Mr. Chairman, when one pages through the annual report of the department, one is impressed by the variety of activities undertaken by the Department of National Education. These activities form a sharp contrast to the speeches to which we listened from members on the Opposition side in that the Opposition speakers want to narrow down the activities of the Department of National Education as allegedly concerning education, the universities and the South African Broadcasting Corporation alone. Important as these matters may be, a one-sided picture of the activities of the department is given by concentrating on these matters only, and the wrong aspects are emphasized. This approach has no regard to the fact that the department is engaged in other very important activities, especially in view of the times in which we live, activities which are directed at the promotion of culture.

I have great appreciation for the efforts by the department to promote national culture. The National Cultural Council with its eight permanent commissions gave detailed attention to matters such as the plastic arts, music, the literary arts, the human sciences, the natural sciences and youth affairs during the year under review. I also have very great appreciation for the financial assistance given to the various councils for the performing arts on a professional basis. Approximately R4 million was spent on the activities of Capab, Pacofs and Napac. Financial assistance was also given to amateur dramatic societies. Allow me just one moment to refer to the outstanding achievements of the National Cultural Council. The human sciences section offered 161 fully-fledged courses to promote human sciences. The courses were attended by 33 500 adults.

The subjects studied at these courses, included, inter alia, human relations, South Africa’s relations with the continent of Africa, Africa and the West, the Middle East, inflation and thrift. These are all subjects which are perfectly fresh and contemporary, subjects which are of inestimable value to everybody.

The family education and homemaking section held altogether 55 lectures on consumerism and home management. In this section 11 practical demonstrations were also held. The lectures and the demonstrations were attended by altogether 1 664 adults. Mention should also be made of the excellent pamphlet Balance your expenditure and income. The section Land Service Affairs has 20 000 members. 14 000 of them attended camps during the past year. That is an excellent undertaking. The following is said of the Land Service Movement—

It is possible for me to continue in this vein. Due to a lack of time, I can only mention the vocal artists, the musical instruments and the instrumentalists heard during the year. There is the section literary art. This section offered courses which were attended by more than 29 000 people. I state categorically that this is excellent work. These are investments made in the future of a White civilization here at the southernmost tip of Africa.

Let us not underestimate the contributions of the Department of National Education to the promotion of national culture. It is rightly assumed that we are involved in a struggle for survival here at the southernmost tip of Africa. Superficially it seems that the onslaught is directed at our political and economic order, but in essence it is a struggle in which an onslaught is being made on the spirit and on the thinking of the White civilization here at the southernmost tip of Africa We should have no illusions about the fact that it is an onslaught on the spiritual and cultural creations of the White civilization here. It is also an onslaught on the cultural heritage of the Black and the Brown people.

We are dealing with a total onslaught, a total onslaught on the cultural values of the civilization here at the southernmost tip of Africa. To counter this total onslaught, we have to meet it with a total counter-onslaught. Our survival here will not be determined by the quality of our knowledge and of our techniques alone. Nor by the quality of our strategy and of our economy, but above all by our cultural ties to the country in which we live. Our young people are fighting on the borders today not only for their country as a geographical area, but also for that which their country offers them, and above all for the cultural ties which bind them irrevocably to their country. In the final instance it is these cultural ties which give value, sense and meaning to our existence here. Regarding the assistance rendered by the Department of National Education to perpetuate our culture, I just want to quote the following—

A nation which neglects its culture in the face of the assistance offered by the Department of National Education has no right to survive.

I want to voice some thoughts on the section Family Education and Homemaking. As an alternative to a commercialized holiday with its artificial and unnatural relaxation, the section offers family education and homemaking family camps. Recently a family camp was held at Melkbosstrand. At these family camps provisions is made for each member of the family: father, mother, older and younger children and toddlers. The camps are of an educational nature and in the mornings campgoers can follow various practical courses. Attention is given literary appreciation, spending of family income, home economics and the problems of environmental pollution. The younger children are taken on trips and are informed about the vegetation. The toddlers are taught by nursery teachers in nursery schools. After supper there is an evening programme which consists of religious services and community singing.

I close by saying that we should appeal to cultural organizations to support this great project together with the Department of National Education, and to concern themselves with the development of a culture which will be worth living for.

Mr. Chairman, it is unnecessary for me to comment on the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Bellville. I want to congratulate him on it. Because the university as an institution came sharply into focus during the late forties, the NP Government decided, shortly after coming into power in 1948, to investigate matters concerning universities. A commission was appointed in 1951 under the chairmanship of the well-known economist, Dr. J. E. Holloway, to make a thorough study of university finances and salaries. On the basis of the report published by that commission, the Government was able to place the calculation of subsidies to the universities on a permanent basis. Furthermore, a University Advisory Committee was established to carry out an ongoing investigation of the capital finances of the universities.

With the big increase in the number of students and courses, State expenditure on universities increased vastly after 1960. When the old University Advisory Committee was established in 1955, there were nine universities, at which only 26 000 students were enrolled. In 1973 there were 11 universities, and the number of students had risen to more than 97 000. During the same period the vote on the Government budget for universities increased from less than R5 million to more than R88 million. If we add to this the great development of academic work at the universities, the so-called “knowledge explosion”, as well as developments in the technological field, it was clear by the end of the sixties that it had once again become necessary to examine the universities carefully. A new commission, the Commission of Inquiry into Universities, was then appointed with Mr. Justice J. van Wyk de Vries as chairman. This commission tabled a comprehensive report in 1974.

In accordance with the recommendation of the commission, the Government found it necessary to establish a new body, a statutory council, i.e. the Universities Advisory Council, to advise the Minister of National Education on developments at the universities.

The establishment of the Universities Advisory Council ensures that the very important principle of the autonomy of the universities is upheld. The guarantee for this is contained in the constitution and functions of that advisory council. From the point of view of the autonomy of the universities, it is very important that the university is subsidized by the Government, at the recommendation of the advisory council, by formula and not upon the submission of a budget. The universities are free to use the Government assistance which they receive at their own discretion, with the proviso that a detailed report on this be submitted to the Department of National Education. In other words, the method of financial assistance by the Government is in accordance with the principle of the autonomy of the university. In addition, the advisory council is very well suited, by virtue of its constitution, to co-operate fruitfully with the Committee of University Principals. Two members of the council are in fact members of this committee as well. One of the functions of the advisory council must be to co-ordinate the planning of universities on a national scale. The council is paying attention to this at the moment.

In the report by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, only broad recommendations with regard to principles are made in many areas. It is now the task of the advisory council to work out the detailed implementation of these recommendations in practice. There are also new tasks entrusted to the advisory council from outside or being initiated by the council itself. In order to deal with these tasks systematically, the council has divided itself into a number of subcommittees. These committees are at present investigating matters such as integrated campuses at universities, the desirability of some undergraduate diplomas, the rendering of social services by universities outside the educational field, as well as the extension of the training of veterinary surgeons in our country.

One important recommendation by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission which has already been implemented is the new formula for the calculation of tuition costs at universities. Contrary to the Holloway formula, which was based on the number of student courses, the new formula is based on the number of students. These numbers are subdivided into main study directions. This approach encourages universities rather to concentrate on basic subjects and not to create unrealistic new subdivisions of subjects. This formula has introduced a new principle.

The State has introduced a time limit to the subsidizing of undergraduate students. A student following a normal three-year study course is now allowed a maximum period of five years to obtain a degree. If it takes the student longer, the support of the Government expires. Similar provisions exist with regard to all undergraduate fields of study. Most universities have accordingly inserted penalty clauses into their regulations. In the case of post-graduate students, there is a completely new approach, namely the weighting of the number of students. The formula contains certain adjustable elements. It is one of the important functions of the Universities Advisory Council to consider annual adjustments and to make recommendations. Of course there are a number of matters which the Universities Advisory Council has to deal with on a more continuous basis. These include a thorough investigation of the establishment of new degrees and diplomas and the capital requirements of universities. This year, for example, the various universities applied for a total amount of R93 million for capital purposes. After a thorough investigation, the Universities Advisory Council recommended that only R48 million be accorded. This means that the Universities Advisory Council has effected a saving of 46%.

It is therefore clear that the establishment of the Universities Advisory Council was an important development as regards universities in particular and society in general. In this way an independent body has been established, a body with specialized knowledge of universities as well as the correct approach to the university in relation to the community, the Government and other spheres of life. The Universities Advisory Council is an instrument, established by the Government, to create balance and harmony in the functions that the Government and the universities have in relation to each other. That is in accordance with the judicial task of integration of the authorities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East will forgive me if I do not react to the arguments which he has put forward, because I wish to raise a quite unrelated matter with the hon. the Minister.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to express appreciation, on behalf of those who are interested in the military history of our country, for the work that has been done by the South African War Graves Board, which resorts under this hon. Minister, through its Burgergraftekomitee and the British Forces Committee. I also want to express my appreciation to the War Graves Commission, which resorts under the hon. the Minister of Public Works. One of the major problems which faced the South African War Graves Board, is to locate the graves of both burger and British Force members who lost their lives in the earlier wars in South Africa, because their graves have usually become neglected through the passage of time. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that steps should be taken by him to ensure that this problem does not arise for those of the future generations who will be concerned with the preservation of historical places of this nature.

Unfortunately in recent years members of the South African Police and the South African Defence Force have lost their lives in Rhodesia, in South Africa and in South West Africa defending the sovereignty and the integrity of our country and in maintaining law and order. I want to commend to the hon. the Minister the thought that as there might very well be others to whom this fate will become a reality in the years ahead, some consideration should be given to the compilation of a roll of honour, embodying the records of these people. Quite naturally, their remains have been taken to be buried in various cemeteries throughout the country. That is an understandable sentiment on the point of the next-of-kin. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give urgent attention to possibly charging the South African War Graves Board with the further responsibility of compiling a Roll of Honour of these men, going back over the years from the time the police were in Rhodesia. They could be kept with an indication to the circumstances of the death of the individuals concerned, their places of burial and other personal details. Possibly the Roll of Honour could be kept in a suitable place where it can be respected and viewed by those who have an interest in doing so. It may very well be that the board at this stage might consider the erection of a shrine of honour in which these records could be kept, somewhere in our Republic. I commend this thought to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I am sure that the hon. member has put forward a case which will receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The times and circumstances in which we are living make it imperative for every one of us to be completely prepared, and I stress “completely”. Preparedness has two aspects, viz. physical preparedness and spiritual preparedness, each of which in turn has its particular facets. I should like to confine myself to the spiritual aspect of our preparedness; i.e. the personal, inspired will to be physically prepared. In my opinion, that is the most important aspect of complete preparedness. The spiritually unwilling and unmotivated person can make no meaningful contribution to the safety and security of our country and people, even with the best of weapons in his hand.

I should like to single out and emphasize only one component or facet of spiritual preparedness. I want to state that a person can be completely motivated spiritually only if he has the necessary knowledge of all the facts and circumstances that have gone before, so that he, on the basis of his own judgment, in the light of the facts he has at his disposal, may convince himself of the necessity for preparedness and action. That will determine whether or not he is inspired to action. In order to be completely prepared, therefore, everyone of us must know his history, because knowledge of history and of the past is the absolute, if not the only, basis for the comprehension and action of the present and planning for the future. The Dutch poet Vondel expressed this very strikingly in the following words—

The winged words of a Paul Kruger as a final message to his people—

… constitute nothing more and nothing less than a call to his people to learn and to know its history. How else, other than through a knowledge of history, can that which is fine and noble be sought and found in our building process for and of the future?

In view of the aforementioned facts, we have at our disposal some alarming facts which place a large question mark over the possibility of the absolute spiritual preparedness of our people. I am referring to the figures relating to the percentage of pupils who take history as a subject for the final examinations at school. In province No. 1 the position is as follows: In 1940 82% of the pupils took history as a subject; in 1953 66,06%; in 1973 51,2%; in 1975 42%; and in 1976 42%. In province No. 2 we find the following: In 1970, 45% of the pupils took history as a subject; in 1973 48,6%; in 1975 38,9%; and in 1976 37,8%. That means that only 42 out of every 100 pupils who leave our high schools after matric, have a knowledge of history. That is as far as province No. 1 is concerned. In the case of province No. 2, only 38 out of every 100 pupils have a knowledge of history. Involuntarily, this question arises: Is this the price we have to pay for differentiated education? If this is the price, then is not the price too high? In the first case, for 58 out of every 100 pupils and in the second case for 62 out of every 100 pupils who leave school after matric in the two provinces concerned, no positive message or inspiration—I am mentioning only two cases—flow from the Huguenot Monument in Franschhoek and the Vrouemonument in Bloemfontein. The positive message of these monuments is the following: In the history of my people, there have been men, women and children who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of an ideal.

I want to address an urgent appeal from this House, firstly to our boys and girls of all national groups: We know that you want to make yourselves completely prepared in these times in the service of our country and our people. So make yourselves completely prepared by learning and knowing the history of your people. Have no part in the process of making of our people one which is akin to a man suffering from amnesia, because that is, in fact, what a people is that does not know its history.

Secondly, I want to appeal to our teachers: Take a fresh look at your presentation and examination of the subject of history so that it may in fact once again become a source of inspiration for our boys and girls, inspiring them to complete preparedness and action.

Thirdly, I want to appeal to our heads of education: We know you share our concern over this matter. Take a fresh look at our syllabuses and methods of presentation and examination.

Finally, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of National Education, whom we know as a man who is able to inspire and to motivate: Take a penetrating look together with the heads of education and university principles at the introduction of history in our schools. This is absolutely essential for the complete preparation of our people against the storms in the days and years we are now going through and in those that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley North will not hold it against me if I do not react to his speech, except to thank him for the subject which he has once again brought to our attention today, viz. that of instruction in history with a view to increasing our preparedness. It is a very important subject and it is a good thing that he has brought this matter to our attention.

Yesterday and today, some of my colleagues on this side of the House discussed various aspects of academic and tertiary education. I therefore want to confine myself to another part of education, namely technical and technological education. I should like to deal with the three types of technical institutes. Firstly, there are the technical institutes at the secondary school level. These institutes were established in terms of section 5(1) of the Educational Services Act of 1967 and they are subsidized on the basis of the difference between the income and expenditure of each institution. The fact that an additional amount of R318 000 was voted for these institutes in 1976 indicates to us that growth is taking place and that there is in fact a need for this type of school. Consequently the number of technical institutes is increasing steadily and this is absolutely in keeping with the economic development of our country. In that regard, I might refer to the latest addition to their ranks, an institute which has developed during the past few years, viz. the one at Richard’s Bay. At present there are 26 technical institutes, one of which is in Alberton, in my constituency. These technical institutes offer a variety of subjects and afford pupils from Std. 6 onwards the opportunity of receiving instruction in subjects for which they have a particular aptitude or love. For example, there are subjects such as metal-work, electro-technics, workshop practice, motor mechanics, woodwork, fitting and turning, drawing and mechanics. These technical institutes afford pupils a golden opportunity of preparing themselves adequately if they want to further their studies at Colleges for Advanced Technical Education or universities. This holds good even for degree courses in engineering or architecture.

Another way in which technical institutes are of assistance, is in furthering the development of the qualities of pupils. In this regard I am thinking of manual skill, artistic talent, accuracy, neatness and organizational abilities. As far as the training of teachers for the institutes is concerned, this work has been performed for the past 35 years by the teachers’ training colleges. In 1971 the Minister of National Education laid down legislation that the training of teachers for secondary education should take place at universities. That is why it is praiseworthy that, inter alia, the University of the Orange Free State is offering a higher education diploma course in industrial arts and technical drawing. It is expected that it will be possible in future to offer a degree course in these subjects.

A second matter to which I should like to refer, concerns the technical colleges. In a rapidly developing industrial country like South Africa our technical colleges play an important role. A large variety of technical subjects are offered on a full-time as well as a part-time basis. Thousands of young men are trained annually on a part-time basis for a wide variety of occupations. The apprentice receives his practical training from his employer. In addition to his practical training the apprentice also receives theoretical training at technical colleges. For that purpose, he has one day per week free during the first year in order to attend classes at the technical college and if he makes good progress, he can also attend evening classes. The courses the apprentices take at the colleges, lead to the National Technical Certificates I, II and III, which are equivalent to Std. 8, 9 and 10 at academic high schools. The only difference is that at technical schools only three subjects are required. An ambitious apprentice could even obtain the National Engineers Diploma. That takes him to the level of a technician and by writing additional examinations he may even acquire the status of a professional engineer.

The technical colleges adjust their syllabuses systematically to new requirements. So it was that four years ago a course for radio and television mechanics was established at the technical college in Johannesburg. Towards the middle of 1976 a total of 78 students had already completed this course. Apart from the technical courses, these colleges also offer courses in commerce, shorthand, typing, etc., which may be taken by young women on either a full-time or part-time basis.

