service”. That applies whether it is inside or outside the Republic. The example given by the hon. member for Durban Point is quite irrelevant to the issue. The simple fact is that it states “during the performance of military service”. The difficulty which arises—and I want to draw attention to it very clearly—is that there is no difference, to my mind, whether a soldier happens to serve—and I am talking now about injury, nothing else; I am not talking about politics—on the one side of the border, or whether he is injured on the other side of the border. How can there be any difference? It is illogical that in the one case there is a necessity for the Secretary to exercise his discretion while in the other case it is automatic. The reason why this was originally introduced and why it was supported in the old days by all the service organizations, is that when one served in Egypt, or served in Italy or the desert, there was quite a different situation compared with being in South Africa. But that is no longer the position in regard to wars in which we are going to be involved. The real wars are going to be fought—if they are going to be fought and I hope they will not be—are going to be fought on our borders and inside our own country. That is what the issue is. Why there should be a disability where discretion now has to be exercised on the one hand where one soldier gets injured because he is inside the border of the Republic and no discretion if he was on the other side, to me is utterly illogical. I think that events will show, and I make the forecast, that although the hon. the Deputy Minister may not accept it today, he will come back in a little while with an amending Bill in which this very matter will be put right. I have no doubt about it.

Then we come to the second amendment, a technical amendment, namely the question of “or returning from”. If one reads this it is quite clear that one can proceed on authorized leave from one’s home. There is no doubt about it. Therefore, all that this amendment is designed to do is to put the matter right from a semantic point of view. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to accept that, I do not mind. It is merely to put the semantics right and I do not feel too strongly about it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstood me completely with regard to the third amendment. The situation in ordinary law is that an assault which is committed upon someone which is occasioned by his membership of the South African Defence Force does not mean what the hon. member for Durban Point says, namely that the man may be full of hops and gets himself involved in a fight that is not the issue. He is only protected here when the assault takes place because he is a member of the Defence Force. That is what is stated in the Bill. In other words, the ordinary situation does not arise. If he gets involved in a brawl, quite obviously that is not an assault which would be occasioned by his membership of the Defence Force. It is only because of the fact that he serves and because he serves in those circumstances that he is assaulted.

And if he is on crowd control duty?

Let us take the hon. member’s example. If he is on crowd control duty, then this does not apply at all. Then he is injured while acting in the performance of his duties in terms of subsection (1), if the hon. member will look at it. Crowd control duty has nothing to do with this. While he is actually performing his duty he is always covered. It is only when he is not acting in the performance of his military service that this provision applies at all. This is the sort of case where the situation may arise in South Africa that some people might be anti-war and might decide to assault soldiers. That is what this is designed to cover, and the hon. member for Durban Point knows it. That is all this is about. When we deal with an unprovoked assault, the example which I gave is that you may find that a soldier finds that the Defence Force is insulted, as a result of which he does something which is then regarded as provocation to the other person to assault him. In these circumstances it could be said that because of his reaction he would have provoked the assault. I gave that as an example. If he is assaulted and the assault is occasioned by his membership of the Defence Force, then he should be covered.

Mr. Chairman, there is one query I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, before doing so, I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Durban Point in rejecting various amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Of importance here is the question of the deletion of “outside the Republic” and the omission of clause 2(l)(a)(ii). If these amendments were accepted, such acceptance would perhaps place at a disadvantage some of those persons who are going to be vitally affected by the provisions of this Bill. I say this because the date of commencement of this legislation is 1 July 1975. The measure is therefore being made retrospective in effect. This would cover many of the young men who have performed service outside the Republic in Angola These people are also desirous of knowing on what basis their disablement benefits will be granted. The elimination of the discretion, which the hon. member for Yeoville seeks in his amendment, would certainly place these people on a different basis to those who are, for instance, receiving compensation as the result of service in the Korean War in recent times. I do not see why there should be an objection to treating these people who have served in Angola on a different basis to the basis on which those are treated who served in other wars, for example the war in Korea.

The query I want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister also involves the period of military service. Let me quote for the purposes of my argument clause 2(3)(c), which reads as follows—

This clearly defines the commencement of his military service, but there appears to be no other provision with regard to when his military service shall cease. For example, those persons undergoing three months’ service will be returned to their homes when the three months’ period of service is over. However, they may be injured or killed on the journey home, and there is no provision in the legislation to determine the exact time when “military service” ceases. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give some indication of what will be deemed to be the “end” of the period military service.

Mr. Chairman, may I just add a word about the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think it is important to realize that this makes provision for injury or disability which arises “during” a period of service, but not for injury or disability directly caused “by reason of” active involvement in conflict. I am merely raising this issue because the hon. member for Yeoville queried the hon. the Deputy Minister’s remarks that the S.A. Legion had accepted this position. When a man is outside the Republic he is under the full-time control of the military authorities and as such is their responsibility. This applies to the full period of his being outside the Republic. For that reason we feel the responsibility must be complete when a person is outside the Republic. However, when he is doing military service within the Republic, there are times when he is not under the direct control or command of the military authorities. He does have civilian freedom of movement within his own country, and we believe that a distinction must be drawn under those circumstances. Injuries can well arise while he is doing military service, but because of something that happens in the course of his exercising his normal civilian rights within the country. For that reason the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct in saying that the S.A. Legion was prepared to accept this distinction between service inside and outside the Republic.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) negatived.

Amendment (4) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat all the arguments which have already been put forward. He can merely move the amendment formally.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend repeating any arguments, and I had intended to say just that in my next words. I merely move the amendment and say that we are unconvinced that the Deputy Minister requires this definition.

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—102: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha J. C. G.; Botha L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. G; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—38: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to repeat our arguments, but the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to the query I raised in the Second Reading concerning the proposed ceiling to the gratuity, a ceiling of respectively R300 and R600. I raised this in comparison with what a person with a 25% disability would get over 20 years and the minimum limit. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate that he will either remove the ceiling and allow the gratuity to be determined by notice in the Gazette, or that he will make provision for some other relief to ensure that the figure is realistic.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having replied in full on this matter during the Second Reading debate, but I just want to tell the hon. member that these amounts were discussed in detail with the S.A. Legion. They were satisfied that ample provision had been made. There is of course no reason why amendments should not be made to this when adjustments are considered next year, changes as foreseen in clause 8. At this stage, however, I may assure the hon. member that the people who acted on behalf of the ex-servicemen are satisfied that ample provision has been made. They have assured us of this.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This particular clause deals with the veterans of past wars, and the issue here is somewhat different to the others, because here we are actually dealing with large numbers of people who are not White and who were not involved in past wars. The reason for this amendment is that, whereas one has had increases which have been applied, the increases have not tended to close the gap, but they have instead tended to widen the gap, because when one has a percentage increase added to both, one has a situation in which the gap can in fact be widened.

In the present circumstances, it is perfectly true that, in so far as the desire to wipe out the gap entirely is concerned, it may be necessary in years to come to give bigger increases to Black people as opposed to the increases given to White people, in order to wipe out the gap and to make the two equal. That can be done, even after the acceptance of the amendment, by the power that the hon. the Minister has to differentiate between categories of people, but not on a basis of race.

I wonder whether the hon. member should elaborate on that point, because we have dealt with that already under a previous clause.

Sir, I am just about to finish it. All that I am saying, is that it can—in respect of categories of people—wipe out the gap without referring to people’s race. Taking race as a factor should not come into any issue which arises here. That is why I move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House did not move an amendment to this particular clause, for the reason—partly stated by the hon. member for Yeoville—that there is a difference between the provisions of this clause, which affect the existing pensioners, and those who received pension awards before July 1, 1975. We know that there are something like 2 855 Coloureds and Indians and 1 887 Bantu who are war pensioners and who will be affected by the consolidation which is to take place in terms of this clause. The reason why we did not move an amendment, is that we believe it is perhaps necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to have this provision in order to bring about a rapid narrowing of the gap between the pensions paid to Whites and to non-Whites. For this reason we would be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give an indication as to whether it is necessary for him to retain the clause as it now stands, so as to enable him to differentiate on a favourable basis, particularly among the non-White war pensioners, in order to bring about a narrowing of the gap for the existing pensioners. It is on that basis that we have not moved an amendment to this particular clause. However, we would like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation as to whether he does require this wording to give effect to the narrowing of the gap.

Mr. Chairman, the only reply I can give to the hon. member is that that is exactly the position. It does not only concern a narrowing of the gap between the different race groups, as it is still applicable at the moment, but also the narrowing of the gap between the different war groups, between ex-servicemen of the different wars. I did say during my Second Reading speech that this matter would be considered by next year. However, I cannot give any assurance as to what will be done in the case of Black people, because that is something I do not know. All I can say, is that attention to the request will be given during the course of next year.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the situation is very simple. If the desire is to eliminate the gap entirely, the power that the hon. the Minister would have in his hand to differentiate between categories of persons, would be quite adequate. The tragedy is that race is being enshrined in this piece of legislation as a factor on which the hon. the Minister will operate. If, money-wise, the increases are equal, the gap will be virtually eliminated in no time, and the remainder of the gap will be eliminated by the power to distinguish between categories of persons. However, to perpetuate race as a ground for distinction, is something which is undesirable.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, clause 13 appears to cover the entire position outlined by the hon. the Minister of Defence when he was questioned recently about whose responsibility a wounded ex-serviceman was at certain stages of his career. At first blush it appears that this clause does in fact cover that position, but on closer examination it seems that that is not the position, because what happens here is that the Pensions Act covers a wounded man if in fact he has been certified as having a pensionable disability. It is only after that act takes place, the certification of the wounded man as having a pensionable disability, that the provisions of clause 13 apply. There is an area which is not covered by legislation, the area outlined recently by the hon. the Minister of Defence when he said that the wounded man was covered by the Defence Act and by the military hospital until such time as that wounded man is discharged from hospital and discharged after his service. Immediately he is discharged, says the Minister, he will become the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Unfortunately that is not the case, because this has been brought to my notice very forcibly recently. I have in my constituency a wounded soldier who was discharged from border service and is no longer a national serviceman or a member or a volunteer, as referred to in clause 13. This man having been discharged, then went back to his job.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far now. We are not discussing the administrative aspects of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is an administrative clause.

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. the member must abide by it.

Mr. Chairman, I will then read to you what the clause says.

Order! I have read that myself, as a matter of fact.

Sir, the clause provides that he can—

This is exactly what I am explaining. I am speaking now of the wounded man in my constituency to show that this particular clause does not cover his case. Surely I am entitled to do so, Sir? Secondly, this clause provides that he can be admitted to a hospital or other institution in order to—

Thirdly, he may go to a hospital or institution in order to—

I can understand that he can benefit in the opinion of the Secretary if he has any disability. In other words, unless he has been certified as having a disability, he is unable to have any hospital or medical treatment. That is the particular case I am referring to. The case of the voter in my constituency is on all fours with what I am describing here. This unfortunate man has been unable to have treatment at all in the hospital, because, firstly, his file is lying in Pretoria and, secondly, the Pensions Board has not yet certified him. Meanwhile he is in urgent need of attention and in great pain. I believe …

Order! We are not discussing individual cases now. We are now dealing with the medical treatment of members in terms of clause 13.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, we are discussing clause 13

Order! And what is more, the principle of the clause has already been accepted during the Second Reading.

Yes, the principle has been accepted, but I am explaining what the effect of the acceptance of that principle is. I think I am perfectly entitled to do so. I am certainly not prepared to sit down and not proceed with my argument because I am quoting …

Order! Is that intended as a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir, it is not a reflection on the Chair. However, I am not going to sit down while I am discussing, as an example, the case of a voter in my constituency.

Order! The hon. member may state his case very briefly, but I am not prepared to allow him to discuss it in full detail.

I certainly do not intend discussing it in any detail, Sir. This unfortunate man is in pain, and requires medical and hospital treatment. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Defence, who is now leaving the Chamber, how he is going to ensure that this man gets the necessary attention. The hon. the Minister of Defence shrugs his shoulders and leaves the House without listening to this very important matter. Is that the amount of consideration he has for …

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

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare will show more consideration for this case and that he will see to it that before he takes this Bill to the Other Place, he broadens the scope of clause 13 so as to include social welfare benefits, including medical treatment and hospitalization, for people who find themselves in the position of the person I have just described.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is my bounden duty—not that I hold any brief from the hon. the Minister of Defence—to say that it is most unfair to accuse the hon. the Minister of not having any feelings for the people under his charge.

Why did he leave the House then? [Interjections.]

I am quite prepared to accept the responsibility for handling this legislation before the House. The treatment I have received in the past from the hon. the Minister of Defence has been so courteous and considerate towards the people in the army, that I have no doubt that this case will be treated in the same way. Therefore, if the hon. member wishes to bring this case to my notice, I give him my word that it will be treated as we always treat cases which are being brought to our notice. It can be done administratively, and if there is anything wanting in this Bill, I promise that we shall bring about an improvement in the light of the suggestions made by the hon. member or those of the S.A. Legion. However, I do not think we should cast reflections on people in the way in which it has been done here.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper and also additional amendments, covering four items, as follows—

1. (1) On page 31, in item 3, to omit “20,32” and to substitute “20”;
2. (2) on page 31, in item 4, to omit “20,32” and to substitute “20”;
3. (3) on page 31, in item 4, to omit “11,43” and to substitute “11”;
4. (4) on page 31, in item 5, to omit “11,43” and to substitute “11”;
5. (5) on page 33, in item 10, to omit “12,70” and to substitute “13”;
6. (6) on page 33, in item 11, to omit “12,70” and to substitute “13”;
7. (7) on page 33, in item 12, to omit “10,16” and to substitute “10”;
8. (8) on page 33, in item 13, to omit “10,16” and to substitute “10”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members who brought these aspects to my attention that I gladly accept the amendments. If there are other matters which can be brought to my attention and which can be rectified, administratively, this will be done in the schedule.

Mr. Chairman, as we indicated in the Second Reading, we hold the same view in this connection and will support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I have a suspicion that in regard to the five amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, it will be ruled that they involve extra expenditure. Therefore I shall only move them formally—

1. (1) On page 31, in item 4, to omit “70” and to substitute “80”;
2. (2) on page 31, in item 4, to omit “60” and to substitute “70”;
3. (3) on page 33, in item 11, to omit “70” and to substitute “80”;
4. (4) on page 33, in item 19, to omit “40” and to substitute “50”;
5. (5) on page 33, in item 27, to omit “30” and to substitute “40”.

The hon. member is quite right. I am unable to accept the amendments as they require the State President’s recommendation.

For that reason I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will accept these amendments as his own. I do not want to enlarge upon the case unduly, except to indicate that I believe the schedule as a whole should be looked at again as it seems to be an historic thing. I should like to give just one example. I do not think it is fair to discriminate, though there might be a greater degree of disfigurement in the one case, between the loss of an eye and the loss of sight in an eye. The actual disability from a working point of view is identical. This illustrates how this schedule needs to be looked at. I believe it is an historical thing which needs to be looked at in the light of modern conditions. I could enlarge upon the other matters listed in my amendments, but it may take some time and it would be unnecessary to do so. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will not accept these proposals now, then I should like to ask him to indicate to us whether he is prepared to have his experts look at this schedule again to make it more realistic.

I now proceed to put the first amendment …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think you have not seen the hon. the Deputy Minister who has been trying to get up to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I shall have this matter referred to the experts.

Amendments moved by Mr. W. V. Raw agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House wish to state briefly that we have no objection to the Third Reading of the Bill. We have followed with keen interest the various speeches made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in regard to further improvements which may be forthcoming with the passing of this Bill. We shall follow the position with keen interest particularly in the light of the view that he expressed that it is the intention of the Government to narrow the gap between the various groups and between the various types of pensioners, which means that the older pensioners can also look forward to further alleviation at some time in the future.

We believe that it is important that the Bill be dealt with expeditiously by virtue of the fact that there will be a considerable number of men, widows and dependants who will derive benefits, particularly in terms of the new formula which will come into operation, and which will be applied retrospectively, as from 1 July 1975. It will also benefit the older pensioners, who look in hope to the Government to afford them some relief as they have suffered considerably in recent times as a result of inflation and other factors.

At this stage it is appropriate to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister and particularly to the senior officials who have devised this new and improved system in regard to the award of war pensions. We hope that it will have the desired effect and that it will be successfully administered. We are quite sure it will be administered efficiently by the department With these few words we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also have no objection to the Third Reading of this Bill. Indeed, we support it. I will not take up the time of this House by repeating statements which have been made in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, except to say that we are sorry that some of the amendments we attempted to move and some of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Umbilo were not accepted. At this stage we can only hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will indeed look at these in the future and that at some future time legislation will be introduced to take away the principle of race differentiation still embodied in this legislation. We are of course enormously grateful for the provisions which are contained in this legislation. We are glad that it has gone through the House fairly expeditiously and we hope it will also go through the Other Place without undue delay so that the benefits concerned will be made available to those who need them the most as soon as possible.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) That the petition from R. H. C. Wood, President of the Transkeian White Citizens Association, praying for leave to be heard at the Bar of the House by counsel in opposition to the provisions of the Status of the Transkei Bill, presented to this House on 1 June, be granted;
2. (2) that such counsel be heard at the Bar of the House at such time as the House may direct; and
3. (3) that immediately after such address a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the position of the South African citizens presently owning property in the Transkei, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Sir, the motion is an unusual one. The last time, I think, that it was allowed in this House was in 1914. In the Other Place, in 1946, permission was given for an Indian to appear before its Bar. There have been other petitions that have been placed before this House in the past, but they have either not been allowed to be discussed, through being placed at the bottom of the Order Paper, or they have fallen away with the withdrawal of the Bill which affected them. I give as an example the Native Legislation Bill of 1936. I am therefore very grateful to the hon. the Leader of the House for giving me this opportunity of using Government time to introduce my motion.

Sir, a motion of this nature is only allowed in very urgent cases, and I submit that the case I have before the House now is indeed urgent I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Cradock supports my view that applications of this nature should be allowed to be discussed in the House. In an interview with the Press he apparently said—

Direct representations have been made to the Minister on several occasions, and now we plead for the right of these people to appear at the Bar of the House. The hon. member for Cradock went on to say in that interview—

That is the whole point, Sir. The White Transkeians want the assurance that when they do want to leave, they can in fact do so. I want to stress that the petition does not object in any way to the ideological policy of the Government or to its political effect. Let me read the petition to this House—

1. (a) the House, in order to enable the Petitioner to state its case, will grant leave to Counsel to appear on its behalf at the Bar of the House;
2. (b) the House will appoint, as a matter of urgency, a Select Committee to receive and to investigate the complaints and recommendations of the White property owners of the Transkei, especially in regard to—

1. (i) the payment of compensation;
2. (ii) the establishment of a valuation court to consider appeals; and
3. (iii) making provision in an Act of Parliament for the purchase of their properties by the Government of the Republic after independence.

Who is the petitioner? The petitioner is the Transkeian White Citizens Association. It is a non-political association, in terms of its constitution. Its executive committee consists of two representatives appointed by the councils by Butterworth, Idutywa, Engcobo and Umtata. Two are appointed by the Transkei Civic Association, an association of 50 years’ standing. Two are appointed by the Umtata Chamber of Commerce and six are appointed by the general public of the Transkei. Furthermore, the association has been accepted by the hon. the Minister as an official body representing the Whites in the Transkei.

The Bill provides for the granting of independence by devolving the powers of the Republic completely and absolutely to the Transkei, thus divesting this Parliament of all legislative powers over that area and of interference in local administration after 26 October. The Bill also provides for citizenship of the new and independent State and protects, in a measure, the right of Transkeian citizens living in the Republic. It does not, however, make any reference to rights and the protection of rights of South African citizens who own property and carry on business in the Transkei. In considering their position, we must remember that when the majority of these people acquired their properties and businesses in the Transkei, they were not aware that the Transkei was destined to become a foreign State. When they learnt what was to happen, numbers of them offered their properties to the Government which had, in terms of a White Paper, offered to compensate those who suffered any pecuniary loss through implementation of Government policy. Because of the large numbers of those offering properties, the Government was compelled, for financial reasons, to introduce a priority scheme, a scheme which classified certain owners, e.g. the aged, the infirm, deceased estates. This has caused resentment and hardship. While the Transkei remains part and parcel of the Republic and this Government is responsible for the just government in the area, these owners are prepared to wait their turn, albeit reluctantly. Now, however, circumstances have changed completely and they demand the right to be able to dispose of their properties at any time they please. Their consternation is great because of the meagre funds set aside by the Government for the acquisition of properties in the coming financial year.

The hon. the Minister might say, as he has done in the past, that he has given an undertaking that the White Paper issued in 1964 will be applied, no doubt even be up-dated to meet present conditions. We say that that is not enough. The present system provides for priority schemes. This is not satisfactory. There may have been some justification for this system up to date, but there is no justification for it after independence. The Minister may say, too, that he has an agreement with the Transkei Government that the Bantu Trust will buy after independence. He will tell us that the Bantu Trust and Land Act was amended to allow it to buy in independent States. He will tell us, too, that he has made provision for other means of payment, other than cash—for instance promissory notes, Government bonds or other scrip. It may do all that, but it does not satisfy this association for Whites living in the Transkei. Its members want protection through legislation.

The Heckroodt Commission was appointed by Dr. Verwoerd to go into the question of compensation for Whites in the Transkei. The commission consisted of Mr. Heckroodt, Dr. Holloway and Mr. Fleming. They visited the Transkei, met the Transkeians publicly and in discussion about the protection which they required, Mr. Heckroodt said the following—

This is what they have insisted on all along. They want an Act of Parliament to protect their rights. Similar statements were made by Dr. Holloway and Mr. Fleming. The people there want it made clear in legislation—if not in this, then in a separate Act—that they have a legal right to compensation, to be paid by whatever South African Government is in power at the relevant time. The inhabitants of Port St. Johns wanted similar protection by way of legislation. They were given assurances by Dr. Verwoerd. On 13 April, 1962, he said in this House that if there were any doubts about certain White areas within the Transkei, like in the case of Port St. Johns, there was no basis for these doubts. Port St. Johns could not be regarded as a White spot. Assurances were given by other Prime Ministers and by the Ministers themselves. Yet we know what happened in the case of Port St. Johns. The inhabitants of Port St. Johns wanted legislation, but they were told it was not necessary. They were White in terms of the law. The Whites in the Transkei therefore now want legislation giving them legal rights to take proceedings against the Government of the Republic for compensation, or they want the immediate provision or sufficient funds to buy up the land of all those who wish to leave before independence. They also want provision for an appeal to an evaluation court should they not be satisfied with the amount offered by the Trust for their properties.

In terms of the White Paper, the Trust may purchase properties at prices approved by the hon. the Minister. Although the hon. the Minister has been reasonable in increasing offers when appeals have been made to him, there have been cases where he has not agreed to the appeals and made increased offers. Prices are therefore now still subject to the whim of a Minister, though not necessarily this Minister. It may even be his successor. They consequently feel they should be given the same rights as other people whose properties are expropriated. Those other people all have a right to go to a board or to a court of appeal. The Whites in the Transkei feel that it is only just that in their circumstances they should have the same right.

I, and other hon. members of this House, have repeatedly raised in this House the question of the Whites in the Transkei, and more recently especially of those in Port St. Johns. They themselves have sought interviews with the hon. the Prime Minister with the object of stating their claims for generous and just treatment. Now at the eleventh hour, when Parliament is about to take the irrevocable step of setting the Transkei on its way to independence, they seek leave of this House to be allowed to appear at the Bar of the House to ask that a Select Committee of members of all parties be appointed to meet them and hear, from them personally, their pleas for protection by way of legislation or otherwise. This should be done before the Transkei obtains independence. After the advent of independence, this Parliament will have no right of interfering in the affairs of the Transkei.

The legislation before the House at present has been described as the most important ever introduced in this Parliament. I therefore appeal to hon. members to make certain that this event is not marred by the sacrifice of our own citizens who will willy-nilly find themselves domiciled in a new and independent State. While it may be very magnanimous of us to give complete freedom, with no strings attached, and with very generous—to say the least—gifts of money and service assistance to ensure the continued peaceful and orderly development of the Transkei as an independent State, it would be a great pity to spoil this by a sordid act of betrayal of our own citizens without giving them a chance of putting their own case to this House. After all, this is a unique situation in our history. It is an act which the Government hopes will be followed up in the case of others in the years to come. Let us set an example now which will do us credit, not only as far as non-South African citizens are concerned—i.e. the Transkeians—but also as far as our own citizens are concerned. I appeal to the House to support me in this motion I have moved.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the address delivered by the hon. member for Griqualand East. What he did here this afternoon, was to anticipate the petition to which his motion relates. The argument he delivered here this afternoon on the merits of the case should have been delivered at the Bar of the House. I do not want to do that, but merely want to debate, from the procedural point of view, the question whether this House as such should grant this petition, yes or no. I know that this is something that seldom occurs in this House. As a matter of fact, as far as I know, there are only six persons in this House today who were here in 1952 when a similar application last came before the House.

For those who do not know the origin of this rule, I want to make a few observations on the matter. I think if one wants to debate this motion on its merits, one must first consider why there is a rule in our parliamentary procedure that a person from outside this House may come to the Bar to present his case to Parliament. This is the first question to which I want to furnish a reply.

I do not want to remind us of the history of the British Parliament; all of us know it. It was first the Witenagemot in the Anglo-Saxon period and then became the Magnum Concilium when Latin became the sophisticated language. The Magnum Concilium came to be known as the Parlementum for the first time on 19 December 1241, and this was a Latinized form of the French word parler. The most significant fact is that the ordinary member of the public, the man outside Parliament, the “commoner” as he was called, at that time did not have the right to introduce legislation in Parliament, neither personally nor through a representative. As a matter of fact, it was in 1254 that Simon de Montfort for the first time summoned together the knights of the counties as “representatives of the people”. They did not meet as true representatives of the people, because they were appointed and not elected, but this is the way in which the people eventually obtained representation in the British Parliament.

It is interesting to note that legislation was originally introduced by way of petition. One must, however, go back to the Latin interpretation of the word. The Latin word for legislation is judicium, from which is derived the English word “judgement”, which really means “oordeel”. It is very interesting that in the year 1414, under Henry V, a petition was presented to the House of Commons for the first time. This petition led to the passing of the first legislation by Parliament. We must give Henry V credit for that. It then came about that, because there were knights in Parliament who represented not the people outside, but themselves, persons outside Parliament were granted the right to appear at the Bar of the House in order to present their case there or to introduce legislation personally. In this connection I should like to refer to 1485, when the first woman appeared at the Bar and successfully presented a petition. Her legislation was passed unanimously by the House. This happened in spite of the fact that women only obtained the franchise in 1918. The practice of allowing petitions to be presented was continued because the strange situation existed in the House of Commons that in 1606, for example, more than 40 members were below the age of 18 years. In fact, in 1621 the youngest member ever was elected to Parliament. He was a certain Edmund Waller, who was elected a member of Parliament at the age of 15. Such a young member then procured a competent person, for example an advocate, to stand at the Bar and introduce the necessary legislation on his behalf. From this arose the practice which we still have today and in connection with which this issue is being debated today.

Only after the First Reform Bill, the Second Reading of which was agreed to by one vote—the vote was 302 against 301—had been placed on the Statute Book in 1832, the total number of voters in Britain was doubled to become 400 000. After the Second Reform Bill was passed in 1867 the franchise was extended so that 2,5 million people became entitled to vote. The Third Reform Bill, 1884, subsequently doubled the number to 5 million voters. Voters’ rolls were then introduced for the first time and voters could elect their own representatives. As a result their legally elected representatives took their seats in Parliament, instead of nominated members.

From 1910 to 1948 there were five occasions and subsequently three more occasions in this Parliament—and then I leave out of account what happened in the Cape Parliament—on which petitions such as the one dealt with by the hon. member in his motion today, were dealt with by this House. As a result of the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill of 1914 Adv. P. F. Smit requested at the time to appear on behalf of persons who had already been deported and were already on board ship bound for Europe. They themselves were not here. In other words, they were not voters who could present their case here through the agency of their representatives. They were already on board ship and were already on their way abroad. For that reason the then Parliament granted the petition.

I may just add that that Bill of Gen. Smuts was so important that the Second Reading speech lasted 6¼ hours. This is still regarded as a record in Parliament today. Moreover, Adv. Smit was the only person ever to have appeared before both the House of Assembly and the Senate. I may add that the Government of the time thought nothing of his arguments. In fact, they were rejected by 95 votes to 11. The second case where a person was allowed to appear at the Bar in this Parliament and to present his case, was that of an Indian named M.D. Barmania. This was in 1946. He appeared before the Senate. It is not necessary for me to give the reference, because it will only take up time. The Government rejected his petition by 22 votes to 13 in the Senate. In other words, even in that instance there was no merit whatsoever in the case.

I just want to give hon. members an indication of what kind of legislation has resulted in persons applying to appear at the Bar. After 1948 there was the case of Mrs. Ballinger, who asked whether certain persons could appear at the Bar of the House in consequence of the Suppression of Communism Act. In 1951 a similar application was received as a result of the Act relating to separate voters’ rolls for Coloured persons. I can continue in this way. As I have said, there was also the case of Margaret Ballinger on 19 May 1952, subsequent to which Fred Carneson submitted certain petitions.

I see my time is running out fast. The important point I wish to emphasize is that, as I have said, petitions initially played an important part in Parliament. I just want to furnish one figure which hon. members can place under their pillows to ponder upon. The Parliament which sat from 1910 to 1915 received no fewer than 2 475 petitions. Since then Parliament has changed throughout the world. It has changed not only in South Africa, but also in Britain, Canada and the other Commonwealth countries.

Over the years the kind of application presented by the hon. member here today, has been pushed aside to an increasing extent for the simple reason that there are representatives in Parliament today who can plead the cause of the voters concerned if it is necessary to do so. According to the 1970 census there were 9 281 White persons—not voters—in the Transkei. What is in actual fact happening now, is that that hon. member, who is a lawyer and who represents those people in the Transkei, is by way of this motion asking this House that another lawyer should come to plead for his own people. The hon. member is today making the significant admission that he is not competent to plead on behalf of his own voters. That is why he has come forward with this motion. He, a lawyer, is now asking that another lawyer should act for him. I have never in my life experienced it that a lawyer says: “I am unable to present my own case; I am going to ask another lawyer to present my case,” whether it be in court, before Parliament or wherever. The crux of the matter is that the people concerned have their representative in Parliament. If he is unable to present their case, he ought not to represent that electoral division here. Let him then make way for another man.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the clock is ticking away very rapidly. The point I want to make is that, if this Parliament allows petitions relating to legislation and requesting that leave be granted to counsel or to persons outside Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House, to be presented at will, this Parliament will open a door which it will never be able to close again. I have before me a mass of legislation which was piloted through Parliament in this year alone. I have looked through it and I may venture to say that in connection with 75% of the legislation applications could have been made for the persons concerned to have been allowed to present their case here personally.

That would be unfair.

That is the point. The opening created in that way could never be closed again. In other words, it would simply amount to this, that this Parliament would continually be dealing with people from outside, people who are in fact represented in this House and whose actions could rightly be interpreted as indicating that their representative was not competent to present their case here, with the result that they prefer to appoint counsel to present their case at the Bar of the House. That is what the result would be.

There are, however, very clear rulings on cases of this nature. These rulings mean in effect that when such a petition is granted, it should not be one dealing with political policy. I quote from Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa by Ralph Kilpin. On page 7 he writes as follows—

The question of the independence of the Transkei forms part of the political set-up in this country. It is not coincidentally involved here. The Transkei is an integral part of the political set-up in the country.

What about the Whites?

I am speaking about the Whites, Whites whom that hon. member ought to represent in this House, but does not represent. That is why he asks that counsel should come to represent them here. [Interjections.] My time is very limited, but I do want to make a further quotation, this time from Parliamentary Practice by Sir T. Erskine May. I refer to page 476 of the 11th edition, where we are given an indication of what we should in fact do with this motion. In this case it was a Bill that was involved, but I want to make it applicable to this motion. I quote—

That is what we should do with this motion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, so that there should be no misunderstanding, that I think the last remarks by the hon. member for Middelburg are an insult …

Middelland! Not Middelburg!

Middelland, then; it makes no difference; they are equally bad. The last remarks by the hon. member are an insult to people who are sincerely trying to protect their property interests. To treat them with contempt such as this, I find unbelievable from a senior and responsible hon. member of this House. [Interjections.] I believe that to speak in those terms is something that, with great respect, the hon. member should have thought of before deciding to make a joke at the expense of people who are sincerely seeking to protect their interests. [Interjections.] The hon. member tried to start his address to this House by relying upon precedents, by relying upon principles, and as he went along, he adapted precedents and principles to serve his own particular purpose. The truth is that there are statements by hon. learned Speakers of this House which completely negate what the hon. member has said. I want to quote, if I may, a specific one which shows what the practice is. It reads as follows—

This is the very point of the request of the hon. member for Griqualand East. This is exactly the point. It is not correct to say that a member of parliament is the only representative when it comes to an issue. The truth is, according to the rulings of Speakers, going back a long time, that when a matter is of general interest and when it affects the country as a whole, it is for the members of Parliament to speak on that general political issue. However, when it is a matter in which particular people are specifically involved, then the people themselves are entitled to be heard. That is the truth of it and if you want examples of it, the example of 1914 which the hon. member quoted from is a classic example because the issue of deportation affects nobody more than the person who is being deported. The issue of one’s property in the Transkei affects nobody more than the person whose property is in the Transkei. It is a particular interest relating to that particular matter. The political decision as to whether or not the Transkei should become independent is a completely different matter which is unrelated to the matter under discussion and it is accordingly not proper to debate this matter.

Those people did not have any representation in Parliament at that time.

That is not correct, because the hon. member well knows that they were South African citizens and had not been deprived of their citizenship when they were being deported. The hon. member knows this better than anyone else and yet, despite that, he says that they were not represented. Is that not correct? They were not deprived of their citizenship. How dare he say that, Mr. Speaker? Let us go to the other cases. The hon. member knows, better than anyone else, …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? How could those people on the ship put their case to this Parliament whilst they were on their way to Europe?

In exactly the same way as they instructed their counsel, they could have instructed their member of Parliament. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being childish. Let me go further and give the hon. member another example. In 1936, as the hon. member knows, since he made a study of it, there were representations that there should be a hearing at the Bar granted for people who opposed what was then called the Native Representation Bill. This request was granted even although they were not heard because the matter was at the bottom of the Order Paper.

That is right.

That is right; and they were represented in Parliament at the stage when that measure was to be made applicable to them. That is the issue. It is a peculiar interest in a particular matter which is the real issue to be decided.

We can go further. In 1932 the South African Indian Congress was allowed to protest against the Transvaal Land Tenure Bill because they had a particular interest, a particular interest in regard to property. And yet the other example the hon. member quoted demonstrates how the principle is involved. When it came to the Suppression of Communism Bill, it was said that that was a matter of general political interest and did not deal specifically with people. There are also similar examples of that kind. Where you have a particular, peculiar interest—and the word “peculiar” is used in its technical sense— then that is a right that should be extended to you, but when a general political issue is at stake, it is another matter.

The job of the hon. member for Griqualand East, who can defend himself, in this Parliament is to talk about whether or not the Transkei should become independent. That is a matter of general political interest. He can look after his constituents as well, but there is nothing wrong when people who are affected and who have property there, say that they want to be heard.

Let me give another example. There is a procedure which the hon. member who spoke before me knows about, viz. the procedure in front of a Select Committee. A Select Committee is, in fact, Parliament. How many times have we heard that we must hear people who are interested before a Select Committee? Nobody says that there should not be Select Committees because the members of Parliament have the answers to everything and can represent everybody in the country.

Anybody can give evidence before a Select Committee.

If the hon. member will accept the appointment of a Select Committee so that we can hear them in front of a Select Committee instead of at the Bar of the House, I for one would be prepared to accept it.

We are asking for that.

That is the point. All they wish to ask for at the Bar of the House, is for a Select Committee to be appointed. If we agree to appoint a Select Committee without hearing them at the Bar of the House, I am certain the hon. member for Griqualand East will support it, and certainly we in these benches shall do so. That is all they are asking for.

I now want to test the uniqueness of the situation. The hon. member dramatically holds up a bunch of legislation and says that on all these things they could be heard all the time. I now want to know from that hon. member how many times we are going to create independent States in South Africa. Will there be 100 of them in Bills that the hon. member talks about? Is this not a unique occasion in the history of South Africa? Is it not a particular occasion in South Africa where one should, at this dramatic moment, take a different view and allow everybody to be heard? It is the essence of democracy that one should try and bring the participation of people as close to the people as possible.

The hon. member went back in history. Let me go to the home of democracy, to Greece, where in fact the people participated in the true sense of the word. The whole history and tradition of this House—and this is why we hear people at the Bar—is based upon these old traditions of the participation of the people in the determination of their own destiny. At this unique moment in the history of South Africa, the hon. member, who presumably speaks for his party, seeks to deprive people who are fundamentally interested of this fundamental participation in the democratic process. With great respect, I think it is something which is not to the credit of the party for which that hon. member has just spoken.

I think it is a unique moment. I am not talking of the merits of the case; I am talking about the fact that there are people here who have vested interests, interests in property, and who, at the present moment, have to rely purely on the word of the Government that they will be compensated. There is no legal right to it, there is no actual machinery, as has been indicated, and they are asking that they should be heard. They are simply asking to be heard and they are going to be deprived of that simple right by a majority vote of this Parliament. I think it is something which ordinary people will find very difficult to understand. That is why we have no difficulty. We in these benches support the motion of the hon. member for Griqualand East but we do not wish to debate the merits of the matter, because that is the task of a Select Committee. We do not wish to debate the issue of the Transkei now, but we ask the Government, at a unique moment in South Africa’s history, not to negate a fundamental concept of people who have interests and who are affected, while all they ask is to be heard. They should not be deprived of that democratic right.

Mr. Speaker, the procedural approach in regard to this matter has been put very effectively by the hon. member for Middelland. The hon. member explained the procedures with regard to this matter and discussed the necessity for action of this kind. Specifically in order to save time I am not going to deal with this matter further. I want to give more attention to the factual aspect of this matter. The hon. member for Griqualand East quoted virtually the entire petition submitted to this House and I now wish to discuss briefly the facts as stated therein. I also want to refer to certain facts mentioned in the debate here today. However, I want to add—with reference to what the hon. member for Middelland said—that he stated very ably and effectively this afternoon what I had hoped to be able to say first. However, I congratulate him on having said it first. Basically, what it amounts to is that the hon. member for Griqualand East yesterday began to submit the testimonial of his own incompetence to the House. [Interjections.] If that is nonsense, then surely it should not hurt so much. The hon. member for Middelland rightly said that the hon. member for Griqualand East could have asked anyone else to argue the matter. He could have asked his voters to appoint another representative, because he could no longer represent them.

Why then do we have these rules?

The hon. member must not try to lead me astray. We have many rules which are inherited and which we maintain for the sake of tradition. This is one of them.

I want to come back to the statements of the hon. member for Griqualand East. He said: “There is no reference in the Status Bill to Whites in the Transkei.” In his bench on the other side of the House the hon. member predicted what I would say in the debate, and made statements which he heard from me yesterday in my office.

Where is that stated in the Bill?

Why did the hon. member not tell the House what I told him yesterday in the presence of the petitioner? I said that under the Status Bill, which has already been tabled, the people of the Transkei are in fact covered.

Where is it stated in the Bill?

It is stated in clause 5 of the Bill.

Read it.

It is unnecessary for the hon. member’s nerves to get the better of him. He should really try, just once, to be polite and give me a chance to finish explaining the situation.

Just as polite as you are?

I could tell the hon. member for Durban Point where he can go to. Yesterday I explained to the hon. member for Griqualand East and the petitioner the case which will undoubtedly still be discussed in the House, and told them they would receive documents for perusal. I explained to them that agreements had been concluded with the Transkei relating to the procedures we would adopt, as we have done over the past two years under the White Paper. I refer to the compensation for the White people in the Transkei who are to be bought out. I also explained that the agreement we concluded with the Transkei is authorized in clause 5 of the Bill. The hon. member states that no reference is made in the Bill to anything of the kind, but that it is a half-truth, if not entirely an untruth. When the petitioner was with me yesterday, in the company of the hon. member, he addressed a personal request to me that the matter be stated in legislation. I conveyed the request to the Government, as I undertook to do. But the Government deems it totally unnecessary to make references of this nature in legislation on a larger scale than that to which I have just referred and which is covered by section 5. It is also covered by the authorization for the Bantu Trust to make purchases within the Transkei after independence. Under legislation piloted through the House earlier this year, the Bantu Trust can in fact effect transfers of rights of such properties to people in the Transkei after they have been purchased. The hon. member must therefore go and tell his petitioners that the wording of their petition is not based on the true facts. I shall shortly be referring to the petition itself in order to disprove further some of the statements it contains.

Why did the Government decide to say that it was unnecessary to introduce further duplicating legislative provisions in this connection? This was not said merely because the Government had stated by way of announcements—I myself have stated this repeatedly in the House—that it would carry out the undertaking as elucidated in the White Paper until after independence. But we have a very long, long record and tradition in connection with this matter. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there must not blow hot and cold at me. A few minutes ago he pretended that I had supposedly been so good to the people and now he is reproaching me by saying that we cannot be trusted. Sir, what are the facts? Forty years under various governments, under the governments of various parties from 1936 to date, the purchases of land have been carried out by the S.A. Bantu Trust and generally speaking, in that time the people have never availed themselves of the kind of appeal the hon. member came and requested here today. As regards the purchases of this kind of property which this petition is about, properties within the Transkei, we have been doing this for the past 12 years in terms of the White Paper, and thus far there has been general satisfaction in this regard. This is this government’s record and these are the facts which indicate that it is unnecessary to pass further duplicating legislation. I see the hon. member wants to put a question to me.

If, after independence, the Transkei Government nationalizes without compensation somebody’s property, to whom does that person look for recompense?

The hon. member ought to know that if such an outlandish thing were to happen, this Government would keep its word with regard to those owners. [Interjections.]

Like at Port St. Johns?

Now they are very sorry I told them this so baldly because now that old argument relating to the political scene in the Transkei which they have been hawking around, has collapsed.

Your word is your bond.

What did the hon. member say?

I say your word is your bond.

That hon. member would do better to remain silent. But what is more, that hon. member ought to realize, and I say this to the hon. member for Yeoville, too, because in fact that is all I need to say to him in reply to his speech—he only really spoke in competition with the UP—that the people, the Whites in question here, the Whites in the Transkei, were not being deprived of representation in the Transkei by this Government. They are still going to remain voters for this Parliament and will still have the opportunity every five years to send capable people to this Parliament to champion their interests here. They will continue to have representation in this Parliament, but after the self-confessions made today by the hon. member for Griqualand East that he is unable to put the case of those people and that someone else must appear before the Bar of the House for that purpose, it would not surprise me if they were to elect someone else to put their case. [Interjections.]

I should now like to refer briefly to what is stated in the petition. I do not take it greatly amiss of the petitioners that their petition is not based on correct facts, because it seems obvious to me that either they had no one to advise them or else they only had the hon. member for Griqualand East to do so. They state that the Transkei Act does not make provision for compensation. I have already dealt with this point by referring to the White Paper in connection with this. [Interjections.] Sir, it is extremely difficult for me to speak in the face of such rudeness. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair will maintain order. The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “rudeness”.

I shall withdraw the word “rudeness”. Sir, if they do not want to listen to me, they can leave. I say that the compensation factor has been covered by the agreement with the Transkei which the Government will ratify in the usual way, and the covering of that agreement by clause 5 of the Status Bill which this House is still to pass. I have already expressed myself with regard to the request of the petitioners that they want an advocate here to speak on their behalf and it is unnecessary to repeat what I said earlier with reference to the opinion of the hon. member for Griqualand East in this connection, but I do just want to add that as far as the compensation is concerned—I omitted to say this just now—in the past 12 years alone we have already paid out approximately R33 million to people for this kind of property we are discussing here this afternoon. Hon. members cannot therefore come and tell us that we have been insensitive about this matter in the past.

Then the petitioners go on to ask that a Select Committee be appointed after their appearance here to investigate their problems, inter alia, those relating to compensation, and also in respect of the establishment of a court to value the properties, a valuation court. This, too, is unnecessary because the White Paper and the system according to which we have operated thus far, according to the White Paper, provides for a system of compensation which, as I say, has involved us paying out over R33 million, to the satisfaction of all those people and without their trying to make use of appeal procedures. In a certain sense they have this.

The last point I want to deal with is the request of the petitioners that provision be made by way of an Act of Parliament for their properties to be purchased after independence. This is a totally unnecessary request because the Trust Act is the Act under which we are going to purchase the land. What is more, as regards the action of the Trust in transferring properties, this has been supplemented by Act No. 4 of 1976 which we passed here earlier this year. In other words, not one of those statements made by the petitioners is entirely correct. I therefore do not think that this House has any reason to comply with the request of the petitioners nor the proposal made by the hon. member for Griqualand East.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal with the hon. member for Middelland. I expected nothing better from him and I shall treat his effort with contempt.

As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, however, he thinks that he can be as abusive as he likes while we must sit quietly and listen to him.

Order! The hon. member may not say that the hon. the Minister has been abusive.

I do not know what term to use, Sir, but I shall obey your ruling and say his references to me were insulting and he showed me no courtesy. He has not helped us at all today; in fact, he has made the position worse. It shows once again that we have in charge of this operation a Minister who does not understand what it is all about. We are at the mercy of a Minister like this.