Another important part of technical training is that which is provided by the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. The past 30 years, since the Second World War, have been characterized by a phenomenal increase in knowledge at every level and in every facet of man’s intellectual activities. This increase in knowledge has resulted in a twofold increase in our knowledge in the scientific and technological field. Consequently, this has made higher demands on our technical educational institutions. At present there are six Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, viz. at Port Elizabeth, in the Vaal Triangle, at Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town. The Department of National Education intends expanding these colleges and developing them into fully-fledged tertiary educational institutions. The Universities Advisory Council has already taken the initiative in negotiating and liaising with the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education with a view to bringing about co-operation and co-ordination between the two. A new subsidy system has already been introduced and this is based on expenditure. We hope it will be possible to implement this system during the 1978-’79 financial year. The construction of functional new buildings is being planned by the department to meet the requirements of modern training. A total amount of R207 million has been earmarked for extensions to the campuses of these new colleges. A new campus and building are being planned in Durban at a cost of R40 million. In Johannesburg a new campus and buildings are being planned at a cost of R70 million. The new buildings in Pretoria are being planned at a cost of R50 million, whilst the purchasing of additional land in Cape Town will cost another R41 million.

A rapidly developing industrial country such as South Africa realizes that the demand for trained personnel cannot reach saturation point, and it also realizes that higher demands will constantly be made in respect of the standard of training in order to adjust to the advanced technical development. That is why the development and the improved status of the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education will serve all sectors of the national economy. If we look at the number of applications at these colleges, we come to the realization that these colleges, like our universities, are making an important contribution to the training of technical people. In 1977 the enrolments were as follows: Full-time, 10 523; part-time, 10 708 and occasional students, 7 156: A total, therefore, of 28 387. A wide variety of courses are offered by the colleges and wherever necessary, new courses are introduced.

South Africa’s economic growth is chiefly dependent on the factors related to our technological progress. Technology, in turn, can hardly manage without the natural sciences. That is why the two are inseparably interlinked. Technical education is expensive, but our best investment is in well-trained technical manpower. That is why these three types of institutes, viz. the technical colleges, the colleges of the institutes and the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, will have to play an increasingly important role in our system of education in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Alberton for the positive contribution which he made, as did various hon. members on this side of the House as well as on that side of the House, on the importance of technical education in the Republic of South Africa. It is without any doubt whatsoever a sign of the times, and it is essential that this should be the case. I shall return to this again in a moment when I deal with specific matters raised by hon. members.

We have had a pleasant debate on National Education. I want to thank all the hon. members who participated very sincerely for their positive contributions. All that was lacking was that we simply did not have the money. But there are so many other fine things in life, and this debate focused the spotlight on those fine and important things. The teachers and the people associated with education in South Africa can know that the Government, and I myself, will look after their interests. We know the circumstances, and they, too, know the circumstances. If I had been a teacher, I would have remained in education, and if I was interested in education, I would have taken it up as a profession. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is a wonderful profession; it will become even more wonderful. Fine things have been set aside for education, for we are working on a new dispensation, and we are not going to abandon it half-way. We are not like that. What has been begun will, God willing, be brought to fruition. This new dispensation will gradually be applied throughout, and fine things will therefore be set aside for education.

What was most enjoyable in this debate during the past two days was that there was a sparkle here, the sparkle without which the SABC cannot do its work properly and the sparkle and humour without which the teacher and the educationist cannot do their work either. As Langenhoven put it—

This, when all is said and done, is what the educationist is concerned with: The spiritual life, the educational life, life itself. In these times of hardship we should not forget another witty and humoristic saying, which is this: We should rid ourselves of hardship by laughing away our sorrows. It is a great pleasure to be able to accomplish this.

I should now like to say a few words about television and the SABC. This is something I did not do yesterday. I want to begin by thanking the Director General and Mr. Swanepoel, his deputy, Mr. Yssel, who are both present here, and in particular Dr. P. J. Meyer, chairman of the SABC board, all the board members and all the officials of the SABC very sincerely for their dedicated and very successful service which they are rendering in the interests of the whole of South Africa. They are the people who have, during the past year, undoubtedly ensured that it was a very successful year for the television service of the SABC. Of course there have been growing pains and snags. Nevertheless, I now want to say in plain language: “Watch us” as far as television is concerned and “watch us” at the SABC. There are fine things on their way in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] There is no doubt whatsoever about that. [Interjections.]

In quality, as well as in other ways—we need not doubt this in the least—television and the achievements of television in South Africa today are comparable with the best and the finest in the world. This is something we should tell people for a change. Let us be proud of what is our own. I say: Europe is the past; America is the present; South Africa is the future! [Interjections.] As far as the future of South Africa is concerned, television is … Those hon. members of the Opposition may laugh if they wish! They do not understand this plain language at all. [Interjections.] They do not understand it, and then they want to build an “image”. [Interjections.] They can thank their lucky stars that that reaction of theirs to my words was not broadcast on television. If that had happened, they would also have lost the few seats which they still have left. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Judging from the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville, the thrust went home. But never mind, do not take it too much to heart: Shame. [Interjections.] It is necessary for me to say a few words about television. It remains the constant endeavour of the SABC to inform, to educate conservatively, to entertain and to edify the South African public. In these dangerous times in which we are living, the radio as well as the television service make it their task to emphasize in their programmes the essentiality of spiritual, economic and military preparedness, and to promote an understanding and cooperation and a spirit of consideration for others among the separate population groups. Surely hon. members will agree that it is very important to promote a spirit of consideration for others and of good relations among all our population groups. Show me another body that has made a greater contribution in this field than the television service of the SABC. I should like to hear of it. Surely it is wonderful to stimulate faith in the future of our country in this way. It is wonderful and it is splendid. It is uplifting. It is noble. On the analogy of a poem by N. P. van Wyk Louw in regard to us and our enemies, I may express it in these terms—

Our television service and the SABC bears what is precious and noble safely through the throngs of Africa and the world. That is why we convey many thanks to those responsible for it. A great deal of criticism is being levelled at them. For me, however, it is a pleasure to thank them for the noble service they are performing. [Interjections.]

The presentation to our people of their cultural assets—I shall return to this again—of their talents and of their views has already done a great deal in the interests of an improved understanding between the various population groups—White, Brown and Black. Make no mistake. I know the non-White people, and I know my own people in South Africa. In these times everyone has a desire to be drawn up out of the tumult and distress of this world towards the noble, the edifying and what is fine and splendid. That is what we are doing here, and we must tell this to one another for a change.

It is very interesting to take note, just for a while, to what an extent the introduction of television has created new opportunities for our writers and dramatists. In the period between January 1976 and April of this year 20 Afrikaans dramas and 90 episodes of original Afrikaans serials were produced. 250 actors participated in these programmes. During the same period 2 586 dramatic roles were played in programmes dubbed from other languages. Approximately 40 producers participated in these programmes on a free-lance basis. For the English television service no fewer than 26 complete dramas and 82 episodes of serials were produced. 143 actors and 354 artists participated in these programmes.

You can drop the “Dingleys”.

They can drop you too.

*Just over a 100 of these productions were South African works and were written by more than 20 South African writers. It is very gratifying to take cognizance of the influence which this medium is having on the development of our culture, and of the opportunities which it is creating for our artists, our writers, dramatists, producers and others. Yesterday evening I watched the television programmes for a while. One has reason to feel proud of some of the locally manufactured programmes. A famous visitor from abroad, a person who is renowned in the television world, told me after the Pro Artes prize-giving function: “It compares, as far as professionalism and everything else is concerned, with the best that we can produce in the United States; it compares with the best that we know of in the world.”

Surely it is splendid that this should be so. Of course there can be criticism. We like constructive criticism. Criticism is necessary; it causes us to improve, and it makes us tough. I am thinking, for example, of the criticism which I encountered a short while ago. It is said that if one wishes to open an oyster, one should place the oyster before a television set, and then, as soon as it yawns from boredom, insert a screwdriver and open it up. [Interjections.] Apparently this is a new way of opening oysters! So there is criticism. But having taken everything into consideration, we have to arrive at the honest conviction that the SABC-TV is acquitting itself of its task in an excellent fashion and is succeeding in its purpose. I want to refer, for example, to the exceptional contribution the SABC-TV made recently in respect of inflation, the need to economize on petroleum products, the conservation of nature and cultural assets, the development of our national pride and the promotion of everything that is positive. We should not underestimate these things, for they are of very great importance to us. Whether those hon. members want to admit it or not, they are going to miss the boat again. SABC-TV is adding a completely new dimension to the social and cultural life of this nation and the people of South Africa. We realize this and we are accepting it. Hon. members must not overlook it. They must level constructive criticism and come forward and make their contribution as well so that, greatly strengthened, we may enter the future together and make that much more progress.

I should like to refer briefly to a technical matter. Excellent progress has been made with the planning of the expansion of the television network. This is extremely important. At the end of the year under review it was decided to establish an additional 11 high-power stations. At the beginning of this year the corporation announced that a number of television stations would be in operation at the end of the year. At the end of 1978 the following additional television stations will be in operation: Eshowe, Graaff-Reinet (town), Grahamstown, Heidelberg in the Transvaal, Hermanus, Hout Bay, Karreedouw, Keiskammahoek, Kuruman Hills, Ladysmith in Natal, Nelspruit, Piketberg and Potgietersrus.

At the end of 1979 it is hoped that the following television stations will be in operation: Beaufort West, Bethlehem, De Aar, Houtbosdorp (near Tzaneen), Oudtshoorn, Queenstown, Riversdale, Rustenburg, Upington, Van Rhynsdorp, Volksrust and Zeerust. I want to point out these things, because they are of cardinal importance to those people. After that, at the end of 1980, the corporation also envisages putting the following eight stations in operation as well: Aliwal North, Christiana, Garies, Graaff-Reinet (district), Louis Trichardt, Noupoort, Schweizer-Reneke and Springbok. If everything goes off smoothly, the corporation ought to have placed approximately 85%—that is a very large percentage—of the total possible White, Coloured and Asian population within reach of television by the end of 1980. This is being accomplished in a country like the Republic of South Africa, with its vast distances, and under the kind of economic circumstances we are experiencing at present. This is an achievement which really cries out for recognition. For the Whites, then, the figure is 88,9%. I take a great interest in this. I know that people in the rural areas perhaps need television more than anyone else. On more than one occasion I called representatives of the Post Office and the SABC together last year and asked them to give attention to this question. We agreed that the corporation would allow private television stations provided they were established and operated by local authorities in the interests of their communities and in accordance with prescribed specifications. The corporation has already received approximately 200 applications, and almost 50 of these stations have already been authorized and will be operated in accordance with an agreement between the local authorities and the SABC. However, it also happens that commercial firms—and here I am addressing a word of warning—private individuals and clubs are establishing their own stations on a large scale and are making use of equipment and frequencies which do not serve the best interests of the public. This must inevitably lead to disorderliness and will undoubtedly pollute the ether with signals, which will eventually make it almost impossible for others to obtain a good service. The time will arrive, therefore, when this disorderliness will have to be terminated. Although it is not my intention to stand in the way of members of the public who would like to have television reception as soon as possible, it is clear, even at this early juncture, that this kind of station, which does not make use of equipment complying with prescribed standards or which uses frequencies which could cause disturbances, will have to be closed down. I therefore want to make a friendly appeal, and issue a friendly warning to those who are spending money on such stations, and who are encouraging the public to acquire sets for the reception of a service which is not in the best interest of the country, to stop doing so. We have placed all these possibilities at the disposal of the public. In the remotest comers of the country in which it has been found that signals can be received, the people’s needs may be met there by the local authority, in co-operation with the SABC, in a proper and lawful manner. That is why this kind of irregularity should be eliminated. I hope that this will happen.

I also want to point out what extensions are being made in South West Africa. The hon. member for Albany referred to this matter. It is important that we know this. In South West Africa the corporation launched the Kavango service through the completion of seven low-power FM transmitting stations and a studio, while the existing FM services for the Whites and indigenous inhabitants of South West Africa have been expanded to such an extent that, besides Windhoek, there are at present eight other low-power FM stations in operation. The FM stations at Okakarara and Khorixas have been constructed, with a view to the separation of the Damara, Nama and Herero services, and alterations have been made to the Windhoek studio and office building. Programme contributions centres have been created at Okakarara and Khorixas. The total transmission time of the South West Africa service now amounts to 392 hours per week. Further consideration will have to be given to the future of the services in South West Africa this year.

Another very important matter which I should like to touch on briefly, is the question of television for the Bantu. I have already informed hon. members of the television programmes in English and in Afrikaans, but during the year under review the overall programme planning of a television service for the Bantu was continued. Negotiations were entered into with manufacturers for the production of a number of cultural historical documentary programmes and certain dubbed programmes. Valuable experience is at present being gained in regard to the planning and the introduction of a full-time service for the Bantu. The cost of this service is at present estimated at R150 million and, as my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, recently indicated in his budget speech, the State has had to economize, even on essential capital works. The introduction of a second phase of the television services of the SABC, i.e. a service for the Bantu, unfortunately falls into this category. So far, therefore, the Government has not been able to authorize the SABC to proceed with the introduction of a full-scale service.

Attention is admittedly being given to the provision of programmes for the Bantu on the existing channel, but hon. members will understand that there are various aspects which have to be thoroughly investigated in advance, such as the provision of programme building facilities, something which, in its nature, is expensive and requires considerable capital spending. Nevertheless an effort is being made to accommodate programmes for the Black population groups in the existing television service as soon as possible. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that we have reason to be grateful for what is being accomplished in this sphere as well.

I now want to proceed to reply briefly to the questions put to me by hon. members. I have already discussed most of the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban Central, and I now wish to reply briefly to the few which still remain. As far as the White Paper on the Coloureds is concerned, the position there is that positive and on-going attention is being given to the role, the culture and the contribution of both the Coloured and the Indian population. Wherever they may qualify, Coloureds and Indians are being used in programmes. They also have representation on the Television Programme Advisory Board, as I promised they would have. The recommendations in the White Paper in regard to the question of the news readers, is at present receiving attention from the SABC board, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that after this matter has been properly investigated we shall be able to give proper effect to it. The hon. member for Durban Central put a very important question to me on the contribution of television and the S ABC to the curtailment of inflation. I have given much personal attention to this matter, for I should like, and it is very essential that—since the SABC has a fine image and has to convey an image of quality—the SABC should also convey an image of being a thrifty organization and will set the people an example in this regard as well. I am very pleased to be able to mention that a division exists in the SABC, with the specific task of achieving optimum productivity with regard to the radio and television services, and economizing to the optimum extent. Capital works have been very considerably curtailed, and current expenditure is being restricted to an absolute minimum. Take the matter to which I have just referred, and which will cost R150 million. If we had had the money to undertake that capital project, great progress would already have been made with it at this stage, but as a result of the economic position it has to be delayed.

There is also the expansion of several television recording facilities in cities, which was delayed. In addition there are certain services which would already have been provided to the rural areas, had it not been for the economic position. Therefore the capital works of the SABC are being cut-back drastically.

The hon. member for Durban Central, as well as the hon. member for Constantia raised the very important matter of the National Film Board. My department and I regard this matter in an extremely serious light, so much so that I gave attention to the matter last year, on the same day after the position of the Film Board had been discussed in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill. This led to talks being held shortly afterwards between the body concerned and myself, talks which lasted for many hours. Pursuant to those talks I convened the various departments and held talks with them in an attempt to see whether a solution could not be found to the problems of the Film Board. We were in very close contact with the Treasury throughout.

In spite of all the efforts which were made, and as a result of circumstances which were most certainly beyond my control—those circumstances applied even before I took over the portfolio—the position was such that I was forced, a month or so ago, to appoint a committee, as follows—A committee of inquiry shall be appointed to institute an investigation into and report on the activities, viability and financing methods of the National Film Board, as well as its continued existence and any other matters relating to the functions of the Board. The members were Messrs. M. Bothma, Chief Accountant of the Treasury, as chairman; Mr. C. J. Rens, Public Service Inspector; and H. J. Coetzee, Undersecretary, Department of National Education. I requested the committee to carry out their commission as soon as possible because it was very important that this matter be cleared up. We are determined to try to do so. We have the full co-operation of the Film Board and those associated with it. We shall see what we can do and this House will be constantly informed of our findings in an attempt to clear up the matter. I thank the hon. members therefore for the important contribution they made in this regard.

†The hon. member for Constantia does not normally enter into the discussions on this Vote, but the matter which he has raised is very important and I am very happy to be able to give him the information. In future I shall keep him informed about what happens.

*I have already replied to the speech made by my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Hercules, yet there is one other matter to which I have not replied. The hon. member raised the important question of close liaison and co-operation between the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the universities. I regard this as a matter of very high priority. We are effecting wonderful co-operation between the teachers’ training colleges and the universities. This is being done by way of contractual agreements which have been concluded at virtually all the universities and colleges. I envisage bringing about similar close liaison between the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the universities. Consequently the entire matter is receiving serious attention.

†I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville. I was tempted to quote to him from A Midsummer Night’s Dream from Shakespeare—

The hon. member paid me such a compliment that I almost felt that he was a man with such pleasant manner and friendly face, that to bait such a man would be like kicking a puppy. However, I have no option; I have to do it on this occasion. I had hoped that some of the hon. members on this side would have kicked the puppy, but they have not.

*I almost wanted to say an ugly word now, because the hon. member wants to drag me into his camp now. I say: Many damn thanks for that.

Tell us about your thesis.

That is exactly what I want to do. The hon. member is trying to tell this House that because I wrote a thesis while I was at Oxford University and that because I had the privilege of studying at such a very good university …

[Inaudible.]

I did very well there, if you want to know. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but let me say that my thesis brought me to the conclusion that what would be wrong would be to accept as axiomatic that the social set-up in this part of the world is one common and integrated society. I have been driven scientifically to the conclusion that there would be no manner of hope to cope with such a situation, with one complex, composite society. I went into depth about it, because if this was to be one common, complex and integrated society, I came to the conclusion that it would be an an emic society—the scientific word for a sick society—and that it would inevitably lead to rebellion and, furthermore, it would inevitably—it is structurally determined—lead to revolution. Because I never wanted to be part and parcel of such a set-up, after I had written the thesis I immediately came back to my country and was appointed on the personal staff of Dr. Verwoerd, despite the fact that I could have accepted a professorship at a university. But I wanted to make my little contribution towards having it accepted as a simple fact that this is not one common integrated society. That would lead to disaster. This is a pluralistic society, and because of the fact that it is a pluralistic society there is hope for the future. Let me tell the hon. member that I firmly believe that had it not been for the policy of multi-nationalism that had been applied over the last 25 years, the situation in South Africa would by now have been a very disastrous one. Our only hope in this country to resolve our problems peacefully and evolutionarily is to accept the simple fact that historically, scientifically and factually we are dealing with different peoples and that we have here a pluralistic set-up, because only in such a set-up will we be able to get away from racial discrimination, only in such a set-up will we be able to create real chances and opportunities, not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites.

May I ask you a question?

First give me a chance now. That hon. member had enough time to make his speech.

†For that hon. member now to drag me into his camp is, I think, too much of a muchness.

You are more liberal than I am.

You think so? Maybe the hon. member would think even more so if he listens to what I have to say now. Despite the fact that I differ strongly with that side of the House basically and fundamentally, as I have indicated, there are certain things which that member said with which I could agree. For instance, obviously we must look at education in the concept of growth, prosperity and survival of South Africa. That is absolutely important. We must do it and I will see to it that it is done. I agree for instance that the schools must take the lead to improve race relations in the Republic of South Africa. I say so almost in every public speech I make. The hon. member for Johannesburg West made the point yesterday how important it is that at school level our children should be taught how important it is to establish good human relations between White and non-White and between English and Afrikaner in our beloved country. That is absolutely important. But in order to do that we need not integrate. We need not integrate in order to have good human relations. That is a fallacy in the thinking of those hon. members. What is more, one need not be a Progressive Party member to further good human relations. Let me tell the hon. member that we humble Nationalists on this side pride ourselves on the fact that we create good human relations between Whites and non-Whites and I think we are achieving a greater degree of success than that hon. member. I therefore object strongly to the inference that the progressives and the liberals demand for themselves the right to further good human relations in the Republic of South Africa. They would fail lamentably if they were to try to do that on their basic premises. The people who do further good human relations on a sound foundation in this country are, as I have said, the humble Nationalists on this side of the House.

*The hon. member also referred to the art college in Johannesburg. The art college in Johannesburg has now been amalgamated with the Witwatersrand College for Advanced Technical Education, and in the new buildings which are going to be constructed, proper provision will be made for art tuition.

†I want to tell the hon. member that I am due to visit this college very soon. I have been invited there on a Saturday evening. I shall take the opportunity to look into any problem they may have. They can look forward to a much better deal and a much better situation, and I am very happy that that is the position.

*The hon. member also discussed handicapped pupils. This is a very important matter. I just want to point out that the unit costs for handicapped pupils are very high. I am saying this to emphasize that wonderful services are being rendered in this country, services which ought to receive a little recognition. The unit costs, i.e. the costs per child, for the aurally handicapped is R2 102, for the visually handicapped R2 281, for epileptics, R2 729, for the cerebral palsied R2 199, for autistic children R2 361 and for the physically handicapped R2 945. I myself am very sympathetically-disposed towards these people, and we are trying to further this matter in every possible way, but when it is being discussed, we should just remember, at all times, that the costs involved are very high. We must therefore keep matters in their correct perspective, and we are trying to do that. During the past financial year, for example, great progress was made in respect of epileptic pupils. At present there are three such schools in South Africa for these epileptic children. The matter is dealt with very thoroughly on page 33 of the annual report of the department.

The hon. member also referred to the Gen. Botha Naval College. It is essential that I reply to this, for there must be no misunderstanding in this regard. The students at this institution are the employees of some shipping line. Exceptionally high qualifications are required for the various navigational posts. Training courses for the various qualifications are determined by the Department of Transport, and that department is responsible for conducting examinations and awarding certificates. The nature and duration of the navigational courses are therefore determined by the objects of the various certificates, and this institution consequently does not have a free choice, for example, in undertaking protracted ocean journeys on the Howard Davies, but, in spite of what I have just said, I shall look into the entire matter at my leisure, when I have time, for I agree with the hon. member in the sense that when I recently visited the college some of the cadets themselves told me that if they were able to spend a little more time at sea, they would greatly welcome it Therefore I shall look at the entire set-up again.

It is not just a question of the training. It is also a question of the public relations benefit which would accrue to South Africa if such voyages could be undertaken.

I see the hon. member’s point, but for the reasons which I have mentioned it may not be possible for that to be done. Nevertheless, I shall go into the matter because I feel that the hon. member has a point which should be investigated.

*In my opinion the hon. member for Virginia made a very interesting and important contribution. I should like to tell him that the Committee of Heads of Education appointed a special working committee to investigate the question of an integrated teaching degree. We shall refer the ideas he expressed to the Committee of Heads of Education for further consideration. The findings of the Committee of Heads of Education will then be referred to the Universities Advisory Council, and the National Teachers’ Council will also have to be consulted in this regard.

The hon. member for Standerton made a sparkling speech that was typical of him. I agree with him; our young people are basically sound. The generals who worked with our young people in Angola, told me: “Do you know, some of those youngsters from Hill-brow are so skinny when they turn up here that we have to put two of them together to make them cast a shadow! However, after only a month in the Army, they have put on a little muscle, and that young Afrikaner and young Englishman are not afraid of the devil himself.” Our young people are basically sound. Emerging from the concrete jungles of our cities, all they ask for are opportunities. But what is more, and what I am prouder of than anything else, is, as the hon. member in effect said, that in addition they are Nationalists—as Westdene proved! [Interjections.]

It is wonderful what a good speech the hon. member for Albany is able to make since he has been sitting here in his new capacity. Before those hon. members were sitting where they are now sitting, some of them made rotten speeches. But now that they are sitting over there, it is as though they are being moved by a new spirit and by new idealism. It is good to see.

†The hon. member raised the question of the eastern Caprivi. It is a very important and vital matter which the hon. member raised, and in reply I want to tell him that that area is served by the short-wave service in Logi,—the language which is spoken in the eastern Caprivi, as well as in large areas to the north, beyond our borders. The language is also closely allied to some of the Sotho languages and, consequently, it is feasible to relay these Sotho programmes to this area. There is a little more to it than that, however. The hon. member can come and discuss the matter privately with me and I shall then provide him with further information in that connection.

*In regard to a branch of the University of Rhodes at East London, I shall refer the matter to the Universities Advisory Council. Rhodes is experiencing problems in maintaining its numbers and making ends meet financially. Possibly a move of this nature would aggravate the position. Therefore the Universities Advisory Council will have to go into this matter in depth. I shall refer it to them for thorough investigation.

The hon. member also referred to schools for the handicapped. The department is doing its best to give attention to all these centres. On 1 April 1976—a few months ago—the State took over 34 of these centres, some of which were accommodated under very poor circumstances. At present the department is considering the centralization of some of the centres which are too small, in order to create better facilities in that way. However, capital funds are limited. This is a major task which shall have to be undertaken gradually. Special inspectors have already been appointed to render assistance and carry out inspections. We are therefore looking forward to an improvement in the position. The hon. member and other hon. members must keep me informed in this regard. We have a real problem here, but we shall deal with it as well as we can. I can give the House the assurance that we are making good progress.

Then, the hon. member raised another very important matter, something in which I am also interested, namely the question of private schools.

†I visited a number of private schools during the last year and I shall be visiting more during the coming months. I have a very soft spot for and much interest in these private schools. I know that they suffer very much indeed at the moment. I know that under the economic stresses and strains in which the Republic presently finds itself, they must find it very difficult to keep their heads above water.

The fact of the matter is that we shall do everything in our power to assist them. With regard to the question of their representation on the Committee of Heads of Education, this is a very ticklish matter. I cannot go into detail now, but I shall look into the matter, and if anything is possible I shall consider it. It must be quite clear, however, that I cannot give any undertaking now, because the composition of the Committee of Heads of Education is a specific one and there are problems, but to me the idea is an interesting one, and I shall go into it.

*I find it very pleasant to say, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Boksburg, that the Intervarsity which will be played on Saturday between the Maties and the Ikeys will be screened in an edited version on Saturday afternoon. This is the first of the many benefits which will undoubtedly accrue from the new agreement between the Rugby Board and the SABC.

I also want to see the Free State being beaten.

Yes, the hon. member could perhaps see that on some other day.

The other requests of the hon. member will receive attention. We shall go into the point which he raised in regard to religion on television.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga proposed that the new Press code and in particular certain clauses thereof should be made applicable also to the SABC. As I have proved already, by quoting at length from the SABC code, the SABC is now, and has for many years in the past, operated strictly in terms of its own code which is far more stringent than the new Press code and for which it is answerable to the board of the SABC. As part of the application of this code, news commentary is consistently identified as such on both radio and television. Again, this is no new principle, but the hon. member for Umhlanga may rest assured that his request in this regard is SABC policy already.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his fine contribution. He dealt fully with certain aspects, and it is therefore not necessary for me to reply to them again. The hon. member for Parktown raised the question of the “availability in advance of television programmes”. This is a domestic matter and must be dealt with as such. However, it is a good thing that the hon. member raised it here. I think the hon. member should simply leave it as it is. The hon. member also referred to increased radio licence tariffs. This is receiving attention at present. The circumstances have to be investigated. The funds which are obtained in this way are absolutely essential and the matter must first be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to answer the second question I put during the debate, the one about the broadcast of party political propaganda on television?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to debate that now. I have already replied in full when a similar question was put to me a week or so ago. I stand by that reply. There is nothing I can add to it now.

*The hon. member for Berea put a question to me in regard to advertisements. This is a very important matter.

†However, I did not like it when the hon. member alleged that he had had a lukewarm response to the question of alcohol and cigarette advertisements on television.

I said I had had a lukewarm response from other hon. Ministers.

That may be so. However, I did not like the hon. member saying he had had a lukewarm response from me. That is definitely not true. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I am giving the hon. member an answer. [Interjections.]

*At present we are ironing out the interpretation of section 13(2) of the Broadcasting Act with the SABC. The department is of the opinion that the Minister may lay down the conditions and the requirements in regard to advertisements. The legal implications of this matter are being investigated, and as soon as they have been ironed out we shall be able to discuss the matter again. My personal opinion is not relevant at the moment. In any case, I have already stated it, and I think that the hon. member can form a very good idea, out of what I already said, of my own views in that regard. He should also be able to draw an inference from the fact that an investigation is being instituted into the legal aspects, in an attempt to find a solution.

The hon. member for Simonstown made an important speech here. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that something splendid has happened, something of more than passing interest. When it so happened that the composer of Die Stem, Rev. M. L. de Villiers, died on the same day as the discussion of this Vote began, it struck me as splendid and promising for the future that I as an Afrikaans-speaking person could pay tribute here in this House to the deceased and that the hon. member for Simonstown, after having requested last year that the parsonage in which Die Stem van Suid-Afrika was composed—for Die Stem, after all, depicts in words and sounds the symbol of unity in South Africa—should be declared a national monument. I preferred not to make the announcement here, although I could have done so and would have liked to have done so. I asked an English-speaking member, the hon. member for Simonstown, to make the announcement. I therefore think that this sign of unity should not be overlooked. It holds fine promise for the future when something like this happens in times such as these. I have exceptional appreciation for that hon. member. This was no staged event. It had a long preamble, and therefore one has appreciation for what happened.

The hon. member for Simonstown also discussed the Westlake Training School. The age of admission is laid down by the Department of Labour. The expansion of that kind of training has been investigated and it has already been accepted that it will be expanded to the Transvaal. If I had had more time at my disposal I would have wanted to have said a great deal more about the Westlake Training Centre. It is an excellent institution. The salaries and allowances paid to students is also the responsibility of the Department of Labour. We shall therefore convey to them the requests of the hon. member.

In regard to the question of shipwrecks, the hon. member for Simonstown also had a few important things to say. It is a very important matter and I should like to explain what the National Monuments Council has planned and what ought to be done by us in regard to new legislation, legislation which may possibly be introduced next session. At present there is negotiation on the highest level by the National Monuments Council of the possibilities of preserving shipwrecks and the discoveries made in such shipwrecks. It is however a complicated matter, particularly as far as introducing feasible control measures are concerned. Depending on the results of the negotiations which the council is conducting, it is hoped that an amending Bill on the National Monuments Council, which might possibly be submitted to this House in January 1978, will be able to do something about the matter of shipwrecks. If the hon. member is therefore able to be of assistance in this regard during the next few months, he is welcome to do so.

The hon. member for South Coast is not present in this House at the moment, and consequently I shall not reply now to his questions. I shall furnish him with a written reply. The hon. member for Johannesburg West made a wonderful, and a very important speech. I am in complete agreement with him that it is essential that the curricula should be practically orientated, and I also agree with the other things he said.

The hon. member for Florida spoke like a true authority on the finances of the SABC. I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to him for his wonderful contribution.

†To my way of thinking the hon. member for East London City made a very important speech and I would like to congratulate him on it. There was not a word in it which was not positive. I shall give serious attention to the requests he put to me about tertiary education in that area. I have a long reply here, but I shall give it to him in writing. It is a complicated issue. I am not making any promises, but will give serious attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North started off by quoting Shakespeare talking about fools and so on. I would like to quote to him something which was said by King Lear—

*That hon. member has a way of putting his foot in it every time. Honestly, if he keeps this up, he will in future find that he just cannot miss. In his own interest I want to tell him: “Please, keep your foot out of it next time when we have a debate on education. Rather put your foot into somebody else’s debate. At least we will not know about it.” In regard to the question of Piccor, which the hon. member raised, I just want to say that his facts were wrong.

†I am not going to take him to task for it. The hon. member can get the correct facts from me. However, the hon. member had a good idea, namely to have co-ordination between the education for Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. It is a good and sensible idea. I personally, my department and the other relevant departments, are giving serious attention to that aspect. I feel that it is important that closer co-operation should indeed be established.

*I want to come now to the speech made by the hon. member for Bellville. There is one thing which worries me, and that is that when a member speaks about cultural matters in this House, there is a tendency on the part of hon. members to switch off. Culture is of cardinal importance to our people and our nation. There cannot be preparedness if there is no cultural understanding and cultural experience. There was never a renaissance in the world which was not accompanied by boom conditions in the cultural sphere. It worries and grieves me, and I am very heartsore about it, that we in South Africa are displaying a new tendency in respect of cultural matters, viz. that when culture is being discussed, only certain people listen. To others it is surrounded by a kind of aura, which causes them to take no notice of it. I want to advocate that, when a person in this House is discussing culture, it is the duty of every hon. member to listen with fixed attention, for then we are dealing with one of the most important matters pertaining to our survival and the future of our children in the Republic of South Africa. I therefore thank the hon. member for his very important and positive contribution.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Kimberley North. When that hon. member speaks, it is a pleasure to listen to him. This was the case again today. A nation should not live as though it were a nation suffering from amnesia. The question of history at school is extremely important. I want to tell the hon. member that history up to Std. 7 level is compulsory. This is a very major step forward. We shall see what can be done to extend the teaching of history at our schools as much as possible, for it is essential.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Alberton on the question of the Colleges of Advanced Technical Education. The Government has approved of a new formula which will come into operation with effect from 1 April 1978. I can therefore give the hon. member the assurance that in respect of technical institutes as well as in respect of the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, the Government will give active attention to this matter.

†I shall give serious attention to what the hon. member for Green Point has requested. I do not know what the position will be in regard to establishing a roll of honour, but I shall request the board to go into the matter. If it is by any means possible, I shall be delighted to do so. I think it is a good idea, and I shall do my best to see what we can do about it.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein East discussed the Universities Advisory Council. That is a very important matter. This advisory council is placing the entire university system in the Republic of South Africa on a completely new course of development. This is an excellent development. I therefore want to thank the hon. member for the very important and positive contribution which he made. In my haste to complete my speech, I almost forgot to react to the hon. member’s speech. I think I have now mentioned everyone, because I did not want to omit anyone.