What did the hon. the Minister say? He said that protection was being given to the White people of the Transkei in terms of clause 5 of the Bill. What these people want is legislation giving them a right against this Government. They want legislation which can force the Government to take certain action. There is nothing at all in this legislation which gives them any right. What does clause 5 do? Clause 5 deals with treaties, conventions and agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. It has nothing to do with the White people in the Transkei. There is no liability for this Government towards them here. They want an Act which states that this Government “shall” buy, not that this Government can enter into a contract with the Transkei Government that the Bantu Trust “may” buy.

What protection does the White Paper (W.P. C.C.—’64) give? Let me read this White Paper on which the hon. the Minister made so much score. When the recommendations were made by Mr. Heckroodt, it was understood that legislation would be introduced at the same time to give protection and stability to the White people. The White Paper states—

1. (b) The adjustment committee will value businesses, including goodwill, as indicated hereunder, and submit its recommendations to the Minister—

1. (i) Land Value;
2. (ii) Value of improvements which existed on 30 June 1963;
3. (iii) Goodwill being profits for 3 years, calculated retrospectively from 30 June 1963; and

1. (c) Such properties may be purchased by the South African Native Trust at prices as may be approved by the Minister.

Everything is “may be”. The Bantu Trust “may” buy. The amendments which we passed the other day do note state that the Trust “must” buy the properties of the Whites in the Transkei. It said it “may” buy them. It may but at prices approved by the Minister. What protection is that? The hon. the Minister asked us to accept his word. He says that he has made the promises and he has carried out the conditions as set out in the White Paper. What was the experience of Port St. Johns, to come back to this question? What was the value of the promises made not only by the hon. the Minister, but also by the then hon. the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd himself? Absolutely no value at all.

We did not rob them of their properties.

No, but they are stuck with their properties; they cannot get rid of them. That is what is happening. The hon. the Minister did not rob anybody, but he did pay somebody R2 million for land that was not worth it. The others now have to sit there and are unable to sell their properties at all. The hon. the Minister, in reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, referred to a “wild” statement he made about nationalization. What has happened everywhere in the north? Has not just that process been going on? What did the late Dr. Verwoerd say in this House when he was warning about White capital going into the Reserves? He said that if anybody puts capital into the Reserves and the assets are nationalized, they must not come to him for assistance. That was what Dr. Verwoerd said. He issued that warning at the time. There is another question which I should like to ask. What will happen if the Transkei Government refuses—this is a very grave fear which the people have there—to allow people to take money out of the country? What will happen then to the people who have their properties there? How are they going to be paid out? They want to know things like that. What will happen if the Transkei Government imposes a purchases tax or the capital gains tax? Those people want to know things like this. How can they be satisfied? This Government is giving them nothing. All they are given are promises. I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. What these people want is a legal obligation on any South African Government—not only this Government—at any relevant time so that it will be forced to buy up the properties. What happens if nationalization takes place overnight? Will the Government then buy up all those properties? Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree with what the hon. the Minister said this Government would purchase?

They can look to the Government at all times.

There is no future in looking.

They do not just want to look to the Government. They want a legal liability imposed on the Government so that the Government will have to act. Unfortunately my time is running to a close, so let me just say that it seems to me that this House is not going to agree on this matter. It is a shame that these people are being left in the lurch; they are being betrayed by this Government.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—41: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—100: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Question negatived.

Mr. Chairman, after the last hour I think I can now understand why there will be a negative response to the request of the hon. member for Durban Central to show the Cabinet as they are on television. [Interjections.] I think if South Africa had seen the Cabinet in action this afternoon with their concern or their non-concern for the little man, they would have realized what is really at stake. [Interjections.]

Sir, I hope you will allow me, before I raise a few specific issues about television with the hon. the Minister, just to respond very briefly to the attack which was made on the Press last night by the hon. member for Durban Point during the course of this debate. I raise this issue because this is the kind of attack which is now becoming part of the small change not only of the politically intolerant which we have become used to in the past, but also of the politically disappointed and dispossessed. I think there is a very important principle involved in this. The hon. member for Durban Point made the astonishing remark last night that the Press in South Africa was free, but that it was also tied and not independent. In heaven’s name, how can a Press be free and at the same time be tied? Dit gaan my verstand heeltemal te bowe. He complained—we know this was the gravamen of his charge—that the English newspapers—

For this reason he looks to the SABC to give, what he calls, a balanced political picture of South Africa. All I can say to him is that there is no harm in hoping. He can keep on hoping.

I want to tell the Committee—I think it is important—that there is no editor of any newspaper in this country, of whatever language medium, who will, if he has any kind of self-respect, adopt a political line in which he does not believe. That is an absolute fact. I do not care what the theory is, but this is a fact. [Interjections.] Why should there always be doubt about the integrity of professional people like journalists? I think it is utter nonsense. Every editor tries to the best of his ability to present a balanced picture. That is all he can do. He can do no more than that. I can say without any fear of contradiction that no editor will accept instructions from managers or owners of newspapers. That is a simple fact. One final word: I wish, in heaven’s name, that those who are constantly denigrating the Press would realize the very grave disservice they are doing not only to Press freedom but, what is much more important, to democracy itself or, at least, to the little democracy there is in this country. Therefore, the sooner they stop it, the better.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister two recent Sunday evening television programmes for which the organizer of religious broadcasts, Mr. Bill Chalmers, was responsible. There is a very important principle involved in this and that is why I mention this person by name. In the first of the programmes there was mention of a discredited anti-semitic document called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which Mr. Chalmers actually recommended to his viewers. He did have the grace to add that the work was now “rejected by a number of authorities”, but what he did not say is that it had been ruled to be a forgery by the South African courts as well as courts elsewhere in the world. The second was a programme last Sunday evening in which Mr. Chalmers advanced the astonishing if not entirely original theory that Western high finance and top banking families were somehow behind international communism and that they were bent on the destruction of Western-style government, property rights, family life and religion.

I say that this is not a wholly original theory because it has been advanced on quiet “stryddae” in the far out-back. It is usually advanced by the HNP and sometimes by some of the more acceptable of our “stryders, oud en jonk”. Nobody objects to intelligent and reasonable controversy on television. On the contrary, this is what any intelligent person needs and wants. It is when we reach the level of the wholly eccentric that viewers have a right to protest. I suggest in all seriousness that both the programmes to which I have referred fall within that lunatic fringe. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is whether the SABC is entitled to allow a man with Mr. Chalmers’ eccentric views free reign on television. I say, emphatically, “no”. I believe it is dangerous to allow people of such insensitivity to make their own value judgments on such very sensitive issues. I suggest in all seriousness that such a man should be put into a position where he will have no final responsibility. What is more, this is no isolated incident. This is not something that has suddenly “ontpopped”. I should like to remind the Committee that a year ago the hon. member for Pinelands in this House quoted Mr. Chalmers as saying: “I am grateful, I am intensely grateful to the SABC for the vital role it plays in God’s plans”. The hon. member then went on to suggest that the SABC should at least be equally grateful to Mr. Chalmers, and I quote: “Because he has been on record many times, both on the radio and in the newspapers, and I suppose he will be on record on television in future” … this was 15 months ago … “as being 100% committed to the policy of separate development. Mr. Chalmers is also on record as having said: ‘The Government is on the side of God in maintaining this fortress of Christianity’.” Mr. Chairman, I want to say that, for all the gratitude that the SABC owes Mr. Chalmers and vice versa, the listening and the viewing public has a right to be spared his way—out and excessively provocative views, unless it is prepared at the same time to give equal time to more orthodox thinkers to refute his views. I hope that this will happen.

I do not suggest that Mr. Chalmers is not sincere. All I know is that some of the most misguided people in life have been sincere. That is no excuse of any nature.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the proposal to spend R102 million on providing a television service for Africans. I hope the hon. the Minister and his advisers will have second thoughts on this matter. To begin with, I would like to say that the number of Black people who will benefit by such a service at this stage or in the near future will be relatively small. As we know, most African homes have no electricity, and the high cost of a television set makes it unlikely that this facility will be widely used. Secondly, the cultural level of the Black people who will be able to afford television will, in any event, be relatively high. They will, therefore, derive as much enjoyment, I suggest, from the present single-channel service as most White people. This will be even truer if the SABC broadened its base a little bit and sometimes forgot its ethnic hang-up.

Finally—and this, I believe, is an important argument—according to a newspaper survey, the people of Soweto would much rather have free compulsory education than a separate television service. They take this stand on the fact that R102 million, which TV would cost them, is enough to provide free and compulsory education for Africans within four years. If it came to a choice, there is absolutely no doubt about what Black people would choose, and there is certainly no doubt as to what would be in the interests of South Africa.

I do not wish to suggest for one moment that television should not provide for people of colour; in fact, the almost total absence of Black, Coloured and Indian faces on South African television today is one of its major defects: it gives the whole service an air of unreality. I suggest the SABC should try very much harder than it is doing at the moment to think of this country as a country of 25 million people, and not of 2,5 million or—as even sometimes, in their generous moments—of 4 million people. As far as the present single-channel arrangement is concerned, I hope that the hon. the Minister and the SABC will not lightly change to separate channels—English and Afrikaans. My experience is that there has been considerable sympathy for this present system. However, there will be pressure which will build up. Not only does it help to promote bilingualism, but I believe it contributes something towards a mutual cultural understanding in the broader sense. In any case, I believe it is wholesome for one language group to be exposed to another. The hon. the Minister has taken the point. I shall not elaborate on it.

There is one final issue that I would like to raise. I want to say a few words about a programme which was broadcast on Monday evening, the programme “Bakens op die Republikeinse Pad”. If this programme was supposed to be plainly and simply the story of the National Party’s struggle to establish a Republic, it should have been clearly labelled as such. It should not have had to masquerade in the guise of being something else, of being the story of South Africa’s progress towards a Republic. [Interjections.] As a snatch of sectional documentation it had no place on television, unless the other side of the story was also told. The fact that some kind of other side is apparently to be presented tonight—and I look forward to seeing this—is surely a tacit admission that the first programme was one-sided and was unfair to many listeners and was regarded as such. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to concern myself with the lot of nonsense the hon. member spoke. I have 10 minutes to speak and we are dealing with other important things. I cannot reply to him and still say what I want to in 10 minutes.

You have already wasted two minutes.

The hon. member’s calculation of time is just as incorrect as his politics. Let us be practical and ask ourselves what we want to achieve with the education and training of our pupils. I want to mention seven things in reply to this question. Firstly, we want to establish a positive joie de vivre in our young people. Four basic truths of life stem from a positive joie de vivre. These are that one tolerates criticism, endures hardships, endures injustice and survives hardships. Furthermore one astonishes oneself with one’s courage and succeeds with one’s conviction. To me, if there is a model of joie de vivre which is built into an organization and the people who serve the organization, then it is the National Party. Let us enumerate the points. We tolerated criticism over the years; dirty criticism. We endured injustice and our history is laced with this. We survived hardships, astonished the world with our courage and won convincingly. If we can establish those ideas in our people, then we have brought home to them a basic truth which has stood the test of centuries.

The second point is the enthusiastic awareness of one’s vocation. If only we could establish this idea amongst our children! Let us see whether we can. Dr. Malan said: “Believe in yourself, believe in your nation, believe in your God.” What is the message inherent in this? A vocation, an awareness of a vocation. What does Strijdom say? He said: “The struggle continues.” To what purpose? To achieve one’s vocation. What did Verwoerd say? He said: “A nation creates its own future.” This is its vocation. What does Vorster say? He said: “Fulfil your vocation.”

The third point is respect and veneration for life. We have to establish that idea amongst our young people: Respect and veneration for life. Because life is God. At the moment the whole world is looking for a new evaluation of life. In this exaggerated humanism, this exaggerated sensitivity to which we are subjected, especially we here in South Africa, not an after-effect of the reaction against the contempt and denial of the respect for life during the Second World War and the misery and suffering which stemmed from it?

The fourth is appreciation for the fine and beautiful. When recently we strolled through the mountains with the officials of the Department of Forestry, I realized that I do not need a Bible under my arm to turn me into a believer. I only have to look at the Omnipotent, the good and beautiful to find something in it which I can cherish, love and live for.

The fifth is love of one’s neighbour and charitable service. Yesterday when the hon. member for Westdene said that there are more than 2 000 welfare organizations in South Africa, I immediately thought of all the wonderful virtues which have already been built into our national structure.

The sixth is the joyful willingness to serve one’s country and its inhabitants. For example look at our men on the border. Those with long hair must not simply be condemned without qualification, because I have testimony that people with long hair fought most courageously and bravely on the border.

That is not the hon. member for Pinelands.

I am speaking of our people, those who have built-in qualities.

The seventh is a strong, positive religious focus.

If we can build these seven characteristics into our people, then I am not afraid. Whose responsibility is it to do so? It must start with the parent and from the parent it is transferred chiefly to the teacher and he must take it further. I want to say at once that no country in the world is rich enough to pay the right class teacher sufficiently for his services. If we think that we can buy the inner qualities in a teacher as a person, as a setter of examples, as an inspiration and inculcator of these seven factors which I mentioned, with money, then we are making a fatal mistake. If we think that we can eliminate overnight all the complexities with which we are dealing in our fatherland, with money and legislation, then we are making a mistake. If I think of the foolish, simplified educational system of Sweden and compare it with our education with its diverse cultures, our built-in historical-political problems and our geographic ties which lead to fragmentation, division, wastage of labour and finance, then I see that we are making a mistake to want to try and rectify it with money. For these reasons, this council which the hon. the Minister created, is the introduction to a whole new era in our education.

This new professional education council, this honorary council, will have an immense task upon its shoulders. This council will have to ensure that the academic consolidation which has been introduced in the training of teachers, a consolidation between colleges and university, will remain an academic consolidation and that it will not contribute towards the destruction of the effective forming milieu of education. We shall have to ensure that the forming milieu and background of teachers remains unimproved. I welcome the consolidating role which the new dispensation in respect of educational institutions and universities will play in the academic sphere. A further point is that the council will have to perpetuate the idea of unity in our teacher training. In future it will have to give special attention to its contribution towards the maintenance of an education-orientated vocational training. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the music of the Stem van Suid-Afrika was composed by the Rev. M. L. de Villers in the Stempastorie at Simonstown. The address of the parsonage is No. 1 Church Street, Simonstown, and the parsonage borders on the grounds of the D.R. Church on the one hand and on the Submarine Headquarters on the other. These buildings are all situated between the Main Road and the sea. For the past 15 years the parsonage itself has belonged to Rev. Hennie Louw who until recently was the Senior Naval Chaplain in Simonstown and who retired at the end of last year. The premises of the D.R. Church are the property of the Navy and not the D.R. Church, but they are of course made available for the use of the community. Over the past year I have held discussions with Rev. Louw, senior Naval officers and the Department of Community Development with a view to acquiring the parsonage for the State, the Navy or any other State body that would be able to ensure its preservation. The minister himself is a willing seller.

Everyone to whom I have spoken, feel strongly about the fact that the parsonage, the birthplace of our beloved national anthem, should be preserved at all costs. However, there is a problem in this connection. What person or what body can buy Rev. Louw’s parsonage? The problem is aggravated by the fact that the building is practically surrounded by Naval property and that the Navy, for obvious reasons, wants to acquire all possible properties on the seaward side of the Main Road. I and others who feel as I do, are deeply concerned about the fact that if things carry on like this for much longer and a decision is not taken, the possibility exists that the Naval expansion programme may have an adverse effect on the grounds of the parsonage and that the building might even be demolished. In my opinion this would be a disaster. We do not have enough national monuments in South Africa, and the place where the national anthem was written must definitely be included amongst those we do have.

I have a possible solution which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The simple solution is naturally to have the Navy buy the parsonage. However, if they do so, the building cannot remain unproductive. If it is used as an ordinary dwelling, how will the public have access to the building in which the music of the Stem van Suid-Afrika was composed? On the other hand, should the building be declared a national monument before the Navy buys it, then there is the further problem that the Navy is not authorized to buy national monuments. The Navy is only authorized to buy buildings either for office or dwelling purposes. I am not even speaking about the maintenance of buildings.

This afternoon I want to request the hon. the Minister’s assistance in this connection. The problem could be solved with initiative, enthusiasm and the necessary executive authority. In order to set the ball rolling, I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister call a meeting of the people and bodies concerned. I also want to suggest that he give serious consideration to buying the parsonage and furnishing the lounge to represent the study of Rev. M. L. de Villiers. Furthermore I want to suggest that the rest of the building—it is a big building—is rented to the Navy as a home for the commanding officer of the Submarine Base. If these specific suggestions are not acceptable, the Navy should buy the building and after that the Minister should ensure that the building as a whole, or a part of it, is declared a national monument which will be maintained by the department. But whatever is going to be done, the Minister must make a decision. Although it is a pleasant task for me to raise this matter this afternoon, it is the Minister who has to take the decision. I want to express the hope that the place where our national anthem was written, which is one of our greatest unifying factors, viz. the home of the composer, Rev. M. L. de Villiers, will always be preserved and revered in a suitable manner as a national monument.

Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown raised a matter that has great merit, a matter which means a great deal to all of us. I can only express the hope that it will be possible to find a solution so that this old parsonage may be preserved.

Sir, the high failure rate at our South African universities is a matter which has been already referred to with a great deal of concern. Last night, as the hon. the Minister has already done on a previous occasion, the hon. member for Rissik pointed out that the total cost per student amounts to approximately R3 000 per year, and if the student fails the money is wasted. Therefore the public expects the universities as well as the State to make an attempt to force this high failure rate to lower levels. Of course this must be done without lowering the academic standards of our universities in any way—and I feel very strongly about this. Consequently serious attention is being given to this problem by our university authorities. But it is definitely not a problem which only the universities have to deal with. The problem is a far more extensive one. The fact of the matter is simply that there are many students registered at our South African universities today who should never have gone to university. As a result of the present process of selection, the universities receive a large number of students who are simply not mature enough for university studies. One of the most important reasons for this is the present matriculation exemption. The matriculation exemption is very wide and general and does not suffice as a prerequisite for university study. Sir, with this I am not saying that the matriculation standard in the various subjects is not high enough. I am only saying that the matriculation exemption is very wide and general and does not suffice for university selection or screening. To put it another way, the matriculation exemption as a sifting process for university admission is definitely not selective enough. We all know that pupils at school are exercised and drilled to do well in matric and to obtain exemption. This redounds to the credit of that school and teacher, and this is probably rightly so, but whether the pupils are capable after that of going to university and simply following any course of his choice, or often of his parents’ choice, is another question.

The problem of the high failure rate is also connected with the correct channelling of students for their tertiary training, channelling in accordance with their aptitude, interest and ability. Tertiary training, and particularly technical training which has also been referred to in this debate, at non-university institutions in South Africa unfortunately does not have the status and reputation which it ought to have. Everyone who wants to receive tertiary training, thinks that they simply have to go to university. An exaggerated status value, and I almost want to say a snob value, is attached to university training in South Africa. The importance and value of study at colleges and other tertiary institutions—I am thinking in particular of the colleges for advanced technical education—do not have the status and reputation which they ought to have in South Africa. After all, study at such institutions is not inferior. Indeed, people differ as far as their aptitude, interest and talents are concerned. Therefore the universities simply cannot accommodate everyone. I am of the opinion that universities, colleges and other institutions for tertiary education should complement one another to a greater extent.

Therefore I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister spoke in favour of a greater interaction between the universities and these institutions. Students whom, as a result of more selective selection processes, it might not be possible to admit to university initially, would eventually be able to return to a university for further study via other institutions. A greater flexibility between the universities and the various tertiary institutions is also desirable. More students would then be able to follow a particular part of their course—for instance the theoretical part—at university, while other sections could be followed at other institutions. Therefore to summarize, the high failure rate at universities is definitely connected to the admission requirements in operation today, as well as with the right channelling of students. Better channelling of students to various tertiary institutions with the necessary interaction and flexibility between them will decrease the failure rate considerably.

A second aspect which is related to the high rate of failure, is the teaching methods. In other words, the transfer of knowledge from the lecturer to the student. It must be borne in mind that professors and lecturers are appointed as a result of their academic achievements; in other words, as a result of their ability to study and do research themselves. But in the teaching situation the ability of that lecturer with respect to the student and his achievements is of cardinal importance. Therefore universities will have to make more of training and schooling their lecturing staff, to make the best use of teaching methods. I am aware of the a fact that many universities have already begun to do this. An example of which I have most knowledge as a result of my connection is that of the Rand Afrikaans University. As a new young university in South Africa, RAU could approach the teaching situation in a new and original manner. RAU was not yet bound down by traditional teaching patterns and practices which had become established at the university over many years. As a result of various aims which the university created for itself with respect to its students, the university formulated a teaching code, a teaching code which was binding on all its lecturers. The purpose of the teaching code was to rationalize the teaching as far as possible; in other words, to apply teaching methods as effectively as possible so that the student may become more involved in the teaching situation and so that the student may learn to deal with the subject matter more personally. Therefore, to summarize this aspect, effective teaching methods are a prerequisite for good results and for a low failure rate.

A third matter which in my opinion undoubtedly contributes towards the high failure rate at the universities in South Africa, are our fragmented school syllabuses in South Africa. Prof. Pauw and other educationists have been requesting an institute for curriculum research for a long time. It is essential that syllabuses should be better co-ordinated, not only at school level, but also with a view to further subsequent study. The change from school to university can definitely be bridged better by means of proper curriculum and syllabus planning. I am convinced that there is definitely a need in South Africa for a comprehensive syllabus policy in order to connect teaching in South Africa to a greater degree with the requirements of the student on the one hand, and to bring about a more sensible connection between schools and other tertiary institutions.

In the last place the failure rate is also related with the nature of examinations at schools and universities. We may with justification pose the question whether our examination system is sufficiently aimed at evaluating all aspects of the pupil’s or student’s mastering of a subject and whether it is not too one-sided and tests only facts or learned knowledge. Mastering a subject also requires insight into that subject; in other words, the ability to evaluate, to weigh standpoints against one another and to be able to make an independent judgment. Then there is also the application of that knowledge. Does the present system of examinations test the students efficiently with a view to the work which he will eventually do? Knowledge of a subject can be so theoretical and divorced from life that the Dutch reference to such scholars as “vakidiote” is not entirely inapplicable. It is therefore important for teaching methods and the examination system to contribute towards the advancement of independent balanced thought, within the various subject directions. For the sake of the cost factor, but also for the sake of the best utilization of our brain potential in South Africa, I believe it is of the utmost importance for this matter to enjoy attention at the highest level.

Mr. Chairman, there seems to have been a misunderstanding in regard to my speech yesterday. My concern was for national unity, but a number of hon. members of this House seem to have misunderstood it. It was never my intention to attack the Afrikaner, his history or what he holds dear. On the contrary. My aim was to forge better links between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans. I regret that what I said has been misunderstood by a number of hon. members of this House. I firmly believe, however, that subjective emotion will give way, in time, to a broad South Africanism.