Youth camps. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is very important. It seems to me as though I am a schoolmaster myself now. I am pleased that hon. members reminded me of the question of youth camps, because I actually wanted to make an important announcement in that regard, an announcement which almost slipped my mind. The hon. member for Gezina, Mr. Swanepoel, raised a very positive idea here. I shall have it investigated. In respect of the matter involving costs, it is of course important that one should, in the times in which we are living, be very careful. However, I think that it was a positive idea and that as such it deserves our attention. We shall therefore give the matter the necessary attention. If it can be implemented, the hon. member will hear about it. However, it would cost nothing if the schools were to arrange youth preparedness matters among themselves, and then work out the details at will. It is therefore an aspect which would already emerge from the hon. member’s contribution. I think it is very important to make one day in every year the day of the teacher and that the department should try to work in incorporating this idea expressed by the hon. member for Gezina. Costs permitting, it will no doubt be possible to implement the idea of the hon. member in future.

One important matter emerges from this debate. We have no money. The words of a poem by one of our celebrated poets, D. J. Opperman, are relevant to this debate. He refers to our cities as concrete jungles. I quote the poem—

This is the essence of national education at its best.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Sport and Recreation”:

Mr. Chairman, I hope I shall now be able to take the hon. the Minister of Sport into calmer waters for a short time, while we discuss his Vote Sport and Recreation. I think the 1974 debate on this Vote was possibly one of the most important debates over the last two decades of the sport policy of South Africa. It was soon after the hon. the Minister had assumed the responsibility for the portfolio. The hon. the Minister had been in the portfolio only for a few months when the debate took place. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to state the policy of our party, to call for certain initiatives and particularly to ask the hon. the Minister for acceptance of the principle that sportsmen should be placed in a position to manage their own affairs. By 1974 we had all become aware of the spectator partisanship at sports functions which had reached a stage of open racial hostility and occasional violence,

In 1974 the hon. the Minister acknowledged that he was then commencing urgent conferences with the administrators of rugby, cricket, tennis, athletics and other sports. The hon. the Minister then claimed—I believe he was a little reckless at that stage—that the sports policy of the Government was so simple to understand. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will today, on reflection, undoubtedly agree with me that the Government’s sports policy was then not clear, nor simple to understand, nor is it now.

The hon. the Minister then set out on a mission for which I have to give him credit. In those times he expressed himself as being firmly of the belief that, in the first place, race relations can improve through sport and, secondly, that he wanted to improve race relations through sport. Much has been done and much has been said since the 1974 debate, and I want to accept readily and sincerely that the hon. the Minister, in difficult circumstances, has applied himself to the improvement of race relations through sport With the hon. the Minister’s pragmatic approach in relation to sport today, we are moving sport into a new era in South Africa However, I believe there are certain further and definite steps to which the hon. the Minister must commit himself and the Government. I hope that when I raise these points with the hon. the Minister he will react frankly to what I am going to suggest regarding steps which will, to my mind, achieve an acceptable policy by all sportsmen and will eliminate the racial tensions in the world of sport both nationally and internationally in so far as we are concerned.

I want to deal with the concept—it is again referred to in the annual report—that our sport in South Africa is based on a multinational approach. That phrase has served its purpose in the introduction of new approaches to our sports policy, but I believe that it has become outmoded. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the basis of our sport policy, should use the expression which he has used, particularly in regard to the unfolding of the cricket policy, i.e. that he was normalizing sport in South Africa. I trust that this far-fetched idea of an international or a multinational basis will now be forgotten when dealing with our sport relationships in South Africa.

The second point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is in regard to—I get the information from the report—the fact that it was necessary for his department to deal with 322 applications for permits under the Group Areas Act. The number which was approved is not mentioned, but knowing the hon. the Minister, I am sure that he had all of them approved. In any case, I hope so. Is it not possible in this day and age that recognized and, if necessary, registered sports venues such as Newlands, Loftus Versveld, Green Point Stadium and the like could be excluded from the provisions of the Group Areas Act in so far as permits are concerned? It has been done in respect of industrial areas and for other purposes in our country. The question is whether steps should not now be taken to exclude these permanently without a permit system applying.

What should be excluded?

The recognized sports stadiums, such as Newlands, Loftus Versveld, Green Point Stadium and various others. These should be excluded from the provisions of the Group Areas Act so that permits need not have to be applied for in regard to sporting functions that take place there.

Thirdly, there are two aspects in regard to the application of the Liquor Act in regard to sport in South Africa. The one concerns the question of the use of clubs. Again I say, surely in this day and age it is possible to accept the position that membership of sports clubs should be determined by the club members themselves and that established sporting clubs of the nature that I have mentioned, should be granted the “international status” which is accorded to hotels under the Liquor Act.

The fourth point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that he should accept that sports administrators have evidenced their responsibility in dealing with sporting matters and sporting relations and that he should now allow them to make their decisions in regard to competitive sport at all levels. I think he is moving towards that goal, but I would like him to say today categorically that he is indeed moving towards it.

There is an interesting publication, by Prof. Gert Scholtz which bears the title Die Suid-Afrikaanse Sportpolitiek van 1910 tot 1975. In this booklet Prof. Scholtz states the following—

He goes on—

That is the attitude Prof. Scholtz of Potchefstroom University expressed in this publication. Much has been achieved in this regard and there have been developments in this connection in the Republic recently. However, international relations still remain complicated and difficult. Reports that I have received indicate that very little publicity is getting to the sports administrators outside South Africa as to the nature of the changes and the adaptation which we have adopted in South Africa in relation to sport. I believe it is necessary that greater attention should be given to see that this defect is overcome. I hope that sports administrators overseas do not still have in their possession the publication called Die Sportbeleid van die Nasionale Party which was issued in 1970 and which was “opgestel deur H. H. Smit, L.V.” I would suggest that if it is still about, the hon. the Minister might refer it to the Publications Board for possible censoring because of its effects on sports relations at the present time. I hope the hon. the Minister does realize what is wanted by sports administrators and others overseas. They want to see an official statement from the hon. the Minister. They will look for an official statement from the hon. the Minister in the Hansard of this debate. I may tell you, Sir, that the hon. the Minister’s Hansard is almost a best-seller in sporting circles, because they all want to know where he is going and they want him to enunciate his policy so that they can see where he is going. I want to suggest to him that he does so this afternoon in regard to those four points which I have raised. He must try to do something in regard to publicity, through the Department of Information, for the move which is taking place in his sports policy so as to ensure that we do not have another generation of young South African sportsmen who are denied international competition. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall presently return to what the hon. member for Green Point said. First of all I want to pay tribute to two people with regard to the sports policy of this side of the House. The first person is the hon. the Prime Minister. As recorded in Hansard of 22 April 1971, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

The hon. the Prime Minister gave effect to that statement which he made in 1971. The hon. the Prime Minister played a special role in the statement of the new sports policy by the NP. It was the hon. the Prime Minister himself who proposed at the NP congresses that the sports policy be changed in this way. I think it will fill the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with envy to know that at the Free State congress there was only half a dissenting vote. This is the extent to which the Nationalists accepted this policy. I cannot but pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I am sure that the thoughts of all the sportsmen and sportswomen are with him today where he is once again going to state South Africa’s case overseas.

The second person to whom I want to pay tribute, is the enthusiastic Minister of Sport and Recreation himself. He said yesterday that people called him Piet Moses and Piet Promise. I think one of these days they are going to call him Piet Joshua when he leads sportsmen as well as teachers into the promised land. I do not doubt that that day is coming.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation in advance for the talks he has had with the hon. the Minister of National Education as well as the SABC and the chairman of the South African Rugby Board, in consequence of which we shall be able to see some rugby on television as from next week. It is a pity that it is not as from this coming Saturday so that we may see the Free Staters scoring a runaway victory against the Transvaalers up country! We owe the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude. When that statement was made, I heard somebody in the passage outside saying that Piet Koornhof was the “hero” of the nation once more. That he is. “He is delivering the goods.”

This policy is not that unclear. There is nothing unclear in this policy. The hon. member for Green Point only understands a little of it. He is just looking for an argument. Where in this policy is it stated that a club may not arrange its own affairs? Where in this country do we have a law prohibiting people from joining a club? There is no such prohibition. It is not prohibited. There is in fact no such law.

What did the Minister say today?

It does not matter what the Minister said today. I say there is no law prohibiting the Aurora Club from doing it, and the hon. member knows it If there had been any such law, they would have been taken to task a long time ago. It is not the policy that is at stake. The hon. the Minister is implementing the policy through persuasion, and he is doing this brilliantly. Every time somebody crosses over and plays a match across the line, a big fuss is made of it in the papers. But, Sir, how many rugby players are there in the country? For argument’s sake let us assume that there are 10 000 of them. Three of them …

Publicity seekers.

Yes, three publicity seekers in Port Elizabeth cross the line and go and play a match. They are not only publicity seekers. These are people who own Bantu shops; it is business for them. If they do that, a big fuss is made of it. That hon. member opposite says that the policy is not clear. What about it is not clear? If one reads the official statements by the Minister, there is no problem, but if one reads the newspapers, there are problems. Why is this so? The Opposition newspapers are intent, deliberately, on disparaging the policy. Surely there is no doubt about the fact that these people want to do this. They see it as their task to do this. They do not like the NP and its policy. But in spite of that this policy continues and success, exceptional success, is being achieved by means of it. The hon. member himself conceded that success was being achieved. I tell you, Sir, that if a Minister has such strong powers of persuasion that he is able to persuade people who are not on his side of the political line, to follow the line which, according to him, is the best for South Africa, a line which has brought peace and which has regulated sport in South Africa over the past few years without a single incident, we owe that Minister a debt of gratitude. The Minister managed all this in spite of the fact that for goodness knows how long people mocked and said that nobody knew what the policy was. That attitude is completely senseless, because the policy is clear as daylight to everyone who can read and who can spell into the bargain. Success is being achieved with the sports policy because it is a further development of the multi-national policy of this side of the House. It is also successful because the basic facts of the NP policy are placed foremost in the implementation of the sports policy. Those basic facts are the maintenance of identity, self-determination, peaceful co-existence and neighbourliness and the recognition of human dignity. It is also a dynamic policy. For the sake of the maintenance of identity and the removal of friction a basic pattern of club according to national context is retained. That is the idea. Hon. members opposite ask us in vain to abandon those principles, because that is the basic political philosophy of the Whites in this country. They should therefore not ask us to abandon it. If we do so, we will soon resemble the hon. members opposite.

Are you opposed to mixed clubs?

Yes, there must be no doubt about that, but I say there is no law prohibiting it. I am thankful that the hon. Minister is able to keep it so by means of persuasion. The people accept it. They accept his word. He speaks to them and they understand him.

In order to give effect to the principle of self-determination each national group maintains separate control over matters concerning its own sport. Surely this is the correct way of doing things. This policy also seeks to promote peaceful co-existence and good neighbourliness, which recommends liaison on matters of common concern and allows competition in an ordered fashion. The policy makes provision for overall liaison among the separate leagues and there is no objection to that. The people play and run and are happy. As the hon. member himself says, people achieve success. There is nothing unclear about that. The policy also provides for that very important aspect of human dignity, because human dignity comes into its own in the opportunities afforded by the policy to each sportsman and sportswoman to reach the top of the ladder in a way which does not destroy or endanger identity. I say the top of the ladder. The hon. the Prime Minister said it was the right of each national group to reach the top rung. In the policy statement it is stated very clearly to every person who can understand Afrikaans, that each man can reach the top on merit, can represent his country in that sport and that he will be selected on merit by a multi-racial selection committee. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to the speech made by the hon. member for Fauresmith in which he gave a fine exposition of the sports policy, I want to add the question of why a sports policy is necessary. I think one can answer that in two short sentences. The first is “to order the playing of sport in South Africa”, to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred in passing. During the past year sportsmen ran, boxed, wrestled and played. I think that rarely have so many successes been achieved on the sports fields in any one country in the world. There is no confrontation between the various groups; there is no confrontation between the various population groups or supporter groups, therefore the next reason why a sports policy is necessary, is to enable the sports administrators to negotiate competition with any country. In this field as well I think the policy which is being followed, has shown that it is correct and that success is being achieved.

Because of the problems of inflation and the scarcity of money being experienced throughout the world, one finds cut-backs in virtually every field. It is well known that the tourist industry, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world has shown a decline over the past year. It is well known that various delegates or groups from countries that would have visited other countries on study tours, etc., have been reduced as an economy measure. But in spite of these reductions, everything points to the fact that South Africa will send a larger number of sportsmen overseas this year than it did in any other year in the past, but what is even more important is that more sportsmen will be welcomed to South Africa than ever before. The fact that this could be negotiated despite the scarcity of money, shows that we enabled our sports administrators to negotiate.

I do not think it often happens that a member on this side of the House repudiates a colleague of his, or refers to the fact that a colleague of his made a mistake. In passing I want to point out that according to Hansard, 4 June 1976, col. 8074, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said the following—

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg is not here, but I could not resist the temptation of pointing out that the team which enjoyed his support, did not even play in the final. The prophesy I made last year, also applies to this coming Saturday.

At the beginning of my speech I referred in passing to our sports administrators. I think that we in South Africa can thank our sports administrators in most cases for the way in which they negotiated in the past, for the way in which they administered the various sports and for the way in which they served sport. I think we can say it particularly in the field of international sport that some of our sports administrators, sometimes in difficult circumstances, succeeded in making friends for South Africa and in keeping those friends. Now it is unfortunately true that in some sports, one finds sports administrators who do not try to serve sport in the true sense of the word. It is unfortunately also true that there are also sport administrators who try to make political capital out of sport. I think it is essential that it should be pointed out to sports administrators who want to use sport for sinister motives that they are not serving sport, not South Africa and South Africa’s international relations, in that way. May we ask then that those who have an interest in sport, should also have the interests of the sportsman at heart and should apply themselves wholeheartedly to sports relations, and not to the political misdemeanours which arise from this. When we talk of our sports administrators, we also realize that those who serve sport are few in number.

I believe that despite the fact that South Africa is known as a sport-loving country and despite the fact that South Africa can be regarded as a sports paradise because of our climate and our potential in the field of sport, we have not kept abreast in any way of the phenomenal progress in world sport. Nor have we succeeded in making realistic provision for the ever-growing needs. I think that many branches of South African sport have to contend with serious bottlenecks. Meaningful and co-ordinated planning by official as well as voluntary bodies and persons has become an urgent priority. Concern has already been expressed about the situation that South African sport is being administered to a large extent by overworked and voluntary sports officials. A feeling bordering on frustration and despair has arisen, because of the fact that there just are not enough hands to cope with the volume of available work. This problem is found without exception amongst our sports administrators. Especially in the case of amateur sports bodies, the magnitude of the problem with regard to sport in the Republic is such that it is simply no longer possible to cope with the problem efficiently, mainly because of the lack of fulltime administrators, planners, technical personnel and researchers.

The present practice which is being followed in the training of sports officials has been investigated. This has caused us to come to alarming conclusions. I mention only a few of them. In the first place voluntary workers receive no specific training for their task. In the second place a total sports programme in the Republic requires efficient and trained leaders at each level. In the third place there is no training for sports leaders in South Africa. No formal qualifications are required of them and no official system of training, registration or grading is used. In the case of hardly 30% of our sports control bodies has provision been made for a separate section concerned with the training of coaches. A further 36% of the sports bodies have indicated that no system of training exists in their specific sport. As a result of this there is a chronic shortage of an adequate number of efficient and well-trained coaches and sports officials.

By way of summary, we may say that this information indicates that some of the national sports control bodies at least show an active interest in a system of training, whilst others are satisfied—or are obliged—to let the sport develop naturally, because of a lack of the necessary means. There are clear and fundamental differences between the field of physical education on the one hand and sport on the other. The physical educator who has been trained at a tertiary institution for his task, is not necessarily a specialized sports expert. Therefore it has become necessary for a comprehensive national sports training plan to be formulated, a programme which will meet the requirements of availability, quality, continuity, the certifying of qualifications, job security, etc. This is something which does not exist in South Africa as yet. If we feel concerned about sport, I think we should feel doubly as concerned about organized recreation. According to statistics only 14% of all South Africans participate in sport. Must we in South Africa first fall victim to the intellectual and physical misery which results from being captives in a concrete jungle before we realize that we have to create lungs for our people? I think we are already living in the era in which over-crowding is common place and in which we are beginning to break down what we built because we are realizing only now that we are a growing nation. We are at an alarming stage. The lawns which one sees here and there in the cities, are spoilt by a notice: “Please keep off the grass.” The time has arrived for us to appoint experts to determine the recreational needs of our nation so that the necessary facilities may be established and may be manned by expert personnel. Just as the local authorities are responsible for the endless materialistic needs of people, we also have to think of the physical well-being of our ever-growing urban population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be forgiven if I do not react to the speeches made by the previous two speakers. However, I would like to say one word about the speech of the hon. member for Green Point. I have followed the hon. member for Green Point over a period of three years as the second speaker on the Opposition side in sport. I want to say that on every occasion I have found it a pleasure to follow his speeches. I believe the points he has made today are very succinct, absolutely correct and certainly much in line with the thinking of all true Opposition members. [Interjections.] Secondly, I hope I will be forgiven if I do not react in detail to the very positive aspects of the report of the Department of Sport and Recreation for 1976. Time just does not allow me to do so. However, I think that two separate statements on page 2 of the report do merit attention. Firstly, I want to quote the very first paragraph on page 2, which reads—

This statement is correct. In the last year South African sportsmen of all races have participated in international competition in well over 30 different types of sport. This is an enormous step forward, an enormous advance, on the opportunities available to all races since the time some years ago when Dr. Verwoerd made his sports declaration at Loskop Dam. I think it would be unfair of me if I did not award a measure of the credit for that achievement to the hon. the Minister. He is trying to do for sport and for sportsmen what no previous Cabinet Minister has ever done or tried to do. I think it must be said that his efforts are appreciated.

However, the passage I quoted does not paint a full and correct picture. In the last year South Africa was barred anew from participating in international athletics, angling, soccer, and softball, and except for our re-admission into the International Chess Federation, existing sports bans on South Africa have not changed. We are still out of the Olympic sports and we are still out of cricket, table tennis and in regard to the national sport of South Africa, I believe rugby tests for the foreseeable future seemed to have come to an end. In the first four months of this year we have been banned or barred or excluded from the World Women’s Bowls Championship, from the World Women’s Cricket Championship, from the World Archery Championship, from the gymnaestrada in Denmark and from several other major sporting events. Let us therefore not bluff ourselves that the clouds are lifting and that the scene is improving. It is not, and what is more, it is going to get worse before it gets better. International sport is very much part of international politics. I think we are beginning to realize this. Politics have been manipulated for selfish motives recently against such countries as Taiwan, New Zealand, Rhodesia, Israel and of course even against ourselves. Even our sporting friends are under constant pressure from all sides. They compete with us at their peril and at the risk of their own sporting isolation. I would like to be absolutely frank with the members of this House and say that in the present world political climate it is probably going to take a lot more than just a new sport dispensation to get us back fully into the international sporting arena. Politicians abroad are more powerful than sports administrators, and their interests do not necessarily coincide.

This demonstration of international cynicism—for that is what it is in many cases—must not deter us as South Africans from the path we on these benches have been advocating for many years and from the path the Government has partially adopted as from September last year, that is the path of normalization of sport in South Africa. Normalization will play its part in assisting the Republic in improving its international relationships. However, the first and most important goal of this process is and must be to put sport and sportsmen on a proper and equal basis as between ourselves within our own country and for our own benefit, regardless of international opinion. It is more important to me that sportsmen of all races in South Africa reach accord, than that the international community must be appeased. I know that once full normalization has been achieved, it will at least be easier for our true friends to defend us against attacks levelled by those whose motives are political and not sporting.

This brings me to the second question in the report to which I want to refer—

There are two points arising out of this question upon which I should like to comment. The first point relates to the term—and the hon. member has mentioned it—

I would now like to discuss the words: “Various sports bodies have already made use of this concession.” I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us and to the world why a policy of normalization, a policy of attempting to move away from discrimination, a policy which is ostensibly aimed at creating equal opportunities, is described as a “concession”. Why is that basic concept described as a “concession” in the report of the department as reflecting its policy? Sportsmen in South Africa are not interested in concessions. I believe that they are interested in obtaining what they consider to be their full rights to manage their own affairs, to choose their own teams, to settle the composition of their leagues themselves. Concessions are unacceptable. A new dispensation is what is wanted.

I have come to the end of what I want to say in the first part of this afternoon’s debate. There are other aspects which I shall raise later.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton quoted from the annual report of the department and objected to the word “concession”. Unfortunately the hon. member did not read any further, because it is stated very clearly in the report: “It may be expected that this policy will be applied extensively during the coming year.” What is at issue is not a “concession”, but the implementation of a policy. The hon. member for Fauresmith put it very clearly that the policy would be carried out in the interests of the sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa in future.

If there is a group of people in the world that has consistently maintained a high standard under the most difficult of circumstances, it is the South African sporting community. I believe that in past years, there has been ample opportunity for those men and women to throw in the towel and to argue: What is all the sacrifice and exertion for, it is definitely not worth the trouble? However, we find the contrary amongst the sporting people of South Africa. Though the whole world has turned its back upon them and though they have been refused participation in international competitions, these men and women continued to put up one tremendous show after another. I think that this debate is a suitable occasion for paying tribute to those men and women and conveying to them a message of thanks and appreciation from this House.

One often hears the argument that we in South Africa are sport-mad or that we attach an exaggerated value to sport. I want to put the question this afternoon: What is the merit of sport? In the first place I find that sport is of great value to any country and that its merit lies in the fact that it has publicity value for the country. I do not think there is a better way of acquainting people with a country than by means of its people, especially if those people behave correctly, like the South African sportsmen and women do, because then they are true ambassadors for their country. Over the years and today too, South Africa has sent teams of sportsmen overseas who have held South Africa’s name high not only in their displays, but also in their contact with the people of the country they visited. The merit of sport lies in the fact that we can send our sportsmen and sportswomen overseas, that we can receive sportsmen and women in South Africa, that they can compete against our sportsmen and that we can proudly refer to our sportsmen and -women as the standard bearers and as the image of the calibre of the people we have in South Africa.

I believe that the merit of sport also derives partly from sport as an exhibition. This afternoon I am convinced that if the rugby enthusiasts in New Zealand were to hold a referendum—here I could also include the British Isles—to determine whether they wanted to receive a Springbok rugby team, an overwhelming majority would decide in favour of such a visit. Why would the majority of rugby enthusiasts and true sport lovers decide in favour of such a visit? Because our rugby players have built up a proud record over the years and it is the main ambition of all rugby-playing countries today to beat a Springbok team. The greatest chief endeavour of the All Blacks is still to be able to beat the Springboks on South African soil. I believe that cricket throughout the world has suffered because South Africa has been excluded from test cricket Not only were players from other countries denied the privilege of playing against our Barlows, our Pollocks and our Proctors, but the real cricket lover was also denied the privilege of seeing the bubbling enthusiasm of an Eddie Barlow, the flashing bat of a Graham Pollock and the brilliant batting of a Barry Richards. Nevertheless, in spite of a boycott and in spite of political action against them, our sportsmen, although isolated, continue to give of their finest.

I do not know of a competition anywhere else in the world which inspires greater enthusiasm than our Currie Cup cricket competition. Where in the world do players put on bigger and better displays than when our provincial teams compete on the cricket field? If the Transvaal clinch matters in their favour with the last ball of the match, the WP supporters are downcast, but afterwards one realizes that cricket won and that one was privileged to be able to live through this dramatic moment on the cricket field.

When Doug Watson, the world bowls champion, leaves the field, one rejoices with this brilliant player, because his performance could not be bettered by anyone else in the world.

I think that we should congratulate and thank our South African sporting community today for their fine performances. The gold medal at the Olympic Games has been taken away from them—they cannot win it—but we as fellow South Africans want to give them the best which one person can give to another, namely the warm affection of one’s heart. The merit of our sportsmen and women is also to be found in the fact that due to the performances they have put up, administrators have been able to introduce facilities which are at the disposal of all and to the advantage of all. In this regard I have in mind this afternoon the fine new Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria—and I say this as Capetonian and a WP supporter. I believe that the Northern Transvaal Rugby Union must be heartily congratulated on the fine new stadium which they have built there. Would this have been possible if that union had not had the players over the years who brought the spectators streaming to this field? Would it have been possible without Frik du Preez, Jaap Bekker and Mof Myburgh, to mention only a few. Our grateful thanks to the sportsmen who through their performances, filled the coffers so that we spectators can watch the game in comfort and ease.

When I say this, I also want to tell our sports administrators that we must also take a look at the financial requirements of our players. I believe that just as the singer, the sculptor, the painter and writer use their talent to earn money, the sportsman too has been given a talent and it must be seen to that these people do not have to exercise their sport under financial pressure, but that they too can derive financial gain from it.

There is another merit which I should like to mention. We encounter in our sporting community, in our South African sportsmen and women, the will to overcome problems and disappointments and to show the world that sport is the way to create harmony among people from various population groups without anyone being asked to give up what is his own. Sport allows people to find and understand one another. This is what has happened under this Government and this is what is happening with the policy of this Government, viz. that sport is the God-given method by which people in South Africa from the various population groups can find one another, understand one another and tolerate one another.

However, there are also malicious people in South Africa who want to use sport for their own, often reprehensible, ends. On behalf of South Africa’s sporting community I want to tell these people: “Leave this fine instrument alone and allow our sportsmen and women to continue to practise their sport.”

To sportsmen and women throughout the world, too, there is a message from the South African sporting community: We expect more support from you. We expect a stronger stand in our favour. We as sportsmen and women of South Africa want to practise our sport and want to tell all our sporting friends throughout the world: Make it possible for us to compete at the international level. This is the merit of sport and we must pay tribute to our sportsmen and women.

I want to conclude by paying tribute to the greatest, finest and strongest group of players in South Africa. We cannot but pay tribute to the Matie team in this year, 1977.

Mr. chairman, the previous speaker will not hold it against me if I do not rejoice with him about the Maties and if I do not express any opinion on the Free State’s chances on Saturday. A game is never won until the final whistle has been blown. I think we should rather wait till Saturday and see. I think Oom Biermann may have a few tricks up his sleeve.

Today we may rightly accept that modern society needs sport. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is in the habit of saying: It is an obvious fact. I also think it is an obvious fact that any modern, developed country, like South Africa, also needs a modern Department of Sport and Recreation, a department with the necessary vision, a department with enthusiasm, a department with drive. I think the hon. the Minister is indeed fortunate in having people of the calibre of the Secretary, Mr. Beyers Hoek, Mr. Ben Keet and others. These are people who are prepared to sacrifice everything for the good of the youth of South Africa and for the sportsmen of South Africa.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Fauresmith said and say that it is a fortunate country which has a Minister with the drive, dedication and enthusiasm of our present Minister of Sport and Recreation. Let us be honest and say that he is a man who has a very thankless task to perform, to explain, to carry through and to justify—even in the face of criticism from people in his own ranks. I think we cannot but praise and admire our present Minister of Sport and Recreation for the fact that he never flinches from criticism when the good of the spokesmen of South Africa is at stake.

Sir, allow me the opportunity to point out a few examples of what this department and the Minister are doing for the young boys and girls of South Africa. I believe that sport is basically there for the young people and is also of most value to our school-children and other young people. In this regard I should like to make special reference to the youth sport introductory courses offered to pupils. The department has divided South Africa into 11 regions and during all vacations one or more courses are held in each region. These introductory courses are held so as to afford pupils the opportunity to become acquainted with and receive training in those types of sport which are not normally offered at school. After all, a school cannot offer 80 different types of sport. For this reason sports such as target shooting, horseriding, volleyball, etc., are offered.

Not only do we find that the training is given by experts, but a great deal is also being done here for good relations. In these camps we find children from homes in which Afrikaans, English, German and even Yiddish are spoken. A great deal is also being done to encourage the children of immigrants to attend these courses, and in this way these special courses are employed in building bridges to break down language and other prejudices in South Africa Of course, one cannot expect anything to be perfect and problems are being experienced with these regional courses in that every school-child who attends the courses, has to pay approximately R30 every week in order to attend the course.

It is a fact, also amongst our Whites in South Africa, that there are those who simply cannot afford this. Let us admit that we still have poor people. These are often large families. Due to the fact that the parents cannot afford to send their children to the courses, they are totally deprived of the privilege of receiving this training and coaching. Very often, there are potentially good sportsmen amongst them, but they simply cannot afford it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to beg the hon. the Minister of Finance for a few thousand rand, because this is in fact one of the best investments we can make. We must spend a few thousand rand extra to afford the children of these underprivileged people the opportunity of attending these courses too. The money must be used to subsidize them.

I am aware of the fact that the Department of Sport and Recreation has already offered a very successful course for Coloured pupils in Bloemfontein. It is a fact that one reaches the parent through the child. This is always the case. This holds good for all colours and peoples. I believe that the department can also do a great deal more in this regard in the interest of better relations in South Africa by offering more of these courses for pupils of colour until such time as their own people have the organizations to do this themselves.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the question of the adventure courses which are offered by the department. These include courses on survival and tracking, hikes, cycling tours, snow skiing and other things. These courses are offered by the department in conjunction with existing youth organizations like the Boy Scouts, the Voortrekkers and the Girl Guides, but in many cases the department does not have the co-operation of these organizations as yet. Consequently I want to address an appeal to these youth organizations to make more and better use of the services and facilities offered by the Department of Sport. After all, this department in point of fact has very little to do with political and language differences.

This is a department which was established to be of service to the community, the youth and the nation. Consequently that service should be rendered in conjunction with existing organizations which pursue the same object as the department. I also want to ask whether it is not possible for the department to act in closer co-operation with the Department of Forestry. We also have a fine example of the creation of facilities for young people in the case of that department. Cannot these adventure courses of ours be linked up with the bushtracks, hiking trails and mountain huts? In this way, it will be possible to use those facilities to the maximum of their potential.

In conclusion I should like to ask whether the time has not arrived for our large financial institutions which build blocks of flats to make it their object to convert a certain part of a block of flats, for example the basement, into a recreation area, instead of just trying to see how many flats they can fit into a block. A recreation hall or games room like this may then be used by the people in that concrete jungle for participating in indoor sports. For example, they can play darts, snooker or even table tennis. It would not cost much to combine two of the parking bays in the basement. In this way the children of the flat-dwellers would be able to make use of such a recreation area.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East has made an appeal to the Minister on behalf of youth organizations. I know that the hon. member is very much involved in matters of that sort and I hope that his appeal on their behalf will be successful.

We in these benches have seen some quite tremendous developments in the last year, since this Vote was last debated. We applaud the progress that has been made. Even the report has become outdated. The hon. member for Green Point referred to permits being required for mixed games, but I see that as from January this year the Minister has publicly stated that such permits will no longer be necessary. I think another break-through in thinking on the Government’s side is the use of the word “normalization” with regard to sport. The latest occasion on which I believe the Minister used this expression was at Stellenbosch on 3 May when he addressed a current affairs circle. On that occasion he appealed to athletes to assist in the normalization of sport in South Africa. We think that is important, because it does indicate that the Minister accepts that Government sports policy has been abnormal in the past. After all, you cannot normalize something if it is not abnormal. We agree with him and I am glad he appreciates where the fault lies.

South Africa has suffered heavily in the past. We all know that. We have been expelled from the IOC, and as a result some 30 sports have been sent out into the international wilderness. Indirectly our non-Olympic sports such as cricket, soccer and rugby have also become outcasts. Tremendous progress has, however, been made, largely as a result of the efforts of the hon. the Minister. These efforts are reaping certain rewards. It was disappointing, after the success of the men’s world bowls championships, to find that the invitation to our women has been withdrawn. It was disappointing to find our Davis Cup tennis players being subjected to the sort of demonstrations they were subjected to. It is disappointing to see that local cricket sides have to have some sort of cloak and dagger arrangement when they go touring overseas. We all know that yachtsmen in the 505 championships and in the dabchick junior class were refused entry to the international competitions in Australia and in Turkey. This certainly is disappointing to the sportsmen involved. On the other hand, when we look at this report and we see that some 93 international sporting contests have been held in the past year, it makes us realize that negotiations are taking place all along the line and that these are improving. In this regard I disagree with the hon. member for Sandton when he says that the position is going to get worse. I think that the position has improved. In fact, we of the official Opposition have a lot of hope because of the hon. the Minister’s attitude to sport in this country. He uses the word that I mentioned earlier, “normalization”, and he wants to bring South Africa back into the international sporting community. After all, that is what we all want to achieve, as well as our sports administrators. I do feel, however, that he must examine his yardstick of normality as against the yardstick used by opponents of Government policy. I should firstly like to refer to what Mr. Norman Middleton understands by normality in sport. After all, he is the President of the Non-racial Soccer Federation. Recently, at a function in Port Elizabeth, where he was welcoming three White players to the African Rugby Union League, Kwaru, he said the following—

This was reported in the Cape Herald of 12 April 1977. Then, there is another yardstick, and that is the yardstick of that arch antiapartheid campaigner, Peter Hain. He has recently laid down six conditions before he will stop his demonstrations. First of all he says that there must be fully integrated sports clubs. Secondly, provincial and national selection must be from these integrated clubs. Thirdly, there must be non-racial administrative bodies. Fourthly, selection of teams must be done by these bodies. Fifthly, spectator facilities must be integrated and sixthly, there must be removal of legislative restrictions on integrated clubs. Mr. Hain had been a fanatical pursuer of South African sportsmen in Britain. We all remember how he disrupted the 1969-’70 Springbok rugby tour. I find it rather ironic that he does nothing about the Chinese communist table tennis sides that go to Britain or the red carpet treatment that is handed out to the Russian ballet dancers. Nevertheless, he has sympathy from the authorities in Britain. I have little sympathy with him. I think his demonstrations are extra-legal. In fact, I think the hon. member for Johannesburg West might agree with this verse—

I do not believe that we need outsiders to tell us how to bring fair play to our sportsmen. I believe that White sportsmen and administrators and their Black colleagues here in South Africa are, with the help of the hon. the Minister, breaking down the barriers that have existed in the past. It is very interesting to look at the survey that appeared in the Sunday Express on 17 April, dealing with some 11 sports.