Mr. Chairman, these past two days I have been listening carefully and thoroughly—I myself did not speak at all—to 28 speakers who participated in the debate on education and related matters. I allowed the people opposite, who had so many complaints to make about television, and those on my side, to do complete justice to themselves. I did so with a specific purpose. What I should very much like is that we should not only talk about education and training, which is a matter of deep concern to us, but also listen to what is said about it, as I have been doing these past two days. However, I want whatever is necessary to be done after all the listening.

Now that we have thrashed out this matter thoroughly over the past two days, and since there is absolute unanimity in this House on the fundamental importance of education and training, it is my wish and desire that the necessary should be done. For me it is a sheer pleasure to act as champion of education and the teacher. At the same time I can honestly say that it is the most enjoyable and most pleasant task with which I have ever been entrusted. To me it is as enjoyable as any sport, even as enjoyable as “Boeresport”!

The Secretary to the Department of National Education is no longer a young man, but he is performing his task with the greatest possible dedication. On this occasion I should very much like to thank him for the dedicated and very competent manner in which he is supporting me and guiding the department, and also for the fact that he has for many years already been engaged in the service of education in South Africa. On this occasion, too, I want to thank all the education officials in my department and in the provinces for their competent dedication.

I want to address a word of special appreciation to the Committee of Heads of Education. I should very much have liked to have elaborated on this in greater detail. The report of the Committee of Heads of Education was tabled here. It is clear that the work which that body is doing deserves the greatest measure of praise, gratitude and appreciation from this House, and on this occasion I should very much like to convey these sentiments to them. I am deeply aware of the great work that they are doing, and I hope hon. members will also make themselves conversant with the great work and the excellent results which that committee has achieved, and is still achieving, in the interests of education in South Africa.

Furthermore, I want to thank the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations very sincerely for the extremely good co-operation they are offering me. I also thank them for the competent and responsible way in which they are acting. I can only say that I have found on every occasion that they are people with a profound understanding, people who regard and serve education with the utmost seriousness and sense of responsibility. I have really grown fond of them, as I have of the C.H.O. and the educationists. Then, too, there are the Administrators—we are really blessed with very good Administrators whom I want to thank for their competence and their dedication to education. There are the MPC’s. They are brilliant, extremely good men. Then there are the Directors of Education in each province, the important educationists, the rectors at our universities, the principals of the colleges and the schools and, perhaps the most important of all, the teachers. To this large host of people, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, who are engaged in the service of education in the Republic, I want to say thank you very much for your dedication. I want to say to them: “Let’s get going in the interests of education; I have no doubt at all that, together, we will be able to achieve very good results.”

Education deserves the highest priority. This Government—I am not saying “I”— wants to accord it this priority, and is doing so. I am very grateful for the unanimous support of this House to be able to ensure that education will receive the highest priority and will assume its rightful place in our State economy. It can be proved statistically that the money and service expended on education are among the most important and most profitable long-term investments a State can make. I know of no better investment; if there is one, I should like to hear of it. No nation has ever become insolvent because of its investment in education. In the modern world it has probably become an absolute rule that the nation that does not attach the necessary value to the education and training of its children will drop out of the race, as surely as the sun also rises. Such a nation will drop out owing to the cut-throat competition brought about by progress in the world, and owing to the cut-throat competition for superiority by people and nations so as to preserve themselves and stay in the competition. If such a nation has dropped out, it will be too late to lodge an appeal against neglect in this regard. It will be too late when history relentlessly passes its irrevocable judgment. This may never be allowed to become true of the Republic of South Africa, and for that reason we are calledupon to ensure that we rather spend too much on education than too little, and neglect our duty.

Education cannot rise above the quality of its teachers. Surely this is the plain and simple truth! Surely it is impossible for education to rise above the quality of its teachers. That is why it is essential, and is a primary requisite—in my opinion it is a simple truth—that education should attract sufficient numbers of recruits of the right calibre. It is the duty of our people to provide education with its best sons. The people have to do this. On this occasion I want to make an appeal to the young men of the Republic of South Africa to consider this wonderful profession, the teaching profession. “Come, fall in, and become teachers, so that we do not have to keep on hearing of crises in education.” I am making an appeal to our young men to join the teaching profession. On my part I declare that the National Party Government and the people of South Africa will look after their interests and will see to it that they are happy in the teaching profession and that it will be worth while for them.

In the second place we must ensure that the recruits who enter the teaching profession—I hope there will be more of them as from 1 January 1977—receive the best training. There are hon. members who refer to the agreement which was reached, and I am very grateful that such an agreement as far as the training of teachers is concerned was reached between the universities and the colleges. I am of the opinion that this is the foundation on which everything rests, for I said to myself: “Look, if there is a squabble between the universities and the colleges about the training of teachers, how on earth will one be able to set the matter straight and get if off the ground? Surely you will not be able to succeed in doing so.” One of the first things I said when I accepted this position was that we have to set this matter straight, come what may. I said: “Make or break.” Well, I began on 1 February and I must say I feel very happy as a result of all the sound co-operation. I have already referred to people who gave their co-operation. Be that as it may, that agreement has been reached and I have given the particulars to the Press, and I shall give it to them again rather than spend too much time on it now, in this debate. I say that a wonderful agreement has been reached, so that university and college will now co-operate in the interests of teacher training in the Republic of South Africa.

We must attract the recruits and ensure that they receive the best training, but then, thirdly, we must ensure that their services are retained for education. Consequently the education service must be made as attractive as possible for the teacher. If we are able to do this, it will stimulate the teachers to keep on improving their qualifications. If we say that education cannot rise above the quality of teacher, surely we are called upon to ensure that the teacher is well qualified. In this regard it worries me, or to put it more strongly, it grieves me to see statistics which hon. members saw in the newspapers according to which only 66% of the teachers who teach geography had been trained to do so, while the percentage in the case of mathematics is less than 50%, etc. We must ensure that the teachers receive the best possible training and that they improve their qualifications. This is imperative. We must also attract new recruits from the same and from higher socio-economic levels of our society.

We are unanimous in this House on the importance of education, but now I want to ask hon. members how many of them have sons in the teaching profession. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, one must begin at home. All of us agree that in these times and under the present circumstances education is important. Hon. members opposite even allege that there is a crisis in education. I think this has been stated in exaggerated terms. Most certainly there is no doubt at all that there are things in education which are not right. Consequently I say this from every platform. If we want to set matters straight, we must begin at home. We must set an example to the people of South Africa. If we say that education is the mother of all professions, we must apply this, and not sit with a mouthful of teeth if it is asked how many of us have sons who are members of the teaching profession.

What about our daughters?

Yes, of course, our daughters as well. As far as they are concerned, it is our good fortune that the women in the teaching profession have helped us when we were in a dilemma. I have the greatest appreciation for the contribution of women to our education. I shall return to that later. The great shortage, however, is of men. Excellent speeches were made in this regard.

We come now to the crux of the matter. It is no use burying our heads in the sand like ostriches in this regard. We must be realistic and practical. What I have mentioned previously can only be achieved by, inter alia, the establishment of a progressive, scientific and effective cost and salary structure in education.

Hear, hear!

It is absolutely essential. We shall have to give attention to this and other important matters such as teacher training, the elimination of unnecessary, vexatious administrative work, the importance of mathematics and physics and chemistry at school—I shall have a few more words to say in this regard in a moment—and the high failure rate which various hon. members discussed. If we want to give education the place it deserves in our State economy, we shall have to work at this matter with zeal, enthusiasm and dedication. Because I believe that we can unite the people involved in education in a zestful and enthusiastic effort to get on with the job, I have no doubt that education is going to be victorious in the interests of South Africa. That is why I want to reiterate that it is a privilege for me to act as the champion of education. In the words of Plato, education is the foundation of the State, but the ultimate aim and the essence of education is the building of character, which has to be achieved by the disciplining of the body, the will and the mind. There is no doubt about it, Sir, Plato was no fool. Over the centuries the essence of education has been the building of character which, as I have said, has to be achieved by the disciplining of the body, the will and the mind. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has just walked in—my learned friend, Hendrik X. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, we must realize that education feeds all the professions. In these times, in this country, too, education is referred to as the mother of all professions, but we should consider for just a while what this really means. There has to be a realistic understanding of what it really is. In truth it means that education feeds all the occupations and professions with recruits, and for that reason education has to provide a stream of candidates to meet the manifold and differentiated manpower needs in the country. Surely we may not forget this. In this exact life and age in which we find ourselves, there is no manpower, in whatever line of work, which has not gone through the mill of education. That is why it is the mother of all professions. Everyone, even the farmer of today, has to pass through it. Everyone has to receive education, otherwise he cannot compete in the world and cannot maintain its position. This is what we should not forget, for it emphasizes the high priority of education. Good education leads to educated workers, educated neighbours, less poverty, less crime, better race relations, educated citizens and a high economic growth rate.

For any country a good education is one of the principal means by which the pace of economic growth can be accelerated. Mr. Chairman—in a somewhat lighter vein—I have on occasion said to the hon. the Minister of Finance: “Success depends on luck and pluck; luck in finding somebody to pluck.” While I am talking about education, I address these words once again to the hon. the Minister of Finance, for these are matters which we should take stock of realistically. Education is the principal means by which an acceleration in the rate of economic growth can be achieved. Our country is no exception to the rule. A high education level exercises a decisive effect on both personal income as well as the income of the country, since a high level of education not only increases the extent of production, but also ensures a higher standard in the product itself.

In the Transvaal the centenary of the Transvaal Education Department was recently celebrated. Because I am very interested in this matter, I tried to picture to myself what appearance education presented there after a century. I asked myself what the most durable aspect was which emerged after a century of education in the Republic of South Africa. As befits a student, I paged through the annual reports, the inspectors’ reports and the school journals. It was a great pleasure for me to scrutinize as many as possible of those documents. What struck me the most upon reading those old documents, was the concern among the educationists, among the teachers, for the children. Whether it was illness, playing truant, under-achievement, dirty clothing, attention was given to these matters.

I should like to quote an extract from a school journal. This is a journal of a school which has long since been closed down. On 3 October 1931 the principal of the school wrote as follows—

[Interjections.] I am not in any way referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in those words an entire world is revealed, the world of the teacher who is in the service of our children, who served our children for the space of a century and who performed their task with great dedication and with great success. To them we say: Thank you very much.

I should now like to reply to the questions which were put to me here. I also want to refer to certain of the points raised by hon. members in this debate. I shall try to do so as well as I can. I shall also try not to omit any questions.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the salary structure for teachers. In this regard I should like to quote briefly from Hansard of 22 April 1976, when the question of the salary structure for teachers was under discussion. The hon. the Prime Minister said in column 5207—

This is the 10% on 1 July 1976 and the 5%, if the economy of the country permits, on 1 January 1977—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

Hon. members are aware that we find ourselves in a pressing financial position at present. Hon. members opposite pointed out, with good insight, that the salary structure position must of course be considered within the framework of the available financial means. There is no doubt at all about that. The principle has, however, been accepted. On the particulars the Cabinet appointed a Cabinet Committee of which I am the chairman. This Cabinet Committee considered certain submissions and laid down certain guiding principles for the Public Service Commission and the Committee of Heads of Education and the other departments concerned.

The Public Service Commission, the Committee of Heads of Education and the other departments concerned are at present engaged in working out a new salary structure for teachers and for all who are associated with the teaching profession. We hope that they will, as soon as possible, come to the Cabinet Committee with a final submission, which will in its turn refer the proposals to the Cabinet. By as soon as possible, I really mean as soon as possible. I do not want to lay down any time limit now. However, it is expected that the bodies concerned will shortly come forward with proposals. In this regard I want to say that if the idea should arise in anyone’s mind that the Government, as far as education is concerned, is not doing its duty, I must point out that the total appropriation for White education in the Republic for 1974–’75, amounted to R586 million. This rose in 1975–’76 to R706 million, which represented an increase of 20,5%. This is therefore a very fine and a very good achievement.

The hon. member for Durban Central, who apologized for his absence in view of the fact that he had to go somewhere, made certain statements in regard to television and I shall reply in general to that in a moment. He also referred to the expansion of an English-medium university to a campus in Pretoria, and he mentioned the possibility of an Afrikaans-medium university in Natal. I should like to inform the hon. members that the University Advisory Council, which is a statutory body, appointed a sub-committee to look into this matter, and I already have an appointment to see the bodies which are endeavouring to establish such a campus in Pretoria. This will happen within the next month or two. I am also willing to see the other organization to which the hon. member referred at any time they are prepared to do so, so that we may discuss the matter and so that the matter may be brought to the attention of the University Advisory Council and receive the necessary attention.

Bilingual universities should preferably be established.

Yes, we can look into that, and the advisory council is there to make recommendations on that matter.

As far as the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education are concerned, the evaluation of qualifications to which the hon. member referred, this matter is already receiving attention and cases to which attention is drawn, are being investigated. I want to ask the hon. members, and specifically the hon. member for Durban Central, preferably to bring cases to my attention, and I undertake to have them properly investigated.

The hon. member also referred to the report of the Museum Commission. This report has already been tabled. Some of the organizations involved in this matter have already asked me whether they may comment on the recommendations contained in the report. I am at present waiting for their comments, and after I have received them, consideration will be given to the joint recommendations with a view to putting them into effect.

The hon. member for Algoa made a very fine speech, for which I want to thank him sincerely. The hon. member raised a very important point by referring to the system which is at present in use at the University of Port Elizabeth, i.e. the mini-courses, or rather the audio-tutorial approach. I have read quite a lot about this. An excellent thesis was written about this, and I made extensive use of it recently at Stellenbosch. It dealt with the entire question of where the fault lies in regard to the high failure rate at our universities. Does it lie with the schools or with the university? It is a very penetrating and excellent study, and I have no doubt at all that this system at the University of Port Elizabeth is going to produce results. The hon. member mentioned that there were cases in which the failure rate at universities had already been reduced to 8%. This is an excellent achievement.

The University Advisory Council has been requested by me personally to devote their urgent attention to the question of the high failure rate, because—as the hon. members for Rissik and for Springs said—it is costing the country enormous sums of money. I think it is completely unnecessary for the failure rate to be so high. If one reads the treaties which have already been written in this regard, it becomes clearly apparent where the fault lies. I think the faults can be rectified and I think the University Advisory Council is the appropriate body to take the lead in this regard. I think I have at the same time replied now to the question of the hon. member for Rissik.

The hon. member for Algoa also referred to the position of the married woman in the teaching profession. In the salary structure which I explained to this House a moment ago, attention is being given to the position of the woman, but it is a very complicated matter, with many difficult aspects, and I do not want to go into details now. Nor can I make any promises in this regard. As hon. members can expect, however, I am very sympathetic towards the women in the teaching profession. My mother always said: “My little boy, people will not love you for your little face; you will have to be a clever and sensible little boy.” I stand for many causes and, believe me, I also stand on the side of the woman. Hon. members must make no mistake about that.

The hon. member for Springs also mentioned the question of the older pensioners. This is a heart-break story, and I am very sympathetic towards it, but hon. members will understand that it does not rest with me, but with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I undertake to convey the request for an inquiry, and I shall personally give the matter my sympathetic consideration to see whether it is not in any way possible to do something in this regard. At present the economic circumstances are difficult, but it is true that an urgent inquiry must be instituted into the matter, and we shall therefore give effect to the requests which were addressed to us in this regard.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North started off so well when he referred to national unity, and I want to tell him that it has always been my ideal to make as huge a contribution as humanly possible towards greater national unity in the Republic of South Africa. I thought the hon. member was going to make a very valuable contribution in this regard, but then he made a very unfortunate faux pas. I am happy that the hon. member attempted to put it right in the way he did this afternoon. If we are to achieve a greater measure of national unity, then we must learn first and foremost to respect those things that are dear to us and to the other man. I see the hon. member nods his head. He therefore agrees with me. To me it has been a privilege on more than one occasion to have spoken with great feeling and pride of the heroic achievements of Elizabeth Sharp and other English-speaking heroes and heroines in the history of the Republic of South Africa. I feel that it is one of the prime ways of making a contribution towards national unity. Hon. members can rely on me to make every effort I can to create greater national unity in the Republic of South Africa. I shall do so with pleasure and with zest.

*I have great appreciation for what the hon. member for Hercules said in regard to the Cape college. I shall look into the matter again. In fact, this has already been done, and it has been decided that the development should proceed at the present pace. It is the function of the college council to submit proposals for consideration, proposals in regard to the matter which the hon. member raised. The department has abundantly demonstrated its willingness to all colleges to promote only the best development. I am very grateful to the hon. member for having raised the matter. I promise that we shall look into the matter again. If there is anything he can do to cause the college council to submit a proposal, his suggestions in this regard could more conveniently be carried out. I have appreciation for the positive way in which the hon. member makes his contribution to debates on educational matters.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked us to give attention to the formula with reference to the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. I want to inform the hon. member that the subsidy which is calculated in accordance with the formula—the formula has only been in operation for two years—amounted to R110 million in 1974-’75 and rose to R138 million in 1975-’76, an increase, therefore, of R28 million, or 25,1%. The hon. member said that I should lose no time in causing an investigation to be instituted into this matter. I want to inform the hon. member that the formula contained components which are adjusted from year to year to make provision for rising costs. The University Advisory Council gives thorough attention to the finances of the universities. If the advisory council which, as hon. members know, consists of representatives of all the universities, finds that the formula does not meet the needs, it will make recommendations. Because I consider it to be a very important matter, I consequently promise the hon. member that, because he raised the matter, I shall once again personally look into the matter of the formula properly, or have it done.

In my opinion the hon. member raised a very important point in respect of loans and bursaries for the average student. At the end of my reply I shall refer to the brilliant student and scholar. All these things are important. The average person is the salt of the earth. We must not doubt that. When I was the head boy in my matriculation year of the school which I attended, we asked that the most average boy, the boy which in sport and in the scholastic field achieved only average results, should address the school and express thanks on behalf of the other at that farewell function. It was one of the most moving occasions of my life. That most average scholar is today a famous man in the world. The average person is therefore someone who is capable of making a powerful and important contribution. We must look after these people, and we are doing so. If the hon. member were to look at the annual report, he would see a list of bodies that contribute to the fund for bursaries. In the Republic an abundance of bursaries are available. There are too many to list. We shall therefore have to see whether we cannot introduce a computer system so that the right people may be reached and a proper utilization of the busaries ensured.

†The hon. member also referred to immigrant teachers. Last year during the debate on the Immigration Vote, when I was still the Minister of Immigration, I said in a reply to a question by the hon. member for Parktown that I would take up the question of immigrant teachers with the Administrators. I in fact wrote to each Administrator in the Republic of South Africa. I received their replies. This question is not a simple one. At this junction of our development and with the position in regard to teachers in South Africa, I am in favour of making use of immigrant teachers as far as it is possible to do so. I am ironing out the problems there are. There are indeed certain problems. I have here a letter in this regard I received approximately a week ago. It is dated 20 May 1976.

I have written to the authorities in Great Britain and in some of the other countries. Firstly, there is the important aspect that teachers are recruited on the basis of specific jobs in South Africa, for a specific school. They have certain problems about that. The second problem is the question of salaries in South Africa, because the salaries here are lower than the salaries for teachers in Great Britain and in other parts of Europe. Then there is also the language problem. However, we are looking into these. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the hon. member that we must, at least on a short-term basis, make more use of immigrant teachers in these scarce subjects where we need them so badly, and I hope that we can solve those problems so that in the short term the position can be improved. [Interjections.] We are looking into it and I can speak on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Immigration, because I discussed the matter with him. He and his department will not lay any difficulties in our way in this regard.

Then the hon. member asked me about White universities playing against non-White universities, as was the case last year when the University of the Western Cape played against Cape Town University. This is a delicate question. I referred it to the Committee of Heads of the universities and I am awaiting their reply. In regard to the other point he raised, I wish to tell the hon. member that I have looked very carefully into the Snyman report myself. It is a very good report, to my way of thinking, and I can agree with many of the recommendations made. I consider it to be a very important report. With that I think I have replied to all the questions of the hon. member for Yeoville.

*Then there is the hon. member for Virginia. He made a very good speech. He referred to the question of syllabi. He referred to the question of syllabi and the basic contents of the syllabi. I want to inform the hon. member that the Committee of Heads of Education and the Joint Matriculation Board have an agreement that syllabi will be revised approximately every five years. We are now in the second phase of that, or rather in the first phase, and therefore at the end—it is very close—of close attention having ordinarily to be given to this question of syllabi. I shall see to it personally, together with my department with the hon. member that the question of overloaded syllabi is extremely important. I should like to make an announcement in this regard. The Joint Matriculation Board and the Committee of Heads of Education have appointed a joint syllabus committee, representative of all examining bodies, to give urgent attention, as an interim measure, to the curtailment of the syllabus for science and physics and chemistry, and I am very grateful for this. During the Easter recess I called in the chairman of the JMB and had a long discussion with him, together with the Secretary of the department.

The Committee met on 3 May and decided to recommend a significant curtailment of the syllabus for examination purposes. The recommendation will be considered next week by the Committee of the Heads of Education and during the last week of June by the JMB. We cannot keep this waiting until the cows come home. It has to happen soon so that the children will at least be able to benefit from it as from 1 January. Otherwise we would not be solving any problems in this regard. If the proposals are consequently accepted and introduced in this way, it would not only alleviate the pressure of the overloaded syllabi on teachers and pupils, but would also be conducive to more effective education and in that way make this subject, as well as mathematics, biology, etc., more attractive. Therefore I want to make an appeal to our girls and boys not to shy away from the difficult subjects such as physics and chemistry or mathematics. These are basic subjects on which the future of South Africa is being built. In common with my good friend the hon. member for Carletonville, who made such a fine speech here a moment ago, I want to issue the warning that we should be careful with the advice we give our children on the subjects they should take at school. Sir, I have data here, unfortunately I do not have the time to go into it now. However, I can tell hon. members that if they consider of what great possibilities people are depriving their children by not encouraging them to take mathematics and chemistry and physics at school, it is quite frightening. Consequently we must be very careful that we do not channelize our children towards the easy subjects, and leave the difficult subjects to one side. We are giving urgent attention to these difficult subjects with a view to simplifying the syllabus so that it can be made attractive for the children and so that we can have a return to these subjects. Therefore, I am making an appeal to parents and children to “swot” those difficult subjects. They will not be sorry; it will mean a great deal to them in the world if they do so, for it opens up opportunities for them which they would not otherwise have had.