That survey referred to the international position, controlling bodies, the local state of play, intended development, mixed matches played, mixed matches planned, spectator policy, the attitude and investment of sponsors and the attitude of players to mixed sport.

As a result of this survey it was shown that players are generally in favour of mixed sport in these sports, that administrative bodies are working towards a non-racial, umbrella body to control sport, that selection in many cases is non-racial and is moving toward this, that there are sports associations who insist that affiliated clubs cannot become affiliated if they do have racial clauses in their constitutions and that most of our spectator facilities are integrated. Of course, rugby has tended to be a bit more cautious. Possibly the older traditions die harder, but die they do. The hon. the Minister clarified his views at a meeting with Black and White rugby officials in January when he said that Blacks were free to join White rugby clubs and Whites were free to join Black rugby clubs, that there was no law to prevent mixed rugby at any level, from club level to international level, that there would be no problem with Blacks playing on rugby fields in White areas and, finally, that the Government would definitely not take action over mixed rugby matches. Dr. Craven was in agreement with that. But what I think is more important, is that Mr. Abdul Abbas, who was head of the S.A. Rugby Union, had the following to say—

I think that this reference, is similar to the findings which were published in the Sunday Express.

In conclusion, it is a relief that the Department of Sport is, not only in theory, but in practice, retreating from the abnormality of racial discrimination in sport, and is doing it very rapidly. I hope other Cabinet Ministers will follow the example of this hon. Minister. We in the official Opposition do see a very bright light at the end of this dark tunnel in which we have been for so long. We would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his efforts in, first of all, soothing the suspicions of Black sportsmen and administrators, and secondly, on breaking down the White isolationism and the prejudice which has existed as a result of the policies of segregation in the past. We do wish our South African sport administrators every success in their final negotiations towards this multiracial umbrella body. The hon. the Minister has cleared away the Nat bogies that existed in the past. We say to sportsmen and sport administrators in South Africa and all over the world: Get on with the game.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as the hon. member for Sandton, and other hon. members on the Opposition side, put special emphasis on the fact that we must normalize our sporting relations. As far as I am concerned, our sporting relations have been normalized already. Our sporting relations have been normalized in terms of the basis and the policy; the sports policy of this side of the House. If there is anything abnormal, it is the enemies of South African sport—those people who want to make out that our sports policy is abnormal. Their purpose in doing this is to isolate us. They want to make use of sport to isolate us. However, the days of isolation are numbered. Isolation is not the death of any nation. That is why we know that we must normalize our sport in a natural way—as we have already done—so that we can take our rightful place, and so that we can be not only nationally normal, but also internationally normal. I believe that this is our main objective.

While those hon. members argue that we should normalize our sporting relations, I want to point out that I think that we are not at all as isolated as people are inclined to believe, in any event not as far as sport is concerned. As far as the continent of Africa is concerned, we are probably well-nigh the leading country. In addition, if we consider the great sporting achievements of South Africa in view of our relatively small population, I believe that we are one of the leading sporting countries of the world today.

Just to indicate that we are not isolated, I want to refer to things which happened as far back as last year. Last year at least six world championship meetings took place in South Africa. If I am not mistaken, many world championships have already taken place here in South Africa. One of those which was the best organized, was undoubtedly the bowls championships, which was enjoyed greatly by all of us. However, I must place on record that the preparation committee deserves a great deal of praise. That committee worked for three years and saw to it that the best organized world championships could take place here. It is wonderful to think that we practically made a clean sweep in those world championships. We won the singles, the pairs, the trips and fours. Not only the ordinary bowling enthusiasts, but the whole sporting community in South Africa and all South Africans are proud of the Republic of South Africa’s world champion, Doug Watson. I think the championships had a wonderful effect on bowling in South Africa, and that includes the parliamentary bowling team. Even the elderly members of Parliament, as well as younger ones like myself and the hon. member for Marico, are already participating in this sport. I mention this to prove that these championships had a wonderful effect on sport in South Africa and also made our people more sport conscious.

Other sports championships, too, have been held. For instance, I am thinking of the annual motor-sport event at Kyalami which is an integral part of the world championships. I am thinking of the many countries which were represented. If I am not mistaken, 14 countries participated in the race. These were South Africa itself, Australia, New Zealand, Argentine, Brazil, the United States of America, Britain, Wales, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Italy and Belgium. Altogether 14 countries participated. [Interjections.]

We must get away from the idea that we are so isolated in the field of sport. This is not the case. There are still many countries that are prepared to have sporting links with us. For instance I am thinking of tug-of-war. It was wonderful to see the tug-of-war teams competing on television.

Are you speaking about the Opposition?

Yes, what about the Opposition? The Springbok tug-of-war team did lose and Britain won, but if I had to choose a team from the Opposition, I would have put the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Durban Point in the team. If those two hon. members had pulled together, we would have won the championships. They would also have been Doug Watsons. There is no question about it. However, they are not playing at tug-of-war now; they are squabbling, because look at what the Opposition looks like. I do not want to dwell any further on tug-of-war.

We have considerable sport in South Africa. International sport is played between South Africa and other countries and it is a pity that politics is dragged into sport. One of the hon. members has already quoted from the speech which the late Dr. Verwoerd made at Loskop Dam. I was Chief Whip at the time and Dr. Verwoerd told me the day before that he was going to make that statement. However, do hon. members know what his purpose was? Dr. Verwoerd was not a static person, he was not stagnant, dogmatic and “verkramp”. He was a great Prime Minister. There was a reason for his freezing sport at that time. It was because people wanted to play politics. However, he said that the day would come when we would move towards normalizing sport once again, on the very basis on which the hon. the Minister is doing it today. That is why we must never play politics with Dr. Verwoerd’s speech at Loskop Dam. Dr. Verwoerd was a clever man and the hon. member must not be stupid and quote his speech in this debate.

Many other types of sport which I have not yet mentioned, were practised internationally in South Africa last year. There was the model power boat sport, a world sport, as well as the international parachuting competition in which South Africa also participated. There were two sections in which South Africa did particularly well. South Africa gained fourth place in the section for four men and second place in the section for eight men. I have already dealt with tug-of-war. I do not even want to talk about model power boats. There was also snooker in which South Africa took part. This is a group of seven different sports altogether. I do not want to mention the names of all those excellent people who did well there.

We so often talk about preparedness. We must not mix politics and sport. The primary aims of a sound educational policy are not only intellectual, moral, aesthetic and other social aims, but physical development too. This is where sport plays such an important role. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. the Minister acted in this way and that he really normalized sport in South Africa. The sports policy is not abnormal, as many hon. members emphasized. It is a normal policy. The only time it may appear to be abnormal, is when hon. members on that side of the House have an abnormal approach towards it. They do not act objectively. They want to make a political football out of it. Even nations and races that differ from one another in all spheres—something which our policy of self-determination takes into account—have a potential which can be fulfilled. In the field of sport, too, they can aspire to self-determination. However, hon. members want to correct this from above. To reform a world in the field of sport, too, every nation must normalize itself using its own internal strengths and character and when it has normalized itself nationally as far as sport is concerned, it can aspire to the international normalization of sporting relations between itself and the world outside.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate. It gives me even more pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Brits. He is well-known for having a clear, sharp brain. All of us on this side of the House enjoyed his witty remarks. He is also well-known for his wit.

It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate because all the discussions so far—with a few exceptions—have really been positive. This is the spirit in which we must approach sport, because the role played by sport in creating good relations, both internally and abroad, can never be underestimated. Although it is calculated that approximately 10% of the population of South Africa participate in some form of sport, I believe that at least 60% or more of all South Africans are interested in sport. Sport offers them relaxation in that they can simply look at it or talk about it. There are those who participate in more than one sport. There are also those who are interested in and watch more than one sport.

I do not want to stir up a hornet’s nest today by trying to spell out what sport has the greatest following. However, I think I can safely say that soccer has a very wide following among the non-Whites of our country, while rugby in its turn has a very wide following among the Whites of this country. It has been rightly said that after politics, rugby is the most important sport practised by the Whites of South Africa. I should like to spell out a few points this afternoon which are of some concern to the supporters of this important sport. I am not mentioning this to criticize the spirit in which the debates have been held—I am merely doing it because there are some supporters who have certain complaints which I should like to bring to the attention of the various sports administrators through this House. I think that these points can be rectified without much trouble.

The first point is that the S.A. Rugby Union does not want to allow direct broadcasting of rugby matches on television. The reason which the chairman of the S.A. Rugby Union has given for this, is that various rugby unions complained that the yield from the entrance fees of their clubs and unions has dropped. This may be the case, but I ask myself: Is this due solely to television, or are there not perhaps other causes for the drop in revenue from entrance fees. Reasons which could be advanced, are the fact that fuel has become so much more expensive and scarce. One cannot simply maintain that it is television broadcasts which are causing the yield from entrance fees to drop. According to newspaper reports, there is now a feud between the S.A. Rugby Union and the television bosses and the one is blaming the other. Last year we could still see direct broadcasts of rugby matches. I think there is nothing more pleasant than to switch on the radio on one side, switch off the sound of the television and then to follow the match by looking at the image on the television screen and listening to the broadcast on the radio. There were direct broadcasts last year, but so far this year people who are interested in rugby have not been able to see a single match on television. I think that the decision of the Rugby Union has done rugby more harm than good. All other sports are broadcast direct on television. There are even rumours that an overseas soccer final is going to be broadcast on television. I want to repeat that I think that the decision of the Rugby Board has done rugby a great deal of harm.

I was delighted to read in yesterday’s newspapers that the hon. the Minister made another attempt to bring the two parties together and that he took the initiative to try and eliminate this problem, this shortcoming. We noted this with appreciation. We also noted that the S.A. Rugby Union is going to meet on 27 May to reconsider the matter. I want to put it very clearly that the Rugby Union must realize that the rugby enthusiasts throughout the country are insisting on seeing big matches on television, preferably by means of a direct broadcast. If there cannot be direct broadcasts the television service must also make adjustments on its part to satisfy the viewers.

As far as the second point which I should like to discuss briefly is concerned, I want to associate myself at the very outset with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who congratulated the Northern Transvaal Rugby Union on the extensions to Loftus Versfeld. This fits in very well with a point which I want to make, because I should like to raise the question of seats on pavilions. I should like to say that I do not expect a soft easy chair or armchair in which to enjoy the match. However, there are unions that present test matches and that want to accommodate 75 000 spectators and more.

The Free State stadium!

If hon. members had listened, they would have heard that I spoke about “unions”. I did not speak about “a union”. I used the plural. They are trying to accommodate a large number of spectators—and one can understand that a union like this wants to draw as many spectators as possible—and then they erect temporary pavilions. I accept that it is a very expensive undertaking to erect a temporary pavilion. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when last I was on my feet a few moments ago, I was talking about the word “concession” as it was applied to the policy of the department. I believe that the attitude of regarding the normalization of sport as a series of concessions, provides one of the major weaknesses of the new dispensation. That is that the successful implementation of normalization unfortunately remains dependent on special permission, municipal authority, liquor licence exemptions, group areas permits and a list of special concessions being engineered on the merits of each individual case as it is put to the various authorities concerned.

This situation leads to the sort of unpleasant incident created by bigoted petty officials such as the recent insulting behaviour of the mayor of Uitenhage who refused the use of the main local rugby field for a properly sanctioned game between Black and White rugby teams. It is the lack of clarity of this policy which leads to, for instance, the incredible 19th century posture being adopted by that Rip van Winkel of the 1970s, a certain Mr. Sybrand van Niekerk, the Administrator of the Transvaal, who recently stopped an athletics meeting between certain White schools and Black schools in Pretoria. If this policy is to develop into something resembling success, at least internally, there are several prerequisites which I would like to list for the hon. the Minister and which I would like to explain to him in the hope that we can obtain a reaction.

Firstly, I believe that it is illogical and damaging to normalize sport from international to club level but to baulk at doing the same at school level. This is not to say that schools are to be forced into changing their pattern, but it is to say that schools, within the bounds of the law, should be entitled to arrange their own fixtures without the dead yet heavy hand of that great White master from Overvaal meddling to the detriment of sport, of race relations and of the country itself.

Secondly, I believe it is time to bring the law of South Africa into line with the Government’s sport policy. Ad hoc applications, representations which have to be made, entreaties which have to be made, discussions which have to be held with officials of various departments, spanning two or three departments for each sporting event, are creating a morass of confusion, of frustration and in some cases, even of animosity. In particular, Sir, the problem has emanated from the provisions of the Group Areas Act and, in so far as hosting games and visiting players are concerned, from the provisions of the Liquor Act. In many cases the law is being broken every Saturday without anything being said. There are many examples of this, not the least of which are agencies of this Government itself. In other cases progress is being hampered. Broadening inter-racial contact on the sports field and in sports clubs I believe will never blossom fully while the discriminatory aspects of existing legislation remain intact. I believe that that should be an immediate priority of the hon. the Minister at this time.

Thirdly, it is long overdue that sportsmen be given far greater manoeuvrability within the framework of policy and the law and be allowed to get on with it The Minister will concede, and I hope he does, that in the main—certainly by the Minister’s standards—great responsibility has been shown by sports administrators. Take cricket for example. Normalization is following a gratifying pattern. By August this year a single controlling body will hopefully be in existence. Except for one or two trouble spots yet to be sorted out, I believe that harmony is within reach of the cricketing community of South Africa. The non-White sides which have played in the various leagues have acquitted themselves well. There have been no unfortunate incidents. The overall standard of play is on the up-grade particularly among the non-White sides. Further developments in this process of sporting reconciliation must be left to the players and to the administrators, particularly in the cricket world today. The Government and the law should be there to assist these players and administrators and not to retard them. Now, when I talk about retarding them, Sir, I want to quote you an example. I believe that rugby, in fact, is a case in point Here I believe that the Government has chosen sides because, through its various agencies, the Bantu Boards and the like, by withholding the right to the use of grounds from the major controlling Black rugby bodies and allowing the use of grounds to much smaller bodies who are prepared to subscribe to Government policy, the cause of normalization in sport is suffering a severe setback. Sportsmen in that sport, despite what we read in the newspapers from time to time, are in fact being polarized rather than drawn together and I believe that that augurs ill for the future of that sport in the near future.

Finally, the continued inequality—and this is a point mentioned every year—of finance available to the various communities from public funds is, I believe, nothing short of scandalous. For instance, the budget of the Department of Sport and Recreation is in excess of a sum of R2,7 million. That amount is devoted to the promotion of sport amongst the White population. If you take the number of sporting participants amongst the White people it means that the sum available from public funds is something like R4 per sporting participant per annum. If you look at the Department of Indian Affairs in the same budget, you will find that an amount of R16 000 is being voted, only a portion of which is to be utilized towards the promotion of sport amongst that group. That amounts to less than 30c per participant in the Indian community. The inequalities as to finance, as to coaching, as to fields and equipment, I honestly believe are disgraceful and I believe that a sincere Minister of Sport and Recreation should not be able to contemplate this much longer than he presently does. Most other departments relating to the affairs of other colour groups do not even have sports sections. Surely the Department of Sport and Recreation particularly, following upon the report of the committee set up to study the sporting situation amongst the various population groups—which the Government incidentally has not yet had the courage to publish or to circularize or even to make available to us although we have asked for it—should play a far greater role in the promotion of sport amongst all sections of our community than it presently does.

If the department cannot, because of Cabinet short-sightedness, undertake the overall responsibility for sport, which is what I believe it should do, it should as a matter of urgency work closely with the Departments of Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and Bantu Administration to ensure that a fairer share of finance, of facilities and of coaching expertise is made available to all.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on the petty political point-scoring of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Today, in the 10 minutes at my disposal, I should like to begin by stressing the necessity for the establishment of adequate training facilities for the training of sporting leaders and recreation leaders. Secondly, I want to stress the necessity for the establishment of adequate facilities and the maximum utilization of the existing facilities for sport and recreation on a vast scale.

The need for all our people—from the very young to the very old—to take part in sport and recreation on a large, vast scale, needs no lengthy justification. Almost every single member who has taken part in this debate today has stressed the importance of sport and recreation. There is just one aspect of this that I want to elucidate a little further, namely the health aspect. Here I include physical health and also mental health.

We know that more than 80% of our Whites are already living in urban areas today and that the other populations and population groups are rapidly going the same way. We know that in 1970, 24 033 000 people were living on the 1 221 042 km2 of the surface area of South Africa, excluding the Transkei. But at the same time, more than 60% of the White population and more than 37% of the non-White population outside the homelands were living on a mere 7 836 km2, viz. on 1,558% of the surface area of the country. Coupled with this urbanization and industrialization we find that vast numbers of people work 40 hours a week nowadays in a working week of five days. This is in contrast with the situation in earlier days when work went on from sunrise to sunset, usually for six or seven days of the week. It is also true that all these people today have an average of 130 days per annum in which they need not work at all. Authorities such as Gouws, among others, pointed out in a lecture at RAU to which I shall refer later that it is calculated that a great many people throughout the world will only be working 35 hours per week in a working week of four days by the year 1980, and will moreover have five weeks’ holiday per annum. The question is then: What are the side-effects of these working conditions, of this industrialization, of this urbanization and of these short working hours on the one hand and of the long, idle hours without work on the other? I should like to refer to a few.

In the first instance, history teaches us that the fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to idleness and passiveness. Researchers such as Krantz, Vercruijsze and De Haas maintain that nowadays we are bringing up children who do not know how to keep themselves occupied. They say that if matters continue like this, cultural pessimism will become realism. We know, too, that boredom was one of the major factors in the student uprising at the Sorbonne University in 1968. Several slogans and placards attested to this. The increase in juvenile crime and all other crime, the growing incidence of cardio-vascular diseases, metabolic diseases and nerve diseases all have a great deal to do with these factors or urbanization, industrialization, short working hours and long idle hours.

I want to mention one final example. The Mainz Academy of Sciences in West Germany found that of the 12 basic factors contributing towards the quality of life, people attached the greatest value to health and food. Next they mention the following factors: stable employment, recreation, social security and individual freedom. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that of all these factors they put health first, people do not give their health due attention in today’s work set-up. Prof. Gotthard Schettler of the University of Heidelberg said the following in a lecture at an international congress in 1975—

This means that this “stress and strain”, these tensions exist. One cannot ignore them. One simply has to learn to deal with that tension in the right way in order to preserve our health. I could just mention in passing that the Medical Association has issued a booklet published by the Layman Publications division entitled Coping with Tension which hon. members will find well worth reading.

Our country really needs people who are healthy and strong physically, mentally, morally and otherwise. The times we are living in demand it of us and surely the aim of the Department of Sport and Recreation is to help to give the country healthy, prepared and fit people. We know, therefore, what the problem is and the question is: What is the solution to this problem? My opinion is that much of the solution for these health and other problems lies in teaching, training and motivating our people to taking part in sport and recreation in large numbers. That is why I want to make an appeal today for the establishment of training facilities to train our leaders so that they can educate our people at that level. I also advocate the establishment of the necessary facilities and the maximum utilization of those facilities that already exist.

A great deal has been said and written about training. In 1974 the RAU appointed a committee to investigate this problem and the possibility of establishing a course. They held a symposium on the matter and I now quote a single paragraph from the November 1974 edition of Aambeeld, the organ of the RAU—

Now it is my information that due to a lack of funds, the RAU is unable to take the introduction of that course any further, that they are now shelving this and have directed various lecturers to try to bring this sort of thing into their normal lectures. Therefore my plea today is that the Department of Sport and Recreation should take the lead and act as leader and co-ordinator so that the necessary courses can be introduced at our universities and/or our technical colleges. The department must also look after the finances in regard to that aspect.

In the second instance I also want to support the hon. member for Pretoria East in his plea that there should be sound and improved co-ordination between the various State departments—he mentioned the Department of Forestry—provincial councils, local authorities and sporting and recreation bodies. The obvious body to co-ordinate and take the lead in this regard is the Department of Sport and Recreation; so that this will enable a large-scale, wide-ranging and imaginative effort to be made to encourage our people to take part in sport.

This brings me to the establishment of facilities. The fact of the matter is that our sporting bodies and the local authorities, particularly the smaller local authorities, are unable to accumulate the finance necessary to establish sport facilities. An ordinary hall for intramural activities costs more than R200 000 nowadays. As matters stand, according to the accepted formula the department can only contribute R50 000 in the case of sport on land and R100 000 in the case of aquatic sport. In 1976 the demand was R8¼ million and in 1977 it was almost R10 million, but in those two years only R200 000 and R150 000 respectively were allocated. I want to ask that we take another look at this formula, despite the present economic climate.

I want to ask that a serious investigation be carried out into the use of existing facilities at schools, universities and other institutions. Are those facilities—halls and sports grounds—being used sufficiently? Could they not perhaps be used to better effect by the parents, the rest of the community? I have already discussed co-ordination among departments. Then, too, there are the mountain-climbing paths that can be used.

Finally, I want to make a plea for a bigger contribution by the private sector, for example the major factories and industries. They can make a bigger contribution and cultivate a healthy, more willing worker. By promoting participation in sport and recreation in various ways, the department is rendering our country and its people a fine and essential service. Due to the necessity for the improvement of this service to other population groups, the scope of the department could well be extended.

In this way we could develop a greater degree of preparedness, an expanded capacity for work, greater national fitness and an improved level of physical and mental health among our people. The department and the hon. the Minister are therefore deserving of our full and wholehearted support. We take pleasure in providing that support, and we convey our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and to his department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp ended by thanking the hon. the Minister. Not only hon. members on that side of the House, but hon. members on this side of the House have also indicated this afternoon that South Africa owes to this hon. Minister a debt of gratitude for what he has done in the realm of sport in South Africa. I want to add my voice to those of other hon. members who have congratulated the hon. the Minister on what he has done. I believe that his whole attitude is mirrored in a report which appeared in The Sunday Tribune of 23 January this year. It was quoted earlier by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. According to that report the hon. the Minister said that Blacks were free to join White rugby clubs and that Whites were free to join Black rugby clubs, that there would be no problem with Blacks playing on rugby fields in White areas, and that the Government would definitely not take action over mixed rugby matches.

Then we had the hon. member for Fauresmith, who started his speech by saying that there was no law in South Africa to prohibit a mixed team or a mixed club or a mixed rugby game or a mixed sport game anywhere in the country. I agree with that, and I support the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Fauresmith wholeheartedly in the points of view that they have expressed. However, disappointment has been expressed this afternoon, particularly by the hon. member for Brits, at the fact that South Africa, notwithstanding the concessions which have been made, and notwithstanding the facts that have been expressed here, still cannot get into international sport, particularly when it comes to team games.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the White Paper that was tabled on the report of the Erika Theron Commission on the investigation into the Coloured people. I particularly want to know whether the attention of the hon. the Minister has been drawn to paragraph 17.1 of the report. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is because of this sort of statement, because of this sort of official report, that we are having difficulty breaking into international sport today.

*What is said in the report? The reports reads as follows—

It goes on in this vein in (2) and (3). It is all in connection with those games in which there is individual participation. Then, however, we come to (4), which reads as follows—

Quite right!

That is quite right.

†Mr. Chairman, this cannot be reconciled with the statement made by the hon. the Minister to the effect that we could have mixed clubs. There is a further provision, but unfortunately time does not allow me to read it in full. The further provision says, in short, that the leagues must be kept separate. However, with the consent of the hon. the Minister, matches can be arranged between teams of different racial groups. In all sincerity, I support the policy of the hon. the Minister. In all sincerity, like sportsmen in South Africa have done, I thank him for what he has done. However, it is this sort of statement which keeps South Africa out of international participation. I ask the hon. the Minister to put it clearly and unequivocally what the policy of the Government is regarding the practise of sport in this country. Is it the policy that he has enunciated? Is it the policy which is in fact being carried out in South Africa at the moment, or is this the policy? I see the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is about to leave his seat He is the hon. Minister who is responsible for this study. I believe that he should stay and hear from the hon. the Minister of Sport what precisely the official statement is. [Interjections.]

I have an urgent appointment, but what is your point?

Thank you. I am grateful to see that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations is back in his seat.

Should I really stay to listen to you?

In all sincerity, in the interest of sport and in the interest of South Africa and race relations in South Africa, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clear up the confusion which exists between the policy which he expresses and carries out and the official policy of the Government issued in an official document of the Government which was tabled in the House during this session. I ask the hon. the Minister to clear this matter up for once and for all.

Mr. Chairman, I really thought the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was more intelligent than he has shown himself to be this afternoon. Before discussing the hon. member’s speech any further, I want to say that the debate was conducted in a very positive spirit—until the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South rose to speak. One could say that the debate took place in an almost sportsmanlike atmosphere. It is a pity that the hon. member entered the debate at this late stage in order to sound a lot of false notes. It seems that the hon. member cannot realize that there is a difference between the policy which has been clearly spelt out by the Government—that it is right for members of the various population groups to belong to their own clubs—and, on the other hand, a law by which things can be enforced. It is the policy of the Government, as the hon. the Minister has spelt out repeatedly, that we believe it to be right, in the plural composition of South Africa, that members of the different population groups should belong to their respective clubs. However, there is no law with which the hon. the Minister wants to enforce this. The hon. the Minister wants to arrange it by means of persuasion and co-operation with the various sporting bodies.

When we look back over the events of the last few years, there is probably no sphere in South Africa in which there have been so many changes as in the field of sport. It can rightly be said that we have entered a new era and that completely new patterns of practising sport are emerging. Traditional prejudices are giving way to a spirit of mutual understanding, trust and co-operation. The phrase “normalization of relations”, which the hon. the Minister himself has used a number of times, is probably the most appropriate term for describing these changes in the field of sport in South Africa. From the nature of the case, it is a sensitive process that is taking place, and we shall have to act in this field with great circumspection, flexibility, patience and sound judgment. The sport administrators, who manage their own affairs—in spite of what the hon. member for Green Point tried to give out this afternoon—have already proved up to this stage that they are able to handle these matters with great responsibility.

Undoubtedly, major problems still await us in the future. The problems will be there, but I am convinced that no problem can arise which cannot be solved with the necessary goodwill and by means of mutual understanding. The only real problem is people who are not interested in sport in the first place, or who are not sport orientated, but politically orientated. We find these people in international bodies—about which I shall have more to say later—and, unfortunately, in South Africa as well.

In spite of the disappointments and setbacks we have experienced in international sport, which have been referred to in this House this afternoon, I am very optimistic about sport in South Africa. I believe that sport in South Africa has now been placed on a solid and a sound foundation and that a very exciting period lies ahead for us. Of course, there will be people who will want to challenge my optimism at once by pointing to our present position in international sport. I want to concede at once that our position in international sport is not very encouraging. However, it would be wrong to judge South Africa’s sport in terms of international participation alone.

In the field of sport—we had better admit this to one another quite honestly—South Africa is in the same position as in many other spheres. For the most part, we stand alone. We are thrown back on our own resources. The doors of international competition will not open to us if we merely comply with the demands of international bodies—of the Hains and others. Surely we know this; we have often experienced it. If one were to take the demands made by these international bodies as a norm for changes to be made internally, one would be greatly disappointed by the results. It is like taking part in a game, but while you are taking part, the rules of that game are changed. It is like taking part in a race, but while you are taking part, the finishing line is continually being moved further on. We cannot regard the demands made on us by the world as a norm for what we should do internally. Nor can we do this in the field of sport.

We must do inside this country what is necessary and what is fair and equitable to all the various population groups in our country. For that reason I also believe that this new sport policy is primarily designed to strengthen and consolidate our position in sport inside this country. It is not designed to comply with demands made from abroad or to gain the favour of people abroad. South Africa will only be able to achieve a break-through in international sport—if such a thing will ever be possible in the near future—if we are internally consolidated and if we have come to the necessary understanding in sport inside this country on the basis of which sport can be practised, with due regard to our plural population, without unnecessary inhibitions and restrictions.

That is precisely what is happening here. Sport administrators are establishing the new patterns with great responsibility. These are patterns which are able to accommodate the great needs and aspirations of sportsmen of all colours. Therefore there is no reason for any sportsman or sport administrator who has the interests of sport at heart not to give his support and co-operation to this development. I should like to appeal to all who are involved in sport and who have the interests of sport in this country at heart to give this new dispensation a fair chance.

The new phase we are entering in sport highlights once again the question of the task and functions of the Department of Sport and Recreation. It has come to my attention that Prof. Hannes Botha and Mr. Olivier of the University of Pretoria have in fact investigated the task and functions of the department at the request of the Minister. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some information in that respect in due course.

In the short time available to me I should like to refer to a matter which I believe should be included in the activities of the department. The Department of Sport and Recreation is in the first place a speciality department which renders specialized services to sport in general and to several kinds of sport in particular. I believe that as the department that specializes in sport, this department should also assume the responsibility for the planning and coordination of an international sport strategy. Sport administrators in South Africa are elected to the executives of their respective sport bodies or associations because, in the first place, they take an interest in that particular sport and are therefore keen to contribute in the organizational sphere to the practising of that sport. Because they are qualified to handle sporting matters, they eventually rise to the international …

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired, but he may complete his sentence.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] … to go into the matter seriously to see whether we cannot co-ordinate it into a total sport strategy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the debate has been characterized this afternoon by some striking aspects. One of these is the real consensus that has been achieved in this House with regard to sporting matters, a consensus for which one is very grateful. However, it is not only in this House that consensus has been achieved with regard to sporting matters; this is also the case outside this House and all over the Republic of South Africa. A well-known person who has become known in South Africa as a non-racialist, Mr. Varachia, is presently touring abroad to put in a good word for South Africa because we have found and understood one another around the conference table. Hon. members know the history of cricket, so I need not elaborate on that. I am very greatful to be able to say this afternoon that wherever I go, amongst Black people, amongst Coloured people and amongst Indians, I have a friendly reception and they refer to me as the man who enables them “to kick the ball”.

What is that consensus for which we are so grateful? It is a consensus about sport, but it has been achieved for a much more important reason than sport, i.e. because good relations between people and nations are being promoted here. One of the most wonderful moments I have experienced was before the beginning of the historic rugby match at Stellenbosch between the Maties and the Coloured team. Before the match I was introduced to the teams. Then a Coloured forward, a man with a splendid physique, took may hand and said: “Today, Sir, your sport policy is no longer ‘temporary’. Today it is given its ‘roadworthy’ certificate; it gets fully licensed.” Hon. members would do well to reflect on what the Coloured man said, for when the sport policy was announced on 23 September 1976, he argued that it would be temporary and that one could achieve anything with a temporary policy. It is only when it has become roadworthy that one get it going. The day before he went on the field to play against the Maties, he felt that the policy had become roadworthy, that finally it was fully licensed.

The implications of this are legion. It shows that sport is not important only to some people, only to the Whites in this country, but that sport is also important to the Coloured people, to the Indians and to the Black people. For this reason I find it very gratifying that this responsible House has achieved this consensus this afternoon. For this I want to pay tribute to certain people and bodies. The greatest man to whom tribute must be paid in this connection is our redoubtable hon. Prime Minister. Without him, these things would not have been possible. I only regret bitterly that he is unable to be in this House this afternoon to share with us the joy of the unanimity that has prevailed. I do not doubt for one moment that the sportsmen of the Republic of South Africa are thinking of him and praying for him where he is engaged in those important deliberations.

I should also very much like to pay tribute to a man who is no longer with us.

†I am referring to the late Billy Woodin. He became a very personal friend of mine and, if ever there was a gentleman, it was Billy Woodin. I want to say that I have the very happiest memory of him, and I would very much like to pay warm tribute to this great sport administrator of the Republic of South Africa. I think he died prematurely because of the tremendous strain under which he worked in trying to bring about what we are enjoying this afternoon in this House, and what will be enjoyed and achieved in the coming month.

*I want to pay a special tribute to the Secretary to the department, Mr. Beyers Hoek, to Mr. Ben Keet and to all the officials. If ever there was a group of dedicated people, they are the officials of the Department of Sport and Recreation. If there are people who work really hard, they are the ones. We convey our very sincere thanks to them, for they deserve it. They truly deserve it.

A very fine thing happened here this afternoon. I do not know which hon. members noticed it. The debate was concluded by a former Springbok captain, a famous Springbok captain, the hon. member for Johannesburg West. To listen to him was truly inspiring, for the spirit in which he spoke was admirable. Yet another thing happened this afternoon. It was a splendid thing to experience. The chairman of the NP’s caucus, Oom Pottie—and I suppose he will not mind my saying that he is 70 years old—a man who has been sitting in this House since 1943, spoke on the subject of sport when he entered the debate this afternoon. It was splendid and inspiring, and we express our sincere thanks to him for that, and to all other hon. members for their positive contributions to this debate.

It reminded me of an experience I had at Cradock the other day. There was a man playing bowls who was still hale and hearty. They introduced me to him and I should like to mention his name. He is a Mr. Ballenten. Do hon. members know how old he is? He is 89 years old and he is still one of Cradock’s best bowlers. I saw him win two heads during my visit there that morning. However, this is not the interesting thing. The interesting thing is that that man began to play bowls at the age of 81. Is that not splendid? That is my reply to everyone who spoke of the fitness of our people, for there we have a living example, as we have in Oom Pottie here, of people who keep themselves healthy and fit.

I should like to say a few basic things on this occasion because I think they should be said. Man cannot help playing games; in fact, long before he is able to work he has begun to play with a will, being driven in this way to create, to produce—materially or spiritually—an urge which later develops into organized labour, and which continues to be felt. This is clear proof of the fact that work cannot replace sport because sport satisfies a different need in man. As a cultural product, sport cannot be disparaged or underestimated. A vital urge is satisfied by taking part in it or by watching it. One need not take part in sport to be able to appreciate and enjoy it. Sport satisfies man’s need to appreciate achievement, to experience competition, the fact that one person surpasses another in his enjoyment of what is artful, persevering, cunning and skilful. These are all outstanding sources of pleasure, just as they are in the arts. One need not be an actor or an artist oneself to enjoy these forms of art. One’s pleasure is derived from watching them and listening to them. One does not experience and participate in sport primarily for the sake of diversion and for reasons of health, but because of the intrinsic value which is to be found in sport itself and which harmonizes with this inner need of man himself. The intrinsic value of sport, like the value of work and play, is to be found in the spirit and in the nature of man himself. We have to tell one another these things because we must see them in perspective. I am sorry that I do not have time now to go into greater detail on a subject over which I have taken a great deal of trouble.