The hon. member for Springs referred to pensions. I have already replied to that. I have great appreciation for what the hon. member said. He is a person who was a member of the teaching profession for many years. He also referred to the establishment of a council for writers—an arts council. Mr. P. G. du Plessis, a man for whom I have very great appreciation, discussed the matter with me. Before I reply to the hon. member I just want to inform hon. members that we must be very careful in this country not to cause a rift between the writers and the hierarchy of the Republic of South Africa. There must be close liaison and a good understanding between writers and the people in positions of authority in the Republic of South Africa. I make no secret of the matter when I say that personally I shall do everything in my power to create a sound relationship between State and writers. The writers, of course, must also meet their obligations on their part, and we shall make our contribution in a spirit of goodwill and good understanding. If this does not happen, then hon. members must understand that one could pluck the bitter fruits, not in the short term, but in the long term, and that would be a very, very bad thing, while if there are sound relations and goodwill, we have a guarantee over the long term of the development of important things in the cultural sphere. For that reason I am very sympathetically disposed to the idea which the hon. member for Springs raised and I shall look into this entire matter with great interest. I may just point out that the British Arts Council has far wider functions than simply to co-ordinate the works of authors. Most certainly the matter cannot simply be in isolation, i.e. only in regard to authors. The Commission of Inquiry into the Performing Arts is giving attention to something similar to that which Mr. P. G. du Plessis had in mind. But, as I have already said, I shall look into this matter with great sympathy. I hope that it will be possible to give effect to it.

While I am on this point—the arts also fall under National Education—I want to point out to hon. members that in a time of inflation, as we find ourselves in at the moment, the people who suffer the greatest hardships and have the hardest time of it, are the artists, for people purchase fewer works of art and fewer books. They are more concerned about their expenses now. Therefore the artists are the first people who are hard-hit by this kind of thing. In this House I should like to inform all our artists, in their great variety—from ballet to the writers—that we have a love and understanding for the major and important contribution which they are making in respect of the cultural possessions of our country, the cultural contribution which extends far beyond our borders, therefore not only throughout the Republic of South Africa but throughout the entire world. In this regard hon. members will allow me to quote what Solzhenitsyn had to say when he won the Nobel Prize and made a speech on the theme “One word of Truth”. I waited with great interest for this “One word of Truth” which this man would convey to the world. The “One word of Truth” which Solzhenitsyn wanted to convey to the world on that greatest occasion of his life was that the world could only be saved through beauty, through what is uplifting and elevating. Not through economic matters such as communism, capitalism and that sort of thing, but through what was uplifting, what was beautiful and splendid—that which the artist gave us. He added that “the supreme beauty” in the world was the love which God had had for mankind by redeeming them through the act of reconciliation of his only Son. We therefore have great appreciation for our artists for the good they are producing.

† I now come to the hon. member for Umlazi who raised an important question of subsidies for private schools. That, of course, is the responsibility of the provinces. He also asked about tax rebates on donations for private schools. I am very sympathetic to such a request, but the matter has to be dealt with by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. I shall, however, raise the matter with him again and have it investigated. If I am in a position to recommend such action to him, I would be delighted to do so. The hon. member must please remember, however, that at the moment economic necessities are very compelling and it is not easy to obtain funds at the moment, whatever the purpose may be.

*I have already replied to the question raised by the hon. member for Rissik in regard to the high failure rate. He is a university man who represents a major university, and he made a very interesting and important contribution here, for which I thank him sincerely.

†I have a very high regard for the hon. member for Umhlanga. He is a true advocate of free television licences. As I say, I appreciate his style because I like a man who perseveres and goes for what he believes in. As I have said in previous debates, I am very sympathetically disposed as far as that is concerned, but at the moment that is simply not possible. The hon. member must please accept the fact. I shall, however, keep the matter in mind, and if and when free licences do become available in the future, the hon. member will have reason to feel he has made an important contribution. The aged and others can be very happy at the way the hon. member has fought for their cause in each and every debate.

*The hon. member for Boksburg …

… made a good speech.

… made a good speech. [Interjections.] In regard to the earlier broadcasting of programmes, I want to say something that I think is important. In this regard the SABC has a very simple, but very important set rule which fits very well into South African circumstances, and as soon as I have mentioned it, you will all agree wholeheartedly with it. We must not draw our children out of the sunlight to look at television. We must afford the children a maximum opportunity to benefit from the wonderful natural conditions and sunlight of South Africa. For that reason the SABC is not in favour of the earlier broadcasting of television programmes.

The older people such as Sias may simply switch off.

That hon. member may also switch off when the Ministers speak on television and he does not want to see them. However, I want to refer to what the hon. member said in regard to the shifting of the news to 7 o’clock. This would be in conflict with the SABC’s requirement that the news should be the dividing line between the Afrikaans and English programmes. However, this matter will be looked into again. I took up the matter of the youth programmes with the SABC. They will look into that. I think it is a very important and positive idea which truly deserves attention.

I could also reply now to the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members in regard to the question of the division of the television programmes into separate English and Afrikaans programmes. There is no doubt at all that this is a very good thing. It has elicited an excellent reaction, and I am absolutely convinced that fundamentally we will not change the system.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet raised the matter of the technical colleges. Of course they offer a very wide variety of courses, and where the necessary demand exists, further courses may be introduced. We may perhaps therefore be able to help the hon. member. However, the S.A. Agricultural Union now has to take the initiative. We will then render what assistance we can. The develop of a technical college at Bloemfontein is at present receiving our attention. It was also said that we should use the programme Kamera Een to bring the farmer and the urban dweller closer to one another. I think it is also essential, and I am certain the idea will be brought to the attention of the producers of the programme Kamera Een. I have no doubt but that they will be able to put this idea to good use.

The hon. member for Rondebosch asked to be excused. He was not able to be present. He said a few very important things here. I have no doubt at all that we must give serious thought to our educational matters. We must look at them with vision. I agree with him that we will have to make adjustments according to our needs. I appreciate that education will adapt itself to the needs of the community. This is in fact so. In my opinion that hon. member is on the right track. If he were politically on the right track to that same extent to which he is on the right track in regard to educational matters, he would probably not have been on thas side of the House any more.

That is why he is here.

I want to quote from a work by Sir Walter Moberley. The work is called Crisis in the University, a work written in 1959. When I was at university, I really studied this work in depth. This gentleman wrote the following—

*I think this is also of absolutely cardinal importance to our educational system in the Republic of South Africa at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Rondebosch that more urgent attention should be given to technical colleges and that the sphere of the technical colleges should be properly demarcated vis-à-vis that of the universities. It is clear that universities are research and academic institutions. Technical colleges are vocationally-orientated institutions. Once this had been done properly there has to be closer liaison between the universities and the colleges so that—as hon. members mentioned here—students who are now going to universities, although they should really be attending college, can, owing to the closer liaison, be channelled to the colleges. Then students who are attending college, but who should be attending university, can be channelled to the universities. I want to tell the hon. member that I have a very soft spot for these technical colleges. They must, as soon as possible, become institutions of greater status in our country, and I shall therefore continue to give very close attention to this entire matter.

The hon. member for De Aar made a very important speech on the question of the drain on men, and the salary structure in education. I have already replied to that, but I must thank him for his positive contribution.

The hon. member for Durban Point discussed television. Other hon. members also discussed this subject. I should like to reply briefly to what they had to say.

† Speakers who referred to the SABC during this debate raised very few matters which were not dealt with earlier during this session. The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the projected costs of a second television channel. This is an important matter and I hope that I shall be able to dispel doubts and uncertainties about it. I sincerely hope that this matter will not become a political football in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member expressed doubts about the costs and he indicated his belief that a service for the Bantu population could be provided in the existing channel at far lower cost. The fact of the matter is, however, that additional television studios and other programme production facilities will have to be provided for if there is to be any extension in the hours of transmission irrespective of the language in which programmes are presented. The only costs which could be saved by incorporating Bantu programmes in the existing channel are those for additional transmitters. These costs represent a comparatively small proportion of the total costs. This is a fact which should not be overlooked. However, hon. members should bear in mind the practical implications of such an approach. If a meaningful and worthwhile service for the Bantu is to be presented, it must be presented during the peak viewing hours when people are at home and able to view the programmes. This is quite obvious. Such a service will also have to be presented in at least five languages in addition to Afrikaans and English. I think therefore that it is obvious that a television service for the Bantu can only be adequately presented in a separate channel. For heaven’s sake, these facts are simple basic facts and I hope that no hon. member will again rise in this House to speak about this question so glibly as some of my hon. friends have done during this debate. This is a complicated issue and one cannot say that in a country like South Africa we must present all programmes in one channel and everything in the garden will be rosy. Heaven knows it will not be all rosy in the garden; it will be one heck of a chaos! There is no doubt about that. It is therefore important that it is realized in this country that a Bantu television service will require the installation of a separate channel. I am in favour of installing such a separate channel and furthermore I am also in favour of installing that separate channel as soon as possible on condition that the necessary funds are available. I am of the opinion that it is in everybody’s interest—in the interest of the Blacks as well as the Whites. I should therefore suggest that we stop talking so glibly about this very, very important issue.

*I should like to return to the question of the appearance of Ministers on television.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether all viewers, irrespective of colour, will be able to tune in on all channels?

Well, the hon. member and anybody may switch on his television set and tune in one any channel he likes. [Interjections.]

*A question which my good friend, the hon. member for Durban North, produces out of the hat every time, is the appearance of Ministers on television. I should like to deal with this matter in detail on this one occasion, but to be able to do so, I must unfortunately speak about myself, and it is terribly difficult and not pleasant to speak about yourself. However, I should like this matter to be cleared up. I want to tell hon. members at once that we must stop talking nonsense about this matter across the floor of the House. The primary, the decisive criterion in the consideration of news items for inclusion in the television news bulletins, is the newsworthiness of such items. Television news, like any other responsible news medium which gears itself to informing its public, cannot allow itself to be forced away from this premise, for what is at issue is not who makes the news; what is at issue is the news and the presentation of news.

To introduce a kind of quota system in respect of Ministers, or what have you, would amount to censorship of newsworthy statements. Anything like that is completely unacceptable to the SABC. However, I am certain that it would also be unacceptable to hon. members on the opposite side. The question is therefore not how frequently a Minister, Ministers, or whoever it may be, appear on the television screen, but how newsworthy the statements are. This is the only criterion which the SABC uses and there is no other criterion which can be used. By virtue of their position in the administrative machine of the country, Ministers are of course in the position that they are newsmakers. When hon. members had so much to say about television yesterday evening, I decided that I would simply remain seated in my bench and afford them the opportunity of having their say and finishing what they had to say. Anyone can see what coverage the hon. members received in this morning’s and this afternoon’s newspapers. In my opinion they received full cover. What I am now going to say, I am saying in all humility, for it is not because I am Piet Koornhof that I am in a position to make statements; I am in that position because I am a Minister. If I do not make statements about certain matters, I am not doing my job. If I had risen to my feet yesterday evening and discussed certain matters, the speeches of some of the hon. members who received good news coverage this morning and this afternoon, would have had to be omitted from the newspapers. That is as simple as it is, but now the hon. members are not even thanking me for that. [Interjections.] As far as television is concerned, I do the same thing. The fact that news value is the criterion and that Ministers, for that reason, frequently make statements on television, is supported by the fact that statements by Ministers are quoted in the newspapers just as frequently. Since the polemic on the appearance of Ministers began to be fomented—I hope this is the end of that story now—the SABC gave special attention to the way in which television and other news media dealt with statements. I pointed out to the SABC that there was such a thing as “overexposure”, and requested them to give the Cabinet a rest for a while. I told them that they would also do well to allow me to appear on television less frequently, for after a while the public sees one too frequently and then they become annoyed at one. They investigated the matter and found that the statements of Ministers were more frequently given prominence by newspapers than the SABC did in its television service.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned, I was dealing with the question which was raised here by the hon. member for Durban Point and other Opposition members. It concerned the appearance of Ministers on television. Let me say that, after an investigation, it was proved that Ministers appeared more frequently in newspapers than on television. Therefore the SABC has already been acting very cautiously in this regard, after I had spoken to them about it. In so far as Ministers did appear, it was on every occasion in regard to information which was of importance to the public. Television news is an information medium which as to keep the public informed about national affairs, and it would have failed if it had omitted to present that information. It is important to notice that Ministers always appear on television in their capacity as Ministers of State and always on matters of national importance, and not in their capacity as office bearers of their party or in order to further party-political interests. Even on the one or two occasions when a Minister was presented on television while appearing at a party-political function, it concerned matters of national interest, or information of national interest. But in any event this has only happened in exceptional cases.

Surely you do not expect to us to swallow that rubbish?

We must understand one another well now. I do hope the hon. member for Durban Point is not becoming difficult now. We must thrash out this matter with one another, for it is not in the national interests that we keep on meddling in it. There are criterions here which are accepted throughout the world. Events are newsworthy or they are not newsworthy. The SABC is going to a great deal of trouble—make no mistake about it—and is acting with great circumspection in this regard. If I can be convinced that the opposite is true, I am prepared to listen with an open mind to what is said. However, we must be fair. If we do not do so, we are not harming our party, but the country. It would then amount to one thing only: An eternal bickering in this regard would mean that we would constantly be disparaging the Ministers, the Prime Minister and the authority in this country. Surely it is not in the national interests that this should happen. Surely there are other people present in this country as well. I want to deal fully with this matter, because I cannot keep on discussing it, nor do I intend doing so. If hon. members wish to ask me questions in this regard, they are welcome to do so now. I am an honest and a straightforward person, and I am open to conviction, but when we have finished with this matter, then that has to be the end of it. The SABC does not make news.

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

Just let me state the case, and then I shall afford the hon. member an opportunity of asking a question. I promise to do so. As I have said the SABC is not the origin of news items, but simply reflects newsworthy items. That is all it does. SATV merely reflects what is newsworthy. Naturally Ministers are frequently invited to announce newsworthy items and to officiate at newsworthy occasions, more so than other public personalities. It is simply in the normal course of their work that this happens. As with all other media, the television news also applies the normal news criteria. To expect the SABC and SATV to accord a different treatment to Ministers in television news than has been the case all these years, and different treatment to that which is accorded to Ministers in other countries, would amount to the SABC being subjected to other journalistic standards than in the case of the other media. It would mean that the SABC would be expected to withhold important news from the public merely on the basis of a head poll. Surely this is not in the interests of the country. Surely it is not in anyone’s interests. Now that I have dealt with this matter fully and properly, I really hope that we have heard the end of it. If the hon. member for Durban Point now wishes to ask me a question, he is very welcome to do so.

Vause, you will first have to have a “face lift”.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the mere presence of a Cabinet Minister is so important that the entire country has to see him? [Interjections.] I am referring now to the presence of a Cabinet Minister at a function such as the laying of the comer stone, a social function or other social occasion. Is the mere presence of a Cabinet Minister there, such urgent, important and serious news in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why the presence of a Cabinet Minister at public functions is important is because a Minister is the head of a specific department. The Minister is the executive officer of his department. If the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members want to appear on television all day and every day, one possible way of doing so is to become Ministers. Eventually they should do so. [Interjections.] This is the factual position. This is not only the case in South Africa; it is the case in any other country in the world. Nothing can be done about it; we must simply accept it. Why, do hon. members think, is a Minister invited to a treeplanting ceremony or to any other function? People would like to turn such an occasion into a newsworthy event. The mere presence of the executive officer of a department, who is present there in his official capacity is very meaningful to people. That is why they invite the Minister. That is how the public see it.

Vause is jealous because he was not invited.

If the Minister makes a statement of newsworthy importance on such an occasion, the fact that the Minister said something is in itself newsworthy. What he said is regarded as being newsworthy. It could be merely fortuitous that the Minister made a specifically newsworthy statement on such an occasion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be a lot less expensive if—when it is felt that a Ministerial announcement should be made by a Minister—merely a photograph of that specific Minister was shown, rather than transporting all the necessary equipment to a particular function where a Minister happens to be speaking?

In many cases it is done in that fashion. It is only when a Minister makes a statement which is considered to be of news value against the background of the specific occasion that it is dealt with with the necessary equipment at the function.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a serious appeal to hon. members. We are all responsible people in this House. If hon. members have other questions in mind that they would like to put in this regard, they are welcome to put such questions to me in private. However this is a matter which we must settle now, because it is not in the interests of the country that we carry on with it in this way.

But hon. members touched upon another point, a point in regard to which we on this side of the House, as well as hon. members opposite, are sensitive. This is another matter which we have to clear up here. It concerns the broadcasting of the television programme “Bakens op die Republikeinse Pad”. As the name of the programme indicated, and as it was also presented, it concerned nothing but the milestones on the road to a Republic. Politically we must please not see it in the wrong light. Nor do I want to elaborate on it in greater detail now. The fact of the matter is that it happened to be the National Party for whom it was the ideal—since as long ago as 1910—to establish a separate, free Republic in this country. Politically it so happened that the Opposition were eternally opposed to it, until, of necessity, a referendum had to be held in which people had to answer “yes” or “no” to the question of whether or not they wanted a Republic. It was then that all those blighters all voted “no” and now want to climb on to the bandwagon, every last one of them! [Interjections.] If anyone therefore compiles a very objective programme on the milestones on the road to the Republic—thus when it does not involve the economic and political contributions of people, and their other contributions—then it involves, simply and solely, the chronological recording of the history of these developments since the days of the French Huguenots to 31 May 1961, when South Africa became a Republic. That is what the compilers of the programme did. They presented the historic facts on the subject. Incidentally, this is the way in which that programme took shape. It was also right that the programme was broadcast in that way. Now hon. members must not climb onto the bandwagon afterwards and wish very complacently to share our journey. [Interjections.] Hon. members must please understand that that programme did not deal with the economic, the educational or other developments in South Africa. Nor did it deal with the undoubted part which the English-speaking and other language groups of our population in South Africa also played. That is also very important, and programmes in that regard will definitely be broadcast in future. This will happen, as surely as twice two is four. However, this programme was broadcast on Republic Day and, as its name indicates, it dealt with the milestones on the road to the Republic. In addition I still want to say … [Interjections.] … hon. members must not become so heated about this. It is the SABC …

Order! If the hon. the Minister would address the Chair I would be able to follow him more easily. In radio terms it would mean that the hon. the Minister should retune from shortwave to FM.

In the short time the television service has been in operation, great progress has already been made in various fields in regard to television, and on this occasion I should like to announce that additional transmitters are planned at places such as Piketberg, Grahamstown, Potgietersrus, Oudtshoorn, Nelspruit, Volksrus, Bethlehem, Zeerust, Kuruman and Houtbosdorp. I know that this will be welcome news to hon. members in whose constituency these areas are situated.

The hon. member for Standerton referred to the abolition of external examinations. I want to point out to the hon. member that the matter has very wide implications. Until now the universities have, according to law, and it is important to note that it is according to law, required an external admission examination, and attempts to do away with this in the past have always miscarried. In fact, section 15 of the Universities Act empowers the Joint Matriculation Board to conduct, control and impose conditions for the matriculation examination. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that the Joint Matriculation Board has allowed experiments in regard to internal examinations and it could be that the results would lead to a new approach. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that one must allow the teacher to come into his own here. Therefore the principle is entirely acceptable to me. If we proceed from the standpoint that the teacher must come into his own, I hope that the experiments will be so successful that we will hopefully arrive at the desire which the hon. member correctly expressed.

The hon. member for Jeppe discussed the question of “remedial education”.

†I want to tell the hon. member that I consider this to be a very important matter. I have a letter on my table in connection with this matter. I have already asked the hon. member to let me have further details, and all I want to say at this stage is that I have more information, but due to the shortage of time I merely want to tell the hon. member that I will give the matter the necessary attention.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein North made a very good contribution. I have already replied to most of his questions. The ideas which he expressed on the possibility of interspersing the English and Afrikaans television services by way of an experiment, have been conveyed to the SABC. They will give their attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Kimberley North, a former teacher and therefore a person who can speak with authority on this matter, discussed the gifted child. From the nature of the case this is a very important matter and I should like to inform those hon. members who are interested in it that the Human Sciences Research Council has informed me that a first report in regard to this problem is at present being printed. The contents of this report deal primarily with educational systems overseas for these gifted children. Furthermore, attention is being given to matters such as the criterion for identifying such children, how the programmes function and benefits implicit in these programmes for the exceptionally gifted child. The second phase of the investigation on gifted children, which now follows, concerns file question of working out, in conjunction with the education departments, additional principles and in particular programmes for the highly gifted child. Good progress is currently being made in this regard, and I have also received representations from other quarters. It is a really important matter and I am therefore pleased the hon. member raised it.

The hon. member for South Coast discussed a very important matter, viz. the question of technical education. He referred to the diminishing numbers at the technical high schools. However, I want to inform the hon. member that since technical education at school level is now the responsibility of the provincial authorities, this field of study is no longer being offered at technical high schools only, but at the ordinary high schools as well. This might be the reason why the numbers have diminished at the technical schools. I view this matter in a very serious light, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that, in the national interest, I shall ensure that a very penetrating investigation is instituted into it.

In my opinion the hon. member for Gezina made a very important speech. I agree with him entirely on the question of the authoritative role of the woman as against that of the man. This is really one of the major problems in education. The hon. member is a person who can speak with authority on this subject. In addition we must pay constant attention to the question of the viability of the youth. This is one of the very important matters, and the fact that it was raised here, enables us to ensure once again that the authorities concerned institute a thorough investigation into the matter.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to the S.A. War History Museum in Johannesburg, and I want to inform that hon. member that those people have been in touch with me. I accepted an invitation to pay them a visit soon. They also asked me whether they could comment on the report of the commission. I said that they could do so with the greatest pleasure. But I shall go and see for myself, for I am interested in the matter. I am now awaiting their comment and the necessary attention is being given to this matter. Consequently I want to thank the hon. member for his positive and important contribution in this regard.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East also discussed matters of cardinal importance in a very positive way. I realize the value of camping sites very well, and I want to tell the hon. member that I shall try to provide the maximum assistance as far as this matter is concerned because I realize how valuable it is and because I have a great deal of sympathy for it. I can also assure the hon. member that the other matters which he raised will receive the necessary attention.

I have already replied to most of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Parktown. However, I want to refer to the question of Crossroads. I am not ashamed to mention this, but in my parental home I was always taught that one should avoid anything that involved going to extremes. The programme in question did not refer specifically to any organizations. I have the whole of it in front of me here. I do not want us to go to the other extreme by exaggerating the matter. However, I have discussed this matter with the SABC and have asked them to be careful not to go to extremes in presenting these matters on television, even though they are the individual opinions of people; it is eccentric, and it has incensed many of our people. I know from experience that two good people who served on this council went off the rails as a result of this kind of thing, to the detriment of themselves and also to the detriment of the country.

In regard to this particular programme, is it not possible for the hon. the Minister to ensure that the same rules which apply to ministers of religion, who are permitted to speak, should also be applied to this particular programme?

I shall ask them to consider it. The hon. member has made a very valuable suggestion.

*The hon. member for Carletonville, owing to his intense interest in our young people and in education, is a true stalwart and a pillar of strength to us in the education group. That is why we listened once again with great pleasure today to the very striking ideas of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Simonstown begged to be excused for not being able to be present here this evening, and in his absence I want to say that he made a very fine contribution on the “Die Stem” parsonage. The matter has already been raised previously. I have here a long report from Prof. D. J. Kotzé of the Cape Regional Committee of the HSRC. We have already made a great deal of progress with this matter, for the house in which the Rev. De Villiers composed “Die Stem” is a place we all hold dear and attach exceptional value to. I appreciate the way in which the hon. member raised the matter here. I want to assure the hon. member that we are already very close to the stage at which it will be possible to declare this building an historical monument. We have already made considerable progress in our negotiations with the Departments of Community Development and Public Works in regard to purchases and various possible methods of procedure in regard to the buildings. I do not want to go into any details now, but I want to assure the hon. member that I will remain in close touch with him and will let him know how we are progressing. If possible, we shall make use of his assistance to find the right solution as to how to use that building. His contribution was a very effective one, and we are very grateful for it.

Lastly, the hon. member for Johannesburg West made a very fine contribution. I just want to inform him that the JMB has been given a statutory instruction to reconsider the matriculation examination. If it does not carry out its task effectively, the Committee of Heads of Education has to devote the necessary attention to the matter. Consequently the matter is receiving attention at the moment. At present we are also enhancing the status of the colleges for advanced technical Education, but this cannot be done in one day. However, considerable progress has already been made in this regard. The University Advisory Council is giving attention to the liaison between the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the universities. A committee has been appointed to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. In addition the Committee of Heads of Education has already carried out curriculum studies at school level, and examinations are at present receiving attention from the departments. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive contribution.

I have now come to the end of my reply, and I just want to say:

†The mind is the master of man. They can who think they can. One cannot run up the ladder of success with cold feet.

*If we get down to the task of education in this spirit and with this attitude, education will undoubtedly be victorious. I should now like to conclude with what I consider to be the essence of everything when we are discussing education. What is this? The essence of our education in the Republic is neatly and effectively stated in the National Education Policy Act, 1967, which provides that education in our schools shall have a Christian character as well as a national character. I should like to quote a very fine passage from the book by N. V. C. Jeffreys entitled “Education—Its nature and purposes”—

By way of summary it may be said: The ideal of Christian education may really serve as the highest ideal and the ultimate goal of all education because it points the way to the summit of all things and to the truly final. Consequently this is precisely where the strength of our ideal lies, also as far as education and the training of our children is concerned. To give education a broad national character entails that good citizenship must be built into education as an objective, for God is the creator, not only of individuals, but also of peoples and of nations. Seen in this way, we believe as a people, as we profess every day in this House through Mr. Speaker, that every nation has its own objective, function and destiny. The Christian and broad national character of our education is where not only the strength of education lies, but also the strength of our nation.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Sport and Recreation”:

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour. I propose this evening to discuss with the hon. the Minister what I believe is his primary function, i.e. the promotion of sport and recreation and not so much the control, management and direction from Government offices. His efforts in the direction of the promotion of sport have produced results which are generally welcomed by the vast majority of the public, results achieved by the same enthusiasm which the hon. the Minister has displayed during an earlier debate, the hour and a half or more this evening, of which we know he is capable. But when the hon. the Minister feels obliged to enter into the field of the control of sport to any extent, i.e. the control of the administration of competitive sport, and especially amateur sport, I want to warn him, thinking of the advice that his mother gave him, that his popularity declines as rapidly as a balloon running out of hot air over the Drakensberg. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we know that in sticking to the promotion aspect of his responsibilities he has problems. We know that he has to be circumspect. He has a resolution of the federal council of the NP to consider and to apply, but we ask him in all seriousness to use the ingenuity of which he is capable to interpret that resolution in the interests of sport and the sportsmen of South Africa and not in the interests of the status quo. The federal council of the NP is unfortunately the all-powerful body which is even now going to decide what the government has to do regarding the Theron Commission, instead of Parliament or the Cabinet making that decision. That resolution of the federal council I am sure the hon. the Minister is able to interpret in the way we would like him to, and in the way the country would like him to, and in perhaps the way, I am sure, he would like to.

This resolution is that sport is to be practised and administered on a separate basis at club, provincial and national level by the respective population groups. All I ask the Minister to do is to apply, in interpreting that resolution, the ingenuity and the approach which he applied in his young days in writing a thesis and which he has applied in various other aspects of his life since that time. We have achieved, in spite of this resolution, which is a rather wide one and is not a closely interpreted resolution, much in certain sports, to the credit of this Minister, for which we thank him. The acceptance of the concept of South African representative teams is one such development. Whichever name we want to choose to describe those teams, they are multi-racial teams which have played in South Africa and outside South Africa. All I can say is that I hope that those, who would strictly and conservatively interpret the binding resolution of the federal council of the NP, will realize that with what has taken place, particularly in the last year, the foundations of our civilization remain quite firm. Not a hair-crack has appeared in the ramparts that we thought we should build around the maintenance and protection of our so-called civilization. Sir, this has been achieved—and I acknowledge it—through the Minister’s preparedness to approve concessions, if I might put it that way, if not to change his basic policy.

But we have one further step to take and that is the step which he advised should be taken when he addressed the yachtsmen before they left for Rio, and that is that we have to take politics out of sport. Those were the Minister’s words here in Cape Town. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this achievement which we have had in our South African representative sides has, I think, brought to the front for our consideration the necessity of establishing one department of State to be responsible for the promotion of sport and recreation for all the communities of our population. Sir, the annual report of the department refers to a first step in this direction. On page 11 of the report, in paragraph 9.3, there is reference to an inquiry into the sport and physical recreation of the population groups in South Africa. It goes on to state that the report has shown “which sports facilities are available and indicates in realistic terms which are required.” That is in respect of all population groups in the country. I trust that the hon. member for Fauresmith, who will no doubt follow me in this debate, will be consequential as to what he has said before in this House and that he will support this plea I am making for a central Department of Sport for all our communities. I want to refer to the fact that he made noises in this direction when he spoke in this House on 14 October 1974. I hope that he will unequivocally support my plea for all sport promotion for all population groups to be entrusted to this hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation and his department.

The budget before us presents a picture of a totally unacceptable disparity of funds provided under the heading “Promotion of Sport and Recreation”. If anyone looks at the estimates which we have had tabled, he will find some startling figures which, I say immediately, are not a true reflection of the position. One will find, for instance, in Vote 6 on page 18 that for Bantu there is provision for R50 000 for the promotion of sport and recreation of which R20 000 are grants-in-aid. If we proceed to Vote 17, on page 1 we find that for the promotion of sport and recreation of which amongst Whites there is an amount of R2 480 000, of which R1 627 700 are grants-in-aid to provide sporting facilities. If one looks further at Vote 41 on page 4, one finds an incredible figure, in that for Coloureds there is the princely sum for the promotion of sport and recreation of R100. I should like to emphasize the fact that this is what one sees when one looks at the estimates which have been tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Innesdal must not get excited. I have already said I realize there are other funds which are made available. There are, for instance, as far as the Bantu are concerned, funds which are derived from their beer halls, etc. There are funds which are made available indirectly through the Coloured Representative Council. However, the point which I am making is that without having a centralized directorate, any person who looks at these estimates of expenditure finds no word of reference whatsoever to the additional amounts that are derived from other sources for the Bantu and the Coloured people. I am sure that the hon. member for Innesdal who was getting so agitated when I suggested that there was only R100 available for the promotion of Coloured sport will agree with me that the best way to dispel any of these illusions and false conceptions is to ensure that sport is under one head, under one directorate, so that one can readily see all that is being done for the various race groups. This discrimination and apparently inadequate provision of facilities for all our communities can only be eradicated by adopting what I have suggested, namely the establishment of such a centralized department.

I should now like to deal specifically with umbrella control of specific sports. My suggestion is that there should be an umbrella control of all sports of all communities under the Minister. The hon. the Minister himself has publicly welcomed the establishment of one governing body for cricket. The various cricket unions have got together and they have appointed what I might term the “committee of nine”. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance this evening that the steps which are being taken by the administrators of cricket to sort out the differences and problems so that we can have truly representative South African teams, will be encouraged in every way by the hon. the Minister. A statement of his attitude towards the co-ordination of this very vital sport in South Africa would be welcomed, I am sure, by sportsmen throughout the length and breadth of the country.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that his path is becoming a little easier than it used to be. He was troubled by two persons with the name of Andries. I see that the one has retired from politics—I am sure that the Andries from Marico has retired—and I am sure that the Andries who sits here, who hails from Waterberg, can be convinced of the necessity of this overall umbrella control of sport.

If one looks at the last paragraph of the report, one finds a further innovation which we welcome. That is that the question of the issuing of permits for attendance under the Groups Areas Act at sports functions is now entrusted to this hon. Minister. I think that is to be welcomed. I know that he cannot do that officially, and that he cannot have the power delegated to him, but at least if the hon. the Minister of Community Development would listen to this hon. Minister I am sure that we would have less trouble in this connection. Perhaps we would even have the advances speeded up, as was the case when certain facilities for non-Whites were allowed, for instance, at the Green Point stadium. This has not only been of great assistance, but has helped considerably in stamping out lawlessness at sporting functions in that area.

The limited time we have available for this debate does not permit me to deal at any length with other matters, but there are one or two questions I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. These questions are causing some concern to those involved in sport. I hope the hon. the Minister, who has an unlimited amount of time to reply, will deal with these questions more fully than I can in the limited time I have at my disposal.

The first question involves dealing with applications for grants-in-aid to sporting bodies. It appears that the total number of requests received by the department involve some R8½ million. The department has available for this current year an amount of R1 627 000. We would be interested to know by whom and in what manner the priorities for the expenditure of this money are to be determined. In the report for last year I find that R500 000, nearly one third of the total amount available for grants-in-aid, was assigned to one project, and that was the water reticulation scheme in the Upington area. I think there must be some justification necessary for providing one third of the total amount available for the whole Republic for the purposes of one scheme. I think that some justification is owed to those who are waiting for help in other directions. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter.

I now want to come to another point. With the largesse of hand-outs to municipalities all over the place, I believe there is a great danger that we run the risk of becoming a sort of sports welfare State. In the past history of South Africa local authorities, sporting bodies and persons interested in sport have accepted a great deal of the responsibility for providing sports facilities. One has municipal golf clubs all over the country and there are municipal areas set aside for other sports all over the country. However, if the current procedure is to be such that nothing need be provided by the local population since we are able to go to the Father Christmas Minister and ask him for hand-outs for what we need for the establishment of sport facilities, we are courting danger. I have always held the view that facilities which are provided with great generosity by some distant source do not engender the appreciation and care for the said facilities which is evidenced when those facilities are provided by the efforts of the people who themselves are involved in the sport concerned.

In this specific sphere I want to refer to one further matter, and that is a matter of which the hon. the Minister is fully aware. I am speaking here of the necessity for adequate harbour facilities for pleasure craft. I do not want to go into this matter at any great length, but I do want to mention the fact that these harbour facilities have a dual purpose. On the one hand these facilities facilitate indulgence in the sport of sailing and boating but there is a more important factor. Where one has outlets at specific places, one is able to ensure that safety regulations are observed by the people who put out to sea. After all, if a boat is launched from a controlled harbour launching area, at least there is an opportunity for the people concerned to ensure that when a power boat or yacht is launched it is complying with the primary needs for safety, such as the need for life-jackets and other devices laid down in any regulated club. I am particularly pleased to see in the report that the Government has agreed to an investigation by the CSIR of a project study of the Grainger Bay facilities at Mouille Point. It is a matter I raised many years ago with the hon. Mr. Ben Schoeman when he was still here as Minister of Railways. The matter has now been transferred to this hon. Minister’s department. I do want to thank the hon. the Minister for the deep personal interest which he has shown in this particular project. The power boat enthusiasts of the Cape Peninsula and Western Cape are appreciative of what is being done. I think that they have shown their appreciation and that they have demonstrated that they do not expect the department to do everything, by the not inconsiderable amount of money which they have collected themselves and which they have spent already on what one might call the preliminary works for the pleasure boat harbour. As the hon. the Minister will, I am sure, realize, this amenity will be of great value not only to the Peninsula but also to tourism generally, bearing in mind the growing use of these facilities by overseas travellers. We shall be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister in due course—although he may not even at this stage be able to give us an indication—to what extent he will be able to assist the Oceana Power Boat Club in this particular venture of theirs.

Finally, I believe that I would be failing in my duty if I did not, on behalf of this side of the House, and I am sure also on behalf of all members of this House, pay tribute to our sportsmen and sports administrators in South Africa. In times which have, I suggest, been made difficult by Government stubbornness and hesitancy in making adaptations in the control of sport, they have been able to continue to maintain sporting standards as high as one could possibly imagine them being maintained outside of full world competition. This has meant a great deal of dedication of time and energy on the part of these people, and the hon. the Minister himself has, time and again, paid his tribute to these persons who are involved in the various aspects of sport. I believe that they have used their utmost endeavours to overcome the estrangement of our sportsmen in other countries. Their achievements have been meritorious in that regard. I see the hon. the Minister nodding. I am sure that he agrees with me that that is so.

Surely, when we see what these people have been able to achieve in spite of the problems with which they have been faced, we must realize that the time has come when sportsmen are able to administer their own affairs effectively, that they will administer those affairs in the interests of sport and that they will administer those affairs in the interests of South Africa. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister and his party to accept that the time has come for the Minister to devote himself to his primary function, viz. the promotion of sport and recreation, and for the sports administrators to take over the control and the running of their particular sports, both locally and internationally, without any interference from Parliament or from the Government in any form whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the speech by the hon. member for Green Point this evening was so encouraging to me. However I do not know why he did not make the statement he really wanted to make, viz. to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the outstanding way in which he handles sport in South Africa. He might as well have said it in so many words and have done with it. Sir, in the course of my speech I shall come back to some of the points mentioned by the hon. member. I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations addressed to our sportsmen for their achievements in recent years. The hon. member repeated an appeal made by the hon. the Minister and said that we should keep politics out of sport. I am sorry, Sir; I should have liked to support that appeal, but I do not think the world is allowing us to do so.

The best examples I can mention of the way in which politics play a role in sport every day is the coming of the All Blacks and the change of Government in Australia. There is a different Government, and now the All Blacks can come again. There is a different Government in Australia, and now those people are prepared to receive us under certain conditions. A year ago the President of the S.A. Cricket Association was unable to obtain a visa to go and put his case in Australia. I therefore fear that it is wishful thinking to say that politics should be kept out of sport. But in spite of the fact that after 1960 we were barred from the Olympic Games, our sportsmen, our sports administrators and our instructors have not let the grass grow under their feet, as the hon. member also said. They put their shoulders to the wheel. Their achievements have been of world stature. The sportsmen have forced themselves on the attention of the world so that the sporting world had to take note of them. We have progressed a long way. Since 1966 38 State President’s Awards have been made to individual sportsmen and these are all people who have achieved world standard as a result of exceptional coaching. And that is not even to speak of the Springbok team of my friend Dawie de Villiers, Hannes Marais’s Springbok team and the men’s hockey team which have also received awards. We have achieved outstanding results through the policy of the National Party in the implementation of the policy of the NP.

And in spite of it.

If it had not been for the policy of the NP, not a single Black man would have taken part in any of our bicycle tours. As far as bowls are concerned, can we let this occasion pass without a word of, I am tempted to say, glorification of our bowls people? Their achievement in having won all the world championships at stake, was absolutely phenomenal. As far as golf is concerned, surely we all know Gary Player. We have also heard of Dale Hayes. But is it not phenomenal that on the same day that Sally Little won a tournament in America, Vincent Tshabalala won the French tournament?

What about the Van der Merwes?

I am coming to the Van der Merwes now. Nor must we let the fine achievements of our mountain climbers in the Andes go unnoticed. I am not referring now to the group of Van der Merwes who lost their way in the Cedarberg. I think their feet were not tough enough. What I find most encouraging, and what gives me hope for the future, is that while we on the Government side believe in separate development and while it is our policy, we also acknowledge at all times that there is a certain area, which I want to call a grey area, in which White and non-White will always make contact. It has often been said that sport is a very emotional subject. It probably is emotional, but why is it emotional? It is emotional and has a hold on people because it was the first area outside politics which was a grey area in which the various peoples had to learn to coexist. Under the leadership of the hon. the Minister and in accordance with the policy of the NP we have entered this grey area and, as the hon. member for Green Point also said, this has been done with outstanding success. These things have been achieved—and this is still the most important point—without a single incident. The NP has stated that its future aim is and always has been to eliminate friction as far as possible. At this level the NP has eliminated friction and achieved success. One of these days the Transkei will become independent and when that happens, then under the policy of this Government the Umtata team will be free to come and tour in this country just as Gloucestershire is touring here now. We have progressed a long way. When I consider matters—I do not want to play prophet; there are many other prophets opposite—it seems to me that the next sphere to come under attack—a sphere which is outside politics—is going to be the sphere of the church. I have sympathy for them; a great deal of sympathy. It is going to be an uphill struggle.

In order to develop this success further, I believe it is necessary for sportsmen to be trained even more; for further research on sportsmen to be carried out; for sports administrators to be taught how to administer sport. I have time for those people who sacrifice their days and nights for the sake of sports administration. In this regard I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Green Point. I do not want to advocate that the Department of Sport should become an umbrella department. This would not fit in with the policy of the NP because the NP believes that the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people must administer their own sporting matters, coaching and administration. However I believe that it must be made possible for the Department of Sport and Recreation to assist with the training of non-White sports administrators* and coachers—even though it be on an agency basis, as is the case in the Department of Health. In this case I have in mind the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people. The department must assist them in the coaching of those sportsmen and in further research and provision of aid. The successful development of the policy of separate development and of sport, as developed by the NP, must never allow a situation to develop in which it could be said that the NP follows a static policy. If changes have to be effected in South Africa, then the NP can do so. I believe that this would be appropriate and a good thing, because in my opinion, it is essential for the full development of the NP’s policy, that the administration of the non-White sporting bodies should receive assistance, that aid should be given with regard to the coaching of sportsmen and with regard to the research which must necessarily be carried out. In that regard I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Green Point. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Green Point hinted here and there that he was making an honest effort to serve sport. We on this side of the House have much appreciation for this.

This evening I want to exchange a few ideas about those who do not serve sport. In this instance I am choosing my words in a different way to that in which the hon. member for Green Point chose his. I want to discuss the abuse of politics in sport. It is undoubtedly true that there are few acts more reprehensible than when a person or body uses its power or influence or abuses its aims in such a way as to destroy the ideals of other people who are making an honest effort to build something up. I believe, too, that there is nothing which engenders so much aversion as disloyalty. Therefore, since we are living in strange times, in which there is often rejoicing when someone undermines and destroys, I believe that we too can make a new appeal in this House this evening, not only to the sport administrators of the various population groups in South Africa, not only to the various sportsmen of the various population groups in South Africa, but also to the whole sporting world. To all these people and bodies we can make a new appeal for a new loyalty; in this case loyalty to sport for the sake of sport. We in South Africa have some of the finest examples of people who often do not agree with the policy of the Government but who give their all to build and create opportunities for the young to allow talents they have been endowed with to develop in one field of sport or another. If one does not want to mention those sport administrators by name this evening, then it is not because they are not well-known, but because one is afraid one might leave out deserving people. However, it is also true, unfortunately, that in South Africa—to a lesser extent fortunately—and throughout the whole world, there are innumerable people who leave no stone unturned to bedevil sporting relations.

I have here before me a Press statement issued earlier this year by “the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa”, of which Mr. Ordia is the president. I am only going to quote a single sentence from the Press statement which was issued after New Zealand had invited a South African softball team to its shores—

In an introductory letter under cover of which he sent this Press statement to the chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid of the United Nations, Mr. Ordia writes the following—

When one looks at these things, one wonders whether sport is being served by these deeds and words and whether the young people who want to use the time when they are still young for achievements in the world of sport, are being rendered a service. In the same Press statement it is stated that certain countries have already withdrawn from the softball tournament in New Zealand. He adds the following to this statement—

This Tanzanian athlete—

Owing to the fact that Tanzania decided not to take part in the meeting because South Africa had been invited, the race is no longer going to take place. One wonders how it can be justified that a promising athlete in Tanzania should be deprived of the privilege of running against a world record holder from New Zealand simply because the people in Tanzania do not agree with the political policy followed in South Africa. After New Zealand had accepted the invitation of the All Blacks to South Africa, the attacks and onslaughts against New Zealand increased.

In Die Volksblad of 31 May this year, only a few days ago, one reads that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ramphal, said that the international consequences of their decision to allow the All Black rugby team to go to South Africa would not necessarily be neutralized by a statement that New Zealand was still opposed to apartheid. He said that New Zealand could be facing isolation. In Die Volksblad of the following day, there is a report entitled “New Zealand facing isolation”. In the subsequent edition of the newspaper, a further report appeared entitled “Sportsmen do not want to appear on TV with Ordia.” This is the same Mr. Ordia, the president of the council to which I have already referred, who accepted an invitation by the Press of New Zealand to appear in a television programme in New Zealand with the chairman of their Olympic committee and with some of their sportsmen. Then Mr. Lans Cross, the chairman of the New Zealand Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association, said that his association believed that bridges had been built and they were not prepared to follow the example of other countries by misusing sport for political aims. “If Ordia comes to New Zealand to discuss sport, I am prepared to speak to him, but it is reprehensible for Ordia to want to use newspapers to initiate negotiations with New Zealand,” he said. Furthermore, Mr. Walker, who is referred to in the Press statement as a world record holder, was asked to appear in a television interview together with Mr. Ordia. His reply was: “I shall not. I want to run; I do not want to get involved in politics.” If we want to take up the cudgels for New Zealand to a certain extent this evening, then we must convey our appreciation to that country and its Government, not because they have given up anything by allowing the All Blacks to come to South Africa, not because that country is doing us a favour, but because New Zealand is prepared to set an example to the world, is prepared to create opportunities for its young people and prepared to allow sport to take place for sport’s sake. We want to tell the world today that we have appreciation for New Zealand specifically because it was strong enough to set an example and we can only hope that other countries will follow it. Now it is interesting to know that some of New Zealand’s sportsmen, too, will suffer as a result of this. To me, the unfairness here lies specifically in the fact that those who are prepared to serve sport will also suffer if Mr. Ordia and others who feel as he does get their way. We must accept that New Zealand wants to create the finest opportunities for its young people, and by so doing wants to afford the young people of South Africa, too, the opportunities to take part in sport. I think it is necessary for the sporting world to take cognizance of the fact that we in South Africa ask that meaningless abuse of sport be ended. Nothing will ever be achieved thereby, because sport eventually will triumph. In the meantime, however, young people who are unable to use their opportunities suffer, because other people want to misuse sport for political ends to realize other ideals which are not sport ideals.

The hon. member for Fauresmith pointed out that South Africa’s isolation began when in 1964, for the first time since 1908, we were absent from the Olympic Games. It has been since the enemies of South Africa—I think it is also necessary that we refer to them as the enemies of sport—began to achieve success at the Olympics at Tokyo that the attacks on South Africa began. It is this very state of affairs which has inspired our sport administrators to give their all to put South Africa back in the international sporting arena. The successes they have achieved are illustrated by the fact that in 1973 there were 73 types of registered sport, only ten of which did not enjoy international participation. Last year it was only 11 out of 83. I see my time is up and I conclude with the positive thought that the Free State can still win the Currie Cup this year.

Mr. Chairman, I think I agree largely with most of the points made by the hon. member for Bethlehem. I think he is absolutely right when he says that politics should be kept out of sport as far as is humanly possible. However, I think he has taken a somewhat one-sided look at the matter, because it is no good blaming the rest of the world for the ills that befall South Africa. I believe that it might be necessary—it is necessary from time to time—that we look at ourselves as sincere people and see if we cannot make improvements in the interests of the country.

The hon. member called for a new loyalty. I now want to talk about a group of sportsmen, I think, who have the greatest loyalty to South Africa. In doing so, I should like to follow one of the points made by the hon. member for Green Point. It seems like only yesterday when I sat in the grandstand at Kingsmead on a bright morning and watched Barry Richards score 90 runs before lunch against and Australian side. That South African side of some years ago went on to win the match and then went on to win the series, in magnificent style. Those were the days of Barlow, Proctor, Goddard, centuries, victories and champagne. All that has changed. No country today in the entire cricketing world is prepared to play against us and spectator interest in cricket has dwindled. We have to be content with unofficial tours to South Africa, but not away from South Africa. And now it is not only Blacks, Indians and Coloured cricketers who must seek their opportunities overseas. The White cricketers are facing the same misfortune and have to seek their opportunities overseas as well. They are suffering the same bitter frustration as their Black, Coloured and Indian counterparts of years gone by.

In the few minutes still at my disposal I should like to sketch a scene and make a very sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister, specifically to this hon. the Minister, in the interests of some 70 000 cricketers in South Africa, enthusiasts and spectators, young and old.

As isolation loomed for cricketers in South Africa in the 1960s, White cricket administrators made tentative contacts with their counterparts in Coloured, in Indian and in Black cricketing circles, with bodies of men who over the years have enjoyed none of the glory and none of the opportunities of cricketing decades gone by. However, a start was made, perhaps timidly, in building better relationships and in building mutual trust between the various races in the cricketing community. This was no simple task, because prejudices and animosities die hard. Initially there was but little success, and some years ago cricket at all levels amongst the races suffered and went into decline. However, a measure of goodwill still survived amongst men of goodwill. Within each of the three major unions, the S.A. Cricket Association, the S.A. African Cricket Board and the S.A. Cricket Board of Control—Sacboc—there were senior persons who persevered and who devoted their time in persuading, in the first instance, the people within their own unions and within their own clubs, as to the urgent need for and the benefit of working together to lift cricket for everyone out of the doldrums, and also to put South Africa back on the international map. In all these unions they succeeded, because on 18 January 1976, as a culmination of years of work, a resolution was passed in the face of setbacks and dissidents.

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

I am sorry, but I have no time to answer questions. What does the resolution say? It says that Sacboc and the other two unions—

The next clause relates to the implementation of that and the setting up of the 9-man committee.

This resolution met with mixed public reception. Mr. Hassan Howa decried it; the HNP decried it; the Press welcomed it; cricketers in enormous numbers welcomed it; and the Minister, in my view, very wisely held his counsel and his comments. This in itself was a great encouragement to the cricketers concerned. However, the task does not end there. At provincial level the different bodies have met together as have, I believe, the committee of nine. We have already seen the first fruit of these meetings. There have been three unofficial tours this year. There have been the Datsun Double Wicket, the Derrick Robins Tour and, the Richie Benaud’s International Wanderers’ Tour. For the first time Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites played together on an invitation basis at international level, but this time with the full and formal blessing of the unions concerned. What did we see? Despite the stumbling block created by people who did not agree with this move, despite the voices in the dark that called out that this was wrong, we saw Ebrahim Babu, a man we have never heard of, take six wickets against an international side.

Baboo Ebrahim.

We saw Baboo Ebrahim. White and Black spectators found a new unity in supporting wholeheartedly a South African side. The fears of friction proved groundless. The moderates of the cricket world were vindicated.

However, the task does not end even there. Encouraged by the hon. the Minister’s helpfulness and spurred on by the successes of the season, the ground work envisaged in the resolution gone forward. The committee of nine will no doubt very soon, if not already, be wanting to see the hon. the Minister to put to him their proposals.

I bear no knowledge of what they are going to say to the hon. the Minister, but I would like to ask the minister that when he sees the committee—and I hope he sees them very soon—to bear a few very important aspects in mind: firstly, that the coming 1976-’77 season will be crucial and that it is a fast approaching season. The Minister must move rapidly to meet with this committee and should, if necessary, take the initiative, to see them, and break his silence on what they are trying to achieve. Secondly, with the cricket détente achieved, after all these years of trying, that the trust built up between the various executive bodies is a fragile détente which will crumble, if no tangible progress is made. Thirdly, that the men of goodwill who control Black, Coloured and Indian cricket, and who seek ties and competition with Whites, will themselves only be able to maintain sway within their own unions, will only be able to survive, if their good intentions are proved successful and if their attitude of conciliation is vindicated in the eyes of their own supporters. Fourthly, failure by these people to succeed now will mean only a rapid return to the old animosities, to the polarization of races within the cricketing community, and in the long term, to the isolation of all South African cricketers.

Finally and fifthly, I want to tell the Minister that from what I can see and from what I have been told, the cricketers have in fact reached an agreement. They have reached an agreement on broad consensus. They have reached an agreement on method, and they are going to put a form of agreement to the Minister. In other words, the ball is in the court of the Government and not in the court of the cricketers. The ball is in the court of the hon. the Minister and it is up to the Government to see to it that cricket goes forward in the spirit in which the cricketers themselves would like to see it go forward. I pray that this Minister at this moment will not let us down.

Mr. Chairman, both the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Sandton have intimated that progress has been made with our sports policy, but now I want to make the statement that that progress could only have been made under the leadership of our energetic Minister and because we on this side of the House are aware of, and convinced that, sport can play an important role in the establishment of sound ethnic relations. That is why we on this side of the House want to use sport to establish and develop these ethnic relations, because we believe that sport can make friends for us. That is why we see sport as an instrument placed in our hand so that this aim may be achieved. In this connection I should like to refer to a report issued by an extremely authoritative international research institute known for its outstanding research work. This is the report concerning “Black/White relationships in Soweto”. What does this report say? It says—

This researcher inquired about the ethnic relations among Blacks at various levels of education and remuneration, and the largest percentage of Blacks questioned, replied that the most important reason why White/Black relations had improved, was to be found in the opportunities afforded by sport. In this regard, therefore, sport development has indubitably played an important role in improving relations. Sport is therefore something which may serve the best interests of all the peoples of South Africa. Sport, more than anything else, affords the various population groups the opportunity to develop mutual recognition and respect for the human dignity of each. Sport results in knowledge and understanding of each other. These fruits have already been reaped to a large extent by the large number of multi-national tournaments arranged over the past few years.

Now, it is easy for countries overseas to talk and criticize, but ultimately it is South Africa that has to solve its own problems. With our eight different Black population groups as well as Indians, Coloureds and Whites, who not only vary enormously with regard to their cultural background, but are at various stages of development, this is no small task. These population groups also have their own preferences with regard to sport development. I believe that the fact that a report of this nature and one to which I have just referred could have afforded such positive evidence, represents an exceptional achievement. It is an achievement which owes its success solely to the sincerity of our Government in bringing about a better mutual understanding among the various population groups. These achievements also arise out of our desire to create opportunities for other population groups to develop to the full their practice of sport. That is why it is our standpoint that the sound development of sport on a multi-national basis is in the best interests of the peaceful coexistence of the various peoples within South Africa. In this way sport can also serve as a powerful stimulant for the physical and social development of the various peoples. Cycling tours such as the Tour of the Winelands and the Rapport Cycling Tour are eloquent examples of this. Between Pretoria and Cape Town more than 300 000 people viewed the Rapport Cycling Tour. It was an international, multi-national cycling championship which was effectively presented. If this cycling tour had not been presented on a basis of multi-nationalism, not a single Black team could have competed because the Black peoples have not yet reached the standard necessary to be able to do this.

That is why we say that our policy is a policy of development, development of the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian and, in conjunction with this, the development of the White as well. That is why it is our intention with regard to sport development that sport be exercised and administered by the various population groups at the various levels within the national context. The various peoples are also proud to do so, just as they are proud of their own sportsmen and women. When we talk about sport development, we mean that the national sport bodies of the various population groups, each of which is on the road to self-determination, must establish separate relations with similar sporting bodies of other peoples. By sport development we mean that individual sportsmen must be able to progress to the highest international level and also that within South Africa, full opportunities must be afforded for inter-nation and international meetings, taking into account the customs of South Africa. That is why the statistics of the Department of Sport and Recreation also indicate that the number of international multi-national meetings is increasing annually. In this way all sportsmen in South Africa are afforded the opportunity of competing at the highest level. By sport development we mean that there will also be co-ordination at the highest management level among the sporting bodies of the various population groups. Furthermore, by sport development we also mean that organized sport must always—and this hon. members on that side of the House must also bear in mind—relate to the course of social and political development in South Africa.

This year is once again an Olympic Year. With regard to Olympic types of sport, it is our standpoint that an inter-nation team, comprising the best sportsmen from among all peoples in South Africa, could represent South Africa under the South African flag. When, in time, some of the Black peoples achieve independence, they too will be able to establish their own sporting relations, just as Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland do at present. However, there is a further example of the positive influence of sport in establishing sound ethnic relations. I refer here to the presentation of the Champion of Champions soccer series. In this series the various population groups of South Africa were given the opportunity to play against each other on a knock-out basis. Not only did this contribute towards the quality of the sport being substantially increased as a result of the higher level of sporting practice but the presentation of this series also afforded the sportsmen of the various peoples of South Africa the opportunity of building up mutual understanding and respect for each other. That is why it is our conviction that as far as this development of our sport policy is concerned, we are making a definite contribution to the establishment of better ethnic relations. By doing so we are making a definite contribution to the furtherance of the best interests of the peoples of South Africa. Undoubtedly there are more important matters than sport, but as long as sport can serve the interests of South Africa, we must and shall use it for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Fauresmith is not here at the moment…

There he is!

Oh, there he is. It was interesting to hear an hon. member telling us how well Nationalist sports policy has developed. I agree with him that they have come a long way over the last 20 years, but the last 20 years have actually been a backward step and they have not even reached the point where the UP left off. I would like to see some of the “ontwikkeling”, which the hon. member for Geduld spoke about, getting under way. It seems to me that Nationalist sports policy—or let us say South African sports policy—falls into three phases. Up to 1948 we did have separate White sport, and Black sport was played under White patronage or guardianship. We also do have on record the awarding of Springbok colours to the occasional Black man. However, during the first 20 years of Nationalist rule radical sports apartheid was enforced as a policy for the first time in South Africa, and it was during those years that South Africa lost its international ties of friendship and sporting contacts. Now we have reached the 70s and it is interesting to see the development of a new phase in our sports policy, and here I am referring to the idea of multi-national sport. As far as we are concerned, however, the position is still in a state of flux and experiment. In this state we still have exceptions and discrepancies manifesting themselves. At best, I would say the policy could be called a non-policy, and I think it would be kind to call it a muddle. I should like to give some examples of the present muddle, a muddle which causes embarrassment on occasions and also racial tension.

Last year we saw the Black team Kaizer Chiefs playing the White team Hellenic. This was the epitome of the Nationalist’s multinational sports policy. During this game which was played at Hartleyvale in Cape Town, we saw fights and barricades broken down. Even the international referee said that he would rather have had the sides mixed than separate in multi-national teams. Since then we have had a change. The Government has moved— and I again use the word “ontwikkel”—and we now have Blacks and Whites playing together in the same side. This certainly was a change, and for the first time we had Black and White spectators roaring their approval here at Newlands when we saw a combined rugby XV beating the French. At Kingsmead we also saw Baboo Ebrahim thrilling the crowd by taking a number of wickets against the International Wanderers side with his spinners. It was interesting to see that Sacboc were so proud that they seemed to have second thoughts about suspending their players for having taken part in that game. One would think that this was now a satisfactory state of affairs, but it is not.

One need only look at the comments of the players who took part in those games. What were their views? “Not again for us. We want normal cricket, and not these internationals. This is just window-dressing.” Jock Mahoney, a Coloured bowler from the Eastern Province, had this to say: “We have done sufficient to prove to the Government and to South Africa that normal cricket can be played in this country without any difficulties.” Mr. Chairman, this was proved a long time ago. The Aurora side, which is a mixed side, has been playing league cricket in Pietermaritzburg for the past three seasons without any trouble. But, Sir, the point is: What does the future hold? No definite policy has been mapped out. We have this impasse between Government policy, with its difficulties and dangers, on the one hand, and on the other hand the successes of the experimentation and what the players want. This impasse must be resolved. The answer has already been suggested by the sportsmen, and this suggestion has recently been supported by Prof. Gert Scholtz, who is a professor of physical education at Potchefstroom. In an interview in the Rand Daily Mail of 6 May he had this to say—

result of the multi-racial approach.

We are very pleased to hear that, because the UP has always maintained that there should be a policy of merit selection in sport. In fact, we go even further. We say that the control of sport should be left in the hands of the sportsmen, as in the case of the paraplegics who recently organized their own tour to Canada without any trouble.

The point is that while the Government delays, team sports, and particularly cricket, suffer. For instance, we have had no test cricket in this country for six years. Our experienced and blooded test cricket players will consequently all be going out together. We will be seeing the end of the Pollocks, the Richards and the Barlows. By the time they reach 36 or so they will be finished, and how will they be replaced once they have all gone out together? We are not blooding any more test cricketers because they are not getting the experience. We do not find a reservoir of players coming through. The reason for this is that international sides will only come here if they can play fully mixed merit selected sides, which is not Government policy.

But apart from test cricket, what about the building up of the other sports? If we accept merit selection, we will find that a man like Pele will be able to come out here and play for a team like Cape Town City or that a man like Bobby Moore will be able to join Kaizer Chiefs, which would improve these sides. If this were done, one could have such invitation players coming here. It is not foreign for us to see Black players in South Africa. A lot of racially mixed sides have come here. We have had Black tennis players like Ashe coming here; we have had boxers like Galindez and we have had cricketers like Shepherd. We see them on the soccer field. In fact, when the New Zealand rugby side comes out here, we will probably find that many of the New Zealand players will be Maoris. I hope that this is going to condition viewpoints in the benches opposite and in the Cabinet to accept the change which the hon. member for Fauresmith claims can take place under Nationalist policy. We have here at home players who want to gather together to get competition while playing together.

At present the S.A. Cricket Association is negotiating with the hon. the Minister towards this end. We hope that his decision will favour South Africa and South African sportsmen in the future. We are aware that the hon. the Minister is trying very hard to normalize our sporting relationships. He has been making a great individual effort, but he cannot be everywhere to handle all the individual queries and problems that occur. Without stating the logical goal of the Government’s policy, all his efforts could be doomed. We can see the policy and where it is heading. We shall encourage it along this path, but we do ask whether the Cabinet sees it and, if the Cabinet does see it, whether they will accept and encourage the logical development of the sports policy. The present hon. Minister might not always be there and his successor may not be able to steer around the artificial barriers of Government policy. If that were to happen, we would be back at square 1. We hope the Government will take up the lead given by the hon. the Prime Minister when he pledged at the opening of the men’s world bowls championships in Johannesburg that he would further the interests of sport “because”, he said, “it knows no social difference and brings people of different races and religions together”. This was quoted in The Daily News of 19 February 1976. There may of course be resignations like that of the MPC for Marico, but this should not stem the tide and the flow of history.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I should like to raise in the remaining time available to me. The one is the televising of sport. There has been a lot of controversy over this and in fact a warning has been given by the S.A. Rugby Board that if attendances at games drop, they will consider restricting television coverage. To our mind this question should not arise because the sports administrators are in the magnificent position where they are able to collect from SATV on the one hand and from the firms who want to sell their products by advertising on the grounds on the other hand. These firms have been quick to benefit in their advertising. A few Saturdays ago I watched the game between Boland and Western Province in Wellington and it was funny to see how a firm, when it realized where the cameras were, removed their advertising banners and rushed around the field to obtain the maximum advantage from those TV cameras. All the sports administrators have to do is to negotiate with these firms for one day or for a particular spot on the ground. I think that from this they could reap more than from a large attendance. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North again pointed a finger at the Government and accused us of being the cause of South Africa’s not competing internationally in many spheres. My knowledge of sport is probably not very good, but I remember that the first post-war cricket team led by Dudley Nourse, or was it Alan Melville—I cannot quite recall—played test matches against England and also against Australia. I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North why test matches were not played against West India, India and Pakistan in those days. After all, they also had test teams by that time. I want to ask the hon. member why Coloureds and Bantu were not included in the White cricket teams before 1948. Surely they also had good players in those days. In other words, when that party was in power, they did not do it either. But now they want the Government to do it straight away so that everything in the garden may be rosy.

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

Not now. Mr. Chairman, over the past year the emphasis in sport has fallen upon South Africa’s exclusion from those international gatherings. On every occasion the Government was made the scapegoat for our exclusion from those international competitions. I think that two things are being overlooked. The first is that sport does have a place in Government policy. Sport is not something which can be practised outside the Government’s policy. In every country in the world sport forms an integral part of the policy of that country and of that Government. This Government has a policy and with this policy it went to the voters and received a mandate from the voters and, since sport is a part of that policy, the Government is implementing its policy in respect of sport as well. The second thing which is being overlooked is that in many countries and for many people sport has become an instrument of political propaganda. There are people who use sport solely to achieve their political aims. This Government, in spite of opposition and in spite of the boycotts, has continued to develop its policy of multi-national sport so that today it is possible for everyone in South Africa to reach the highest rung of the ladder. I should like to challenge the Opposition parties here tonight. I should like to challenge the hon. member for Sandton to give me the names of players in South Africa, both Black and non-White, who cannot reach the highest rung of the ladder. I should like to hear their names. If sport administrators in South Africa would act within the framework of the Government’s policy, we would have made much faster and far more progress than has been the case up to now. I believe it is essential that we should, on an occasion such as this, remind certain sport administrators in South Africa once again that they should not abuse their position, that they should not use their particular sport as a means of furthering their personal political views.

Therefore what I actually want to say is that they should not use their sport as an instrument for political propaganda. I do not begrudge any player or any sport administrator in South Africa his own political standpoint and his own participation in politics. Any such political participation, however, must be exercised outside the sporting arena, and not within it. I am convinced that this is possible, should we bear a few things in mind. The first thing which we must bear in mind, when we are discussing sport, is that the practice of sport is a gift which man receives. Therefore it is a pity that this gift should be dragged into the political arena. It is a gift which is designed to give one a healthy, fit and strong body. Such a body will also accommodate a healthy spirit. Two things are of the utmost importance for every South African—Black, White and Brown—namely, a healthy body and a sound mind. In essence, sport is also a form of relaxation. I know that we cannot eliminate the element of competition. I believe it is very good that this should be so, but sport is relaxation for the body and the spirit; something which in its turn aims at a higher productivity. It also aims at bringing about greater determination, greater resilience and greater preparedness.

However, there is something else which we must bear in mind. This is that sport has an tremendous influence on the relationship between people and between nations. I believe that sport offers a form of communication, communication which builds bridges of friendship and which promotes mutual respect. Sport offers the opportunity for encounter. I want to state that it is not necessary to draw a line through our traditional practice of sport. It is not necessary to do this in order to meet one another. Nor is it necessary for White, Black and Brown to participate in one team in order to meet one another. However, we must continue to practise our sport as we have been doing. We must continue to receive the New Zealand Rugby team in South Africa. We must afford them the opportunity of playing against a Bantu team, a Coloured team, against the Whites, as well as the opportunity of playing against an invitation team. What more do we want? Should we now intermingle at every opportunity? Is this necessary? Should we integrate our lives? After all, we can continue to practise sport in the same way as we did before. We can find one another, can meet one another in the same process.

I believe that sport in South Africa is a powerful factor for bringing together the peoples of this country; by means of which the people of this country can be brought together. But then the Opposition parties must keep politics out of sport … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I only made that statement to determine whether hon. members of the Opposition are still awake; whether they are still here. Their voters would very much like to know whether they still exist.

We are very much awake and we are listening!

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to repeat that the hon. Opposition parties should not drag sport into the political arena at every opportunity.

Only you are allowed to do so!

No, we do not do that.

[Inaudible.]

We very definitely do not do that! The NP has a policy in terms of which it is giving everyone an opportunity.

You are having an ostrich race!

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member speaks of an ostrich race. I think he should rather bury his head in the sand. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there is another matter to which I should like to refer. In South Africa approximately 10% of the White population regularly participates in some or other form of organized sport extramurally. If we compare this figure with that of the Scandinavian countries, we note that they have already reached the 50% mark. Therefore we are to a far greater extent a nation of spectators. I believe it is necessary to encourage all the thousands of spectators throughout the country to participate regularly in some or other form of physical activity themselves. Our endeavour in South Africa should be …

To play bowls!

Yes, I want to invite the hon. members to come and play bowls.

No, we are too young for bowls!

Our endeavour in South Africa should be to inspire the large crowd of spectators at sports meetings to mass participation in some or other form of physical activity. Our people should not simply sit on the grandstand. It must also be made possible for them to participate themselves. I believe that this opportunity already exists today. However, I also believe that the authorities should pay attention to this matter and that a national committee should even be created, a committee which can do research on how everyone in South Africa may be afforded an opportunity to participate in sport in order to keep the body fit and the spirit healthy.

Mr. Chairman, I never knew that my good friend from Oudtshoorn was an Irishman.

I did not know he was such a great friend of yours! [Interjections.]

First of all, he tells us that it is the policy of the NP to bring sport into their political concept, but at the same time he asks us not to talk about politics in sport. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I remember—and I have a longer memory than the hon. member—a nation who brought sport largely into its politics before the Second World War. That was something which only ended in tragedy. I cannot see how dragging sport into politics can do us any good. The more sport can be kept out of politics the better. [Interjections.] Let it not be said that I have joined the “dank-die-Minister-koor”. However, I think it would be very petty of me if I did not pay tribute to this hon. Minister and his department for the part they played in making the world bowls championship turn out the great success it was. [Interjections.] It is only just and appropriate that the oldest and most sociable of all organized games should have been chosen for that famous and historical occasion. We are also very mindful of this hon. Minister’s and his department’s work in the interests of the paraplegic bowlers. We are most grateful to him for the help he has given them. We only hope that we may count on his assistance in future.

In the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation—Item 11(a), on page 21— it is acknowledged that a great need exists for harbour facilities for pleasure craft. That is most gratifying. However, it is not good having this admission, without some action being taken. I trust that we are going to see some action taken in this respect. We therefore look to this most capable hon. Minister to secure the necessary funds from the most reluctant Treasury in order to achieve this aim. [Interjections.] One shudders to think of the trouble which the hon. the Minister of Finance is piling up for himself by all the work he is back-dating and through all the promises he is making. Nevertheless we do hope that funds will be forthcoming so shortly. My purpose this evening is really to establish the priority of Natal South Coast once funds become available. I do not do this for selfish reasons, because the benefit of this facility will not only be shared by us, but by fishermen from the Transvaal and the Free State, as well as boat owners. This will also inculcate in our young people a love for the sea and an understanding of the sea, as we live in a country with one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have seen a remarkable growth in the ski-boat population on the South Coast. This is not only because of the growing love for the sea and the sport, but also because of the loss of the Mozambique coast and those very famous beaches. The South Coast is far different to the Cape coast, because on the Cape coast there are many small, sheltered bays, whereas on the Natal coast for instance between Durban and Port St. Johns, there is not one single sheltered bay. On the lower South Coast, within a distance of 50 miles, there is not even five miles of sandy beach which could be used for the launching of ski-boats and which could also be used for people who want to swim. It should be noted that in this 50 miles there are about 450 resident boat owners, but during the season this boat owner population swells to anything from 2 000 to 5 000. Imagine what can happen on a busy summer’s day on these very limited beaches when 20 000 to 30 000 bathers get mixed up with 2 000 to 3 000 ski-boats. It is not only the capital investment that is involved here, although 2 000 ski-boats at an average price of R2 000 represent a great deal of money. It is, however, also the sporting facility that is lost if these boats cannot be used. To use these boats, launching facilities are required at the best open, sandy beaches. Most of the popular sandy beaches are equipped with off-shore anti-shark nets. These beaches are crowded with women and children who are bathing at the time these boats want to take off. The only time one uses a ski-boat is on a nice quiet day when people want to swim, and unfortunately, we have not been able to arrange it in any other way. I am sure that if the National Party were in control in Natal, they would probably make some arrangement. There are one or two little bays which are used by ski-boats, but these are virtually taken over by ski-boat clubs which have a limited membership and which cannot take more members because of the limited space available.

The local authorities who have control of these beaches are becoming more and more worried about the use of these beaches by ski-boats because of the inherent danger involved in trying to launch a ski-boat in the surf when people are bathing, particularly when the people who are trying to launch the ski-boat are not fully conversant with the danger that is involved, particularly when they are taking off. Coming in is not so difficult, but when these boats take off many spills are seen and these very powerful boats with their two outboard motors can cause severe injuries amongst people. It is becoming a problem to such an extent that many of the local authorities are trying to ban ski-boats from their beaches. There is also the added nuisance of the cars and the trailers they use to tow these boats. These vehicles plough up the beaches and they go rushing through the bathers, and on top of this, they take up the very limited parking space that is available on the beaches.

In many cases the underlying reason is the lack of control over these ski-boats and their crews. Many of the boats are not seaworthy and are poorly equipped. Many others are owned and operated by persons who have little or no knowledge of the sea or of the safety measures that should be taken when going to sea. Some form of control is urgently required and there must be some method of exercising this control. This can only be done from a controlled area. For all these reasons it is now very necessary that a ski-boat launching area is established, and there would be nothing better than a sheltered harbour built for this purpose which could be under the control of somebody who would then exercise control to see that the boats are properly equipped and that the people know what they are doing. There is added expense too, as we have seen lately, because not only are boats involved in accidents at sea; they also get lost, and a very expensive search or rescue operation has to be organized. The local authorities are becoming more and more reluctant to take part in these rescue operations because of the cost involved.

The first problem is the question of whom one negotiates with. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should take the first step in this respect. The local authorities are reluctant to negotiate, the province is reluctant to take on this added burden, and the only people who in my opinion can take on this burden is the organization which is responsible for coordinating all the activities of the power-boat clubs in South Africa, namely the S.A. Power Boating Association. This association cannot of course force people to join it. However, if this association were to become the body through which the hon. the Minister would be prepared to negotiate to find a suitable launching site, and if the association would then be prepared to control this particular area, then I am sure that ski-boat owners would join the association. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not bring his many charms and his much-vaunted influence to bear on these people, and ask them to proceed along these lines to enable as many members as possible to be enrolled.

Mr. Chairman, I have seldom in my life agreed to wholeheartedly with anyone as I agree with the hon. member for South Coast, not only in regard to the beginning of his speech, but in regard to its content as well. In particular, I want to thank the hon. member for having expressed thanks and appreciation towards the hon. the Minister and his department from the UP side. One so seldom hears any appreciation expressed by the Opposition for what is done by hon. Ministers and their departments. I too want to thank the Cabinet for having decided in its wisdom that harbour facilities for pleasure boats will henceforth fall under the Department of Sport and Recreation. It was a wise decision and a step in the right direction.

The second matter concerning which I think the Cabinet should take a decision very soon is the allocation of funds to the Department of Sport and Recreation. It appears from the annual report—and the hon. member for Green Point has already referred to this—that the grant-in-aid for the provision of basic sport and recreational facilities amounted to only R200 000 in respect of 100 applications, while the total amount applied for by the 100 applicants amounted to more than R8 million. This shows that there is a tremendous need and a shortage of funds on the part of the Department of Sport and Recreation. As far as my own constituency is concerned, I received two applications for assistance of this nature, one from Barkly West and the other from a sports club in Kimberley, the Pirates Rugby Club. These applications amounted to more than R200 000. If the Government really wants to render meaningful assistance, quite a few millions of rand will have to be allocated to this department.

The subject of pleasure boats has often been raised in this House in the past, and it has been raised again tonight. A great deal has been said about yachting in South Africa, with particular reference to what it means to South Africa in many fields, as an important source of foreign exchange, for example, and as a tourist attraction. I could go on mentioning one example after another. If there was a problem in respect of facilities for yachts or pleasure boats two years ago, then I want to give hon. members the absolute assurance that there is a much greater need at the moment because there are more boats than there were two years ago. There is a desperate need for berths, not only on the Natal South Coast at Durban, but especially along our Cape coast. Since the hon. member for South Coast referred to the position in Natal, I shall leave it at that. Yet I do want to refer to it in passing by saying that the Durban harbour is overcrowded and that there is no room for further berths for yachts or for pleasure boats. If the mooring facilities were to be expanded, for example, to provide a further 72 berths, the dredging costs would amount to more than R300 000. In the Cape Town harbour, the position is just as bad, because the boats are lying side by side. For this reason, we are very grateful for the fact that a project study has been undertaken for the eventual construction of a harbour for pleasure boats at Grainger Bay. However, once again a start is made with a small amount of R100 000. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not in the House at the moment to hear how we are pleading the case of this department and asking for a little more money from him. We cannot argue that those who take part in yachting and boating do so only for their own pleasure and that consequently they must bear all costs themselves. The provision of harbour facilities is extremely expensive. The cost will vary from one place to another, of course, depending on the nature of the terrain and on the effect of the surf.

However, I want to point out that the construction of a slipway alone can cost between R30 000 and R50 000. A slipway with slipway cradle can cost between R70 000 and R100 000. These figures do not include the cost of sheltering walls, roads, drainage within the harbour areas, fencing, offices, toilets and other essential buildings. In many cases, project studies will be required. This in itself is an expensive item, and a project such as the one at Rumbly Bay, which will include a slipway, sheltering wall, windlass and access roads, is expected to involve a total cost of R256 000. Everywhere along our coast, from the south-western coast up to the Natal coast, there is a struggle at all the holiday resorts to enable the owners of ski-boats to launch their boats. There is a shocking lack of facilities, and I want to agree with the hon. member for South Coast that a start should be made by the divisional councils and municipalities. They should ascertain needs, in consultation with the Department of Sport and Recreation, and they should then try to provide these facilities in the immediate future. I shall leave this subject at that, for my time is running out.

I also want to refer briefly to the events at Newlands during the past long weekend, on the occasion of the interversity between our southern universities. This is a matter of great concern to me and for this reason I feel that I must mention it here. I must refer with the greatest contempt to the behaviour of some students at Newlands on Monday. From all quarters, by spectators and by students, the incident has been sharply criticised. I am not a narrow-minded person; I like students to have fun, but I cannot defend rowdy behaviour by students in public. I can only condemn it in the strongest language.

It was Stellenbosch.

It was not only Stellenbosch, it was the Ikeys as well. However, I do not want us to level any reproaches; I want us to learn a lesson from this. We are about to have a tour by the All Blacks, who will travel all over the country. They will be accompanied by literally hundreds of supporters from New Zealand. If we do not appeal to the rugby unions to see to it that no people are allowed to appear on the field before any match, there can very easily be incidents which will harm the good name of South Africa, its rugby players and its spectators. I want to appeal to the rugby unions to take precautions against mass hysteria on the field before the start of the All Black tour.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley South. Having served on the executive of one of the provincial rugby bodies for several years, I know the problems experienced in the Transvaal with spectator control. As far as I know, the rugby authorities are giving very serious attention to that. On the other hand, I believe that we should not exclude children from the playing enclosure of the fields.

The hon. member raised the question of Intervarsity and in this connection I should like to put one very serious question to the hon. the Minister. What plan has this hon. Minister in mind to resurrect the rugby of Stellenbosch University after its defeat? I trust that the hon. the Minister has a plan in mind, because the national catastrophe … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Kimberley South spoke about the allocation of moneys. I am very glad that he raised this matter, because I should like to give the House some of the figures which we have extracted during the past few months. Earlier this year the following question was put to the hon. the Minister—

The following answers were given—

This amounts to a total of some R22 724 over a period of six years, i.e. an average of R3 787 a year. If one looks at the question in regard to the Coloureds, the position looks slightly different. The amounts were: In 1970, R50 000; 1972, R39 000; 1973, R82 000; 1974, R137 000 and 1975, R333 000. This gives a total of R643 000, i.e. an average of R128 798 a year. If one tries to obtain the figures for the Black population of South Africa, it is not quite so easy. The figures are somewhat more obscure, their funds emanating from different sources, e.g. from the S.A. Bantu Trust, from the profit from the sale of liquor, from the Bantu Administration Boards, a few local authorities and of course from charity gifts made through the S.A. Bantu Sport and Recreation Fund. It looks however as if it is running at the present time at something like R½ million or a bit more being spent per year out of Government funds on Black sport.

If one looks at the answers to questions Nos. 113 and 114 put earlier this year, one will see that the Government spent a direct sum of R1 217 612 on White sport, excluding enormous indirect sums, donations and sponsorships, which ran into millions in so far as White sport is concerned. I should like now to make a few what may be grotesque comparisons. While the Department of Sport spent R1 217 612 in 1975 in assisting and promoting White sport, only R1 200 was spent by the Department of Indian Affairs out of public funds to assist Indian sport during the same period. If one looks at the figures, the sum of R42 600, was spent on White gymnastics. On waterskiing the sum of R39 000. These two sports are participated in South Africa, according to answers to questions given this year, by only 300 and 500 White persons respectively. And all this money was paid out of public funds. More money, therefore, was spent on these two little sports, gymnastic and waterskiing, than the money spent to cover all 65 plus kinds of sports for the entire Indian population. Comparisons of expenditure in specific kinds of sport with regard to money spent on Blacks and Coloureds are equally odious and disadvantageous to all except the White group.

The hon. the Minister has said on several occasions that international competition is open to members of all races. This fact was reiterated, I think, by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn a little while ago. This is true. All races have in fact competed in international sport recently. In 1975, 331 Bantu, 135 Coloureds, 58 Asiatics and 6 393 Whites competed in international events. And now, to read further the answer to this particular question—

What the department is actually saying is that there were many more people who were eligible but they did not attain the standard required in order to enable them to take part in international sports. The question I ask is: Why is this? What chance is there of this deficiency, which has been admitted to by the department quite willingly, being remedied and overcome in the short term and even in the long term? I say that one cannot remedy the deficiency …

What deficiencies are you talking about?

This deficiency—

The fact is that the standards of the non-Whites are far below the standards of the Whites. What I want to know is how we are going to go about trying to remedy these. I say that one cannot remedy it while large sums of money for development, training and coaching are available only to one group. Development in the other groups will, in this way, be restricted. Unless there is competition between the races, one cannot expect the less skilled races to raise themselves. Mr. Wimpie de Klerk of the Transvaler, who has a relative in the House agrees with me. He says—

He was speaking about a cricket match that took place in Soweto against an international team—

This is what Wimpie de Klerk said. If we are going to have that equal opportunity in sport the hon. the Minister is so often talking about, we must realize that that phrase is in fact meaningless and bears no relation to the fact while these gross differences in expenditure in fact still continue to exist. Surely the time has come—and here I want to support the hon. member for Green Point—that the furtherance of sport by the Government should be overseen and co-ordinated by a single authority and not by four different departments. At the very least, positive steps should urgently be taken to ensure that Government moneys for this purpose are fairly distributed for the general good and not for the good of only one race.

This is not so impossible at all. The department has the information at its disposal of what is needed. It has not yet released it to the public, but the information is in its possession. It has a departmental section which already deals exclusively with non-White sport and thus can easily be converted to a broader base. Positively, I should like to say that it is in the hands of the Government now, with the equipment and information it has, to create a new era in sporting goodwill. It is in the hands of the hon. the Minister to open the doors to new standards of sport for all the races of South Africa. Negatively, however, I should like to say that if the present sorry state of affairs relating to completion and to the allocation of moneys and the discrimination which still exists in the department continues, we will never win the friendship of the Coloured, Indian and Black sportsmen of South Africa, nor will we find a true re-entry into the international sporting scene even remotely possible.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to speak of a new era in sport, I may tell him straightaway that the NP and the National Government have already ushered in a new era for all the sportsmen and sportswomen in South Africa and that we have already made great progress in this regard. The beauty of the new era is that it rests upon firm foundations, that it is developing according to fixed patterns and that for this reason, it is following a proper, normal and evolutionary course of development. This is why it has not led to any incidents up to now. One is deeply grateful for this.

The hon. member asked me what I was going to do to make Stellenbosch beat the Ikeys. This question reminded me of something which you will allow me to relate, Mr. Chairman, for we are dealing with sport, after all. The other day I went to a rugby match at Stellenbosch. Hon. members may know that Dr. Danie Craven has a dog called Bliksem. The dog ran up and down the field that afternoon. The rugby players are very scared of Dr. Craven, who was standing next to me at that moment. When a few of the rugby players arrived to go on the field and saw the dog, Bliksem, running about there, one of them said, “Oh heavens, there is Bliksem; the thunder is not far off!” Now I am very grateful, because it does not seem to me that either of those two elements is present in the debate! This testifies to the really good progress which is being made in sport in South Africa.

However, I believe that the hon. member for Sandton committed a serious error of reasoning in connection with the matter which he raised. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that the non-Whites would never qualify if they were not enabled to play against the Whites. That is what the hon. member said, I think. The hon. member alleged that they would not be able to qualify. I want to point out quickly to the hon. member how wrong he is, by mentioning just one case, that of soccer. As far as soccer is concerned, we have established by means of a scientific investigation in Soweto that 88% of the inhabitants are interested in kicking a ball about and in soccer.

That is the only example.

It is not the only example. That same investigation also established that the interest taken in cricket in Soweto was 0,01% and that the interest in rugby was 0,01%. If 88% of a million people are interested in soccer and they have games amongst themselves and they kick a ball about amongst themselves, the result is what we have seen, when those Blacks gave the best White team a beating on the soccer field on the last occasion. So it is not at all correct to proceed from this premise. If we analyse the matter further, we see that as far as other forms of sport such as cycling are concerned, the Bantu are very interested in these. They want to manage their own affairs, and this is something we must not forget or lose sight of. For this reason, when I say that we on this side of the House are normalizing sport in South Africa, I mean that we are doing something which is done by every other country in the world. I have spoken about this matter before in this House. How is this done by the Americans, the British, every other country and every other nation? They arrange for the people of their country to play amongst themselves, and when they have finished playing amongst themselves, they choose the best team and then they play against the other countries and nations. In our case it is just the same. The Transkei will become independent in October, and then it will be a country and a nation on its own. It is proper that they should play together and practise sport together. We say that our whole policy rests on a multinational basis. In this way we are normalizing sport in South Africa on these firm foundations.

Tomorrow I shall reply in detail—I do not want to do so now—to the questions about cricket, etc., that hon. members have asked me. However, I want to use the few minutes still available to me to express a word of thanks and appreciation and of great praise to the Secretary of the Department of Sport and Recreation in the first place. There we have a man who devotes his energies to sport day and night because he cares about it and because he takes an intense interest in it. Because this is so, he sets a splendid example which filters through to the officials all over the Republic. They are mostly young men, and I want to speak with the greatest appreciation here tonight of the officials who are in the service of sport in South Africa, I want to pay tribute to them and to thank them sincerely for their outstanding contribution and their achievements in connection with sport, and, therefore, in the interest of South Africa as well. Had it not been for them, it would not have been possible to achieve the success in sport which we have achieved.

In the second place I want to express a word of sincere thanks to the Opposition for the responsible way in which they are conducting this debate on sport. When one thinks of the position in connection with sport four years ago, and one looks at the position tonight, one is deeply grateful, and I am sincere in saying this and in conveying my thanks to the UP. I also want to express my thanks to the PRP for the responsible way in which they conducted the debate. I mean this, and I am an honest and a sincere man. I know what I am talking about and that is why I do this. It is fitting that it should be done and that I should do it.

In the third place, I want to express my great thanks and appreciation to the Press and the SABC in the Republic for the responsible way in which they handle the delicate matter of sport. Had it not been for this, the progress we have already made in connection with sport would have been impossible. The enemies of South Africa would then have achieved their objects with South Africa. But the unanimity and the assistance which is given behind the scenes are almost incredible. I am aware of this and I should be neglecting my duty if I should fail to express a word of heart-felt thanks and appreciation to the Press and to the radio and television in this connection.

Then, most important of all, I want to pay a very sincere tribute to members on my side of the House, the Nationalists of South Africa. I want to identify myself with what has been said by one of our great leaders, i.e. that great demands are made upon the Nationalists. There are few things that have made greater demands on the representatives of the NP than sport. Therefore I want to thank the men on my side of the House very sincerely for their assistance and understanding, for without it, the progress that has been made up to now would not have been possible. These are the men who have to go out and explain matters to the electorate, and this is not always easy. My friend on my right hand has often experienced this. When they ask him at a National Party meeting in the evening what the present sport policy is, he says: I last saw Piet Koornhof at nine o’clock this morning, so I do not know what the sport policy is at the moment! That is the problem. The men who most deserve our thanks, therefore, are really the men on this side of the House.

Of course, I want to thank the sportsmen and sportswomen as well, and here I include the sport administrators of the Republic. Those people went through very difficult times, times in which they showed the greatest responsibility and circumspection on the sports grounds of the world and conducted themselves like true ambassadors for the Republic of South Africa. In a little while I shall furnish figures to indicate how we are really competing on an international level today, but first I want to ask a very simple question here tonight. In the four years I have been Minister of Sport and Recreation, when have we ever heard of any sportsman or sportswoman—whether White or non-White—who has been guilty of misconduct at an international sporting event? I have not heard of a single one. Therefore we must pay tribute to our White and non-White sportsmen and sportswomen. We may be proud of them, and of the administrators as well, for their beneficial influence and sacrifices, and we must remember that they receive no remuneration for this. They make great sacrifices. For this reason I thank them very sincerely. I get only the very best co-operation from White and non-White sportsmen. I am glad to be able to say this tonight, and it is necessary for me to do so, because the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. member for Kimberley South mentioned the fact that sport is an instrument which can be used for establishing good relations. The hon. member for Geduld spoke here of the report on Soweto in which it was said that the Black man believed that relations between White and non-White were improving. In their opinion, sport is the chief reason for this. No matter where I move—whether among the Black people of Soweto, whether among the Indians of Natal, whether among the Coloured people of the Cape—everywhere I get an ovation because of the appreciation they have for the progress there has been in the field of sport. So we must be grateful for this measure of goodwill which exists in South Africa as a result of sports relations.

In golf as well.

Oh yes, undoubtedly. Now I should like to give an indication of how we have progressed on firm foundations in terms of a correct policy of national development among the various peoples. Forty-nine multi-national events took place in 15 different forms of sport. Between January 1976 and the end of March 1976, 25 multi-national events took place, and 22 multi-racial events have already been approved for the rest of this year. It is estimated that a further 25 such applications can be expected for multi-national events in forms of sport such as football, tennis, golf and boxing. This would bring the expected number of multi-national events for 1976 up to a total of 72, which would mean an increase of 30%. Earlier this evening, the hon. member for Fauresmith mentioned the fact that in spite of the many multi-national events that have been held here in the Republic, there have been no incidents at any of these events. This is really a feather in the cap of the sportsmen, White and non-White, who have conducted themselves with the greatest responsibility at these multi-national events. I can tell you, Sir, and the Secretary for Sport and Recreation will bear this out, that there are very few of these events which I have not attended, and to see the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians there, each of them representing his particular population group with so much dignity on the sports ground and away from it, is something which causes me to say, as I have said in public as well, that it gives one courage for the future, because it testifies to a reservoir of goodwill between the various races in the Republic of South Africa which is just waiting for further development. It is a wonderful thing which we must develop, because it augers well for us.

Therefore I endorse what has been said here by other hon. members about the importance of sport as a means, a God-given instrument, for establishing good relations in the Republic of South Africa. For this reason, Sir, I do not hesitate to say again tonight that none of the parties in this House should try to make politics out of sport. Therefore I am very grateful for the progress which is being made, and the progress is being made precisely because we have learnt to be responsible and to try not to make politics out of this matter.

Sir, I know a good deal about these matters. The sportsmen are my friends, and when I hear the hon. members opposite talking about cricket, etc., then I smile, because I know perfectly well—and I say this with the greatest modesty—that what they are still dreaming about, I knew three years ago. [Interjections.] It is absolutely true. The sport administrators come to cry on my shoulder, and we discuss matters very frankly. Where do hon. members think the events in respect of cricket originated? I am referring, for example, to the South African teams which played the team of Richie Benaud and the events on various fronts in connection with cricket. We maintain the closest contact when acting in this connection, and because these matters are extremely delicate, I want to say that it would not be possible to make any progress if there were to be a continual harping on political affairs and if the Press were to be mischievous. All kinds of interests are at stake. The Coloured people have their interests; some of them are threatened with death. I know this, because they come and tell me so, and then I feel as bad as they do, because it is a very bad thing for a man to be threatened with death, Sir. [Interjections.] Sir, one can see that none of the hon. members on that side has ever been threatened with death! [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.