I just want to underline a few of the most admirable and most striking educational characteristics of play and of sport. Let it be an indication to us of how far sport and play have advanced in the educational process when we consider that there is a method which is known as the “play way”, which indicates the value of play in the process of learning to do meaningful work in life. Play and sport bring to light and develop physical and spiritual talents. They encourage tenacity, perseverance, endurance and dedication. They provide a discipline and create order out of chaos. They create positive social relationships and an appreciation for culture and they cultivate these things themselves. They serve as a repository of tradition and they help to build it. They serve what is beautiful and artistic and they spread it further afield; they provide a sound understanding of material things, but of spiritual things as well. They show man his place in nature and culture and give him an understanding of space, time and number, colour and line, rhythm and measure. They reveal and foster needs, feelings, preferences, dislikes, joys and sorrows. The sportsman who has lost under certain circumstances knows how much sorrow that can cause. They encourage one to love one’s own heritage and to respect and appreciate the heritage of others. They foster good relations between individuals and nations and they give perspective to life, and I believe that they enable man to serve his fellow-man in a way which is made possible by few other things, as is required by the word of God. Sport and play are indispensable components of human life and society.

I have mentioned these aspects briefly because I believe that the time has come for us in South Africa to see our sport situation in perspective as against the international sport situation. How does one explain the fact that the Commonwealth Games at Melbourne, the rugby tour of the Lions in New Zealand, and the whole international set-up in respect of sport are developing along the lines we are witnessing? The time has come for us in this country to take note of one thing. From time to time there are people in South Africa who say that we are obsessed with sport and that “it is not so important”. “Making a fetish of sport” is an expression which we often hear. Is it not strange that communists are so keen to succeed in sport? They spend millions and millions of rands on sport stadiums and facilities every year. Millions are being spent on the forthcoming Olympic Games, and it is reported that a sportsman in Russia is a paid public servant who earns a salary increase with every fresh achievement. Why do these materialistic gentlemen not rather send their sportsmen to work on a collective farm? Why are they wasting so much money? Or have they realized what a powerful weapon sport is in the hands of any nation in the world? Perhaps they have discovered that it is a lightning conductor in the world in which we are living, a show-piece, a grand educational strategy, a means of propaganda, even a very valuable means of international blackmail, as we have come to know it. A sporting victory always gives a great boost to a nation’s courage and pride. Of course they have discovered these things, and that is why I say here this afternoon that when we look at these matters in perspective, we want to compete internationally and we are going to compete internationally. We in the Republic of South Africa want to solve these problems to the extent that it will be possible for us to resume our rightful place in the comity of nations and in international sport.

Let us admit here this afternoon that play and sport are strong enough to cause political and economic relations to flourish or collapse. We have seen this in our own time. The events at the Olympic Games of 1976, as well as our country’s titanic struggle against isolation in the field of sport, serve to illustrate this. We are not holding on to it just because we fear expulsion, but also and especially because of the value of sport on the international level. Together with the other nations, we want to be ready for the fight, we want to share in economic power, productivity, the improvement of life and the development of social culture. In order to emphasize our values inside this country in particular, we set great store by play and sport, especially because we live in a multi-national country in which everyone attaches great importance to these things.

I believe that we have not yet taken full advantage of this situation in our country, with the various nations living here. If we do this in the months and years to come, South Africa will have an opportunity to make a positive contribution, the possibilities of which are so great that one can hardly dream of the value they will have. We are already seeing this in the field of soccer, for example. We do not have stadiums today that are large enough for matches between certain soccer teams. Why? Because of the composition of our population, it becomes a sporting spectacle which is almost unequalled in the world. Mr. Fenton of New Zealand once told me himself, after having seen Kaizer Chiefs play against Hellenic: “You will not be able to equal this anywhere in the world.” So we have a potential in this connection which must not be underestimated.

From the nature of the case, sport is basically a peace-maker between people. It is based on good relations between people. In fair competition it works to the advantage of everyone. It fosters a sense of fellowship which has nothing in common with unholy fraternizing. This must be realized. It fosters a sense of fellowship which has nothing to do with fraternizing, but which is in the interests of all people, irrespective of the colour of their skins. Sport, Sir, is a peace-maker, a maker of friends; it encourages courteous behaviour and it satisfies, without any pretension, the need which all people feel for it. Allow me to illustrate this with an example. “Ghriespomp” van der Merwe is a fine forward in an under-twenty rugby team. The other day his team played against a Coloured team. After the third or fourth scrum one of the White chaps got hold of a Coloured player by the shoulder and prepared to punch him. “Ghriespomp” van der Merwe then said to the White player who wanted to punch the Coloured player: “Stop, it is bad for race relations.” Thereupon the White guy only gave a broad smile. [Interjections.] I was present the night when “Tap-Tap” Makhathini took part in a light-heavyweight boxing match. I want to read from a report that was written about that fight. I quote—

Sir, it is true. It was a great and splendid moment. There I saw two nations attain maturity in applauding each other after the one boxer had won a convincing victory over the other. That is why we have achieved this consensus about this matter in the Republic of South Africa. I am prepared to take a great risk every time for the sake of good race relations. I have never been disappointed.

The first requirement for labour cooperation already exists, i.e. that White, non-White and Black people are working together on many levels. This does not trouble anyone. It does not trouble the housewife in the kitchen, it does not trouble the farmer on his farm, the worker in the factory, the artisan in the technical world, the businessman in the business world. It does not trouble anyone. We have been working together for hundreds of years in the Republic of South Africa and we do so in the kind of situation I have just described, and this does not give rise to any unholy relationships or fraternizing on the part of anyone. Working together, taking advantage of the same opportunities together, does not hold any threat to people’s identity. Those of us who grew up in the rural areas will know—and my good friend, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, will be able to confirm this—that in the past, even more than today, the children of the various population groups played together there. They have always played together just as they have always worked together. This has taken place without any inhibitions. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should tell you how he went swimming with the Black people; so did I, and so did many of you. [Interjections.] We must see these matters in perspective. We have now had several developments in the field of sport which have established closer contact between our nations here in South Africa. This has had no unholy results. There has not been a single incident that I know of. If we play in this way, it will only result in the best human relations. That is what we are experiencing. To play and to practise sport in this way is no more a threat to identity than working together. It can only lead to mutual acceptance on the part of the various population groups in our country and to acceptance in international sport, the recognition without which our sport will gradually be impoverished and without which other relationships will come to grief as well.

Against this background I have now replied, I think, to all the questions that came from the other side. Therefore I do not think I need go into any detail now. The whole matter is seen in perspective when one views it in the way I have tried to describe to hon. members.

The hon. member for Green Point said, as did all hon. members on the other side this afternoon, that he understood and appreciated what we had achieved and were still trying to achieve, and I should like to express my thanks and appreciation for that. The fact that this is so is worth a great deal. The hon. member said that “a multi-national approach has become outmoded”. Surely that is only a half-truth. I say that we must normalize our sport in South Africa. But I am prepared to say here this afternoon, and this is my firm conviction, that we have in fact normalized sport in the Republic of South Africa. It is now just a question of implementing this normalization; that is all.

To argue in the way some hon. members have argued this afternoon by saying that normalization means an admission that it was abnormal… Well, if hon. members wish to score such debating points over us, they are welcome to do so. The fact is that we have already normalized sport in South Africa, and we shall undoubtedly reap the fruits of this development. We are already doing this inside as well as outside the country. The hon. member must not make that mistake. When the nations of Germany, England or America play against one another, it is quite normal, is it not? What is abnormal about the Zulu nation, the Xhosa nation and the White nation playing against one another? Surely there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I do not like to lose my temper. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not spoil a fine thing by wanting to remove the foundation of the whole matter. If they do so, as I have already pointed out to the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon, do hon. members know what will happen then? Then all these things will come to grief. We must be very careful. I concluded from the hon. member’s words that we want to normalize these things, but we can only normalize them if we understand and accept certain basic principles, which are perfectly normal, just as normal as the fact that the Americans, the Germans and the British are nations. We have the same situation in South Africa. This is the way in which we are normalizing these things, and we should not try to undermine the foundations that are serving South Africa well, for then we should be spoiling everything.

In the second place, the hon. member said that there had been 322 applications for permits and that we should do away with the permit system.

† I would like to tell the hon. member that as far as sport is concerned, it is obvious that if one can do without a permit, it would be much better. I do not call it a permit I call it an arrangement which has to be made to facilitate the playing of sport between the various population groups, and therefore I have told the sport administrators that they can apply to the Department of Sport and Recreation for a year in advance and we will then clear it with the other relevant departments and make the necessary arrangements so that, in accordance with the specific itinerary, those players can play. Therefore I am trying to get away from it, because I think it is a misnomer and it is not necessary to do it.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Fauresmith for his positive contribution as the chairman of the sport group, a brilliant chairman. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. Nor do I want to elaborate on the club situation. I endorse every word that the hon. member said. Hon. members would do well to look up what he said in Hansard. It is quite true: There is no law in South Africa to dictate to people what they should do in club affairs. Clubs are autonomous in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member was quite right in saying that, and I shall leave it at that. The hon. member went on to say: “Allow sport administrators to arrange sport as they wish.” But of course! Right from the outset, ever since I took over the portfolio of Sport, my motto has been: “Let us get on with the game.” That is precisely what we are doing. We are indeed getting on with the game.

Before I forget, there is one other thing I want to refer to. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Brits. I do not want to quote a lot of statistics, but I do feel that I should mention the following. Where we had 43 visits from abroad in 1973—this figure also represents the number of sports that were involved—we received 50 overseas visits in 1976. In 1974 the number was 42, and in 1975 it was 43. So we are able to make great progress in this field. During the first three months of this year we received 12 overseas visits. If we keep this up, we are going to break all previous records this year. Apart from the seven world championships which took place here last year, 37 countries visited South Africa during the same period. Compare this figure with the 25 of 1973. Last year’s figure, incidentally, represented a record number. The figure rose to 17 within the first three months. I could furnish some other statistics as well. However, we do not always want to publicize these things. But we are already reaping the rewards of the good work that is being done.

I want to pay warm tribute to the sport administrators today. They co-operate very closely with us. They know, too, that they are being given every opportunity to administer their own affairs. They are doing it well and we have confidence in them. We are grateful for being able to say so.

The hon. member for Green Point mentioned another important aspect, “the little publicity given overseas to the new and dramatic changes in the sport situation in South Africa”.

†It is true to a certain extent. However, many people are, no doubt, increasingly becoming informed on this subject. I receive reports from people all over the world regarding this matter. I receive congratulations, messages of better understanding, promises of assistance from very important bodies, and from very important people in very important bodies. However, I do not want to disclose the particulars now. There are difficulties. One hon. member remarked that we would experience further difficulties before really being rewarded for our efforts. As far as I am concerned, that is a fair assessment. Naturally, the Commonwealth Games must first be over and done with. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that, if our house is in order, and if we have normalized sport relations within the country, the sporting world will look anew at the whole situation in South Africa. We are doing everything in our power to get the correct message across. However, I shall give the hon. member fuller details should he care to speak to me afterwards.

*Unfortunately, I am unable to reply here to all the questions asked by all the hon. members. I promise that I shall investigate every aspect mentioned here by hon. members on both sides of the House and that I shall reply to hon. members in writing.

In conclusion I want to say this. By means of sport, a new dimension is being given to our policy of multinationalism and to the South African set-up, which, since 1652, has been in embryo what it has become today. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing here with a historic situation. Within the framework of this historic situation, as well as of other circumstances in South Africa, sport is being used to create a spirit and an attitude which have a positive value, a spirit and an attitude which are giving new dimension to our multinational set-up. Humble sport is today bringing about consensus between White and non-White, gradually and on a practical level. This is something which bodes well for the peaceful and evolutionary development of the Republic of South Africa in the future. I want to say to my children that I believe that they have a fine future in South Africa and that the people of South Africa are proving that there is a reservoir of goodwill between White and non-White in this country, a reservoir which is only waiting to be tapped to make it bloom like a flower in the desert.

I want to conclude with the words of a poet whom I met a short while ago and of whom I formed such a high opinion that I asked him to come and visit me. The hon. members must not say that it is sentimental. If that is so, then I am sentimental too. The words are—

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

This clause deals with who shall be consulted by the National Transport Commission before they make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister on the establishment of a metropolitan transport area. I think the amendment is consistent with the stand taken by this party during the Second Reading. We stressed that we could not support a policy of centralizing power like this. We believe that the very least that can be done, is to consult with a local authority before that local authority is declared part and parcel of a metropolitan area. Clause 3(2) goes so far as to stipulate that a local authority may even receive an area which is not under its normal jurisdiction, an area which, for the purposes of the Act, will be deemed to be under its jurisdiction. We feel that at the very least one should consult with the local authority or authorities concerned. We urge the hon. the Minister to regard this amendment with favour.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Orange Grove I do not intend to repeat the arguments which were advanced during the Second Reading debate. However, this amendment highlights the essence of that issue.

The purpose of this whole measure is to create a co-ordinated and planned urban transport structure in South Africa and to draw up plans—for which this clause provides—to cover a metropolitan area. We regret that we cannot go along with the idea that one must build up a plan and that then, having arrived at the point where the decision has to be taken, one leap-frogs the Administrator and returns to the starting point. That is the effect of this amendment. The Administrator obviously cannot draw up a plan without consulting with the local authorities who are affected by that plan. Just to make that absolutely clear, we shall, when we come to clause 7, move that when the Administrator in fact draws up a plan, he must do the obvious, namely to consult with the local authorities. That will remove any question or doubt from anyone’s mind that the Administrator will not be acting on his own, but in consultation with all the bodies who are affected. It may not be necessary, but it will put it beyond any doubt that there will be consultation with all those who are affected by the plan. The Administrator then co-ordinates the plan and takes it to the commission. It seems illogical to us that after one has had consultations, has drawn up a plan, has had the advice of the Metropolitan Advisory Board, and has had all that coordinated and taken to the Minister by the Administrator, one then goes back, leapfrogging both the Administrator and the Metropolitan Advisory Board, to the initial starting point, namely the local authorities. Let us assume that there are 10 or 12 local authorities involved in a metropolitan area. It will mean that they will all work together, and the Administrator will co-ordinate their recommendations. Then the commission will have to go back to consult with each of the 10 or 12 local authorities individually and reinvestigate any of the differences and difficulties they may have. I emphasize this, because this will affect our attitude to a whole series of amendments which are to follow and I do not intend repeating the argument on each clause. At this stage I wish to make it clear that our attitude is that if one is co-ordinating, then ultimately one will get to a central point. If, having reached the central point, one has to go back to square one to get agreement or consult individually with each of the individual bodies one is going to negate the whole concept of co-ordination. Why then is all the in-between machinery necessary? Why not merely go to the local authorities and deal with them in the first place? We feel that the build-up from local authority to Administrator to commission and then to the Minister, is the correct sequence of operation and therefore we support the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this particular clause is concerned, and also as regards the position of the Administrator in the overall plan as embodied in the Bill, the hon. member for Durban Point has to a large extent formulated the standpoint of this party as well. We shall adopt that standpoint with regard to all clauses of a similar nature throughout the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Durban Point. In his argument he presupposes that an amendment which he is going to move to clause 7 to ensure consultation with local authorities is going to go through. I think he hinges his whole argument on the basis that the Administrator, when he does a transport study, shall consult the local authorities concerned. I am not prepared to accept at this stage that this amendment will necessarily go through. I do not agree with the whole question of centralized control. I am prepared to accept, that the National Transport Commission shall be a co-ordinating body, and in this amendment we are not asking the Minister to consult with the local authorities; we are asking the National Transport Commission to consult with local authorities. We believe it is a reasonable thing to ask the National Transport Commission to do, so that the local authorities do not simply get saddled with being part and parcel of a metropolitan transport area without any consultation at all. Admittedly, there may be a difference if they are consulted in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, which he will no doubt be moving to clause 7, but until such time we must persist with this view and our argument remains unchanged.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove has a large variety of amendments in his name on the Order Paper, all of which follow the same pattern as the one we are discussing now. For various reasons it is neither desirable nor advisable that I should accept his amendments. I only want to state my reasons once, because I do not intend repeating them whenever we have a similar case. In the first place, we must bear in mind that the legislation aims to bring about co-ordination throughout the country as far as possible, not only in the specific metropolitan or urban area, but throughout the entire country. In this regard the National Transport Commission will play the necessary role in bringing about a degree of uniformity as far as possible in comparing the specific circumstances of one city with those of another. It is also true that he who pays the piper calls the tune. In this connection it has become necessary here in South Africa for something to be done by the central authority in regard to urban transport which has never been done before. There is unanimity throughout the country and in this House that matters cannot go on as they have in the past. The Government has argued on, the basis of the Driessen report, that whereas formerly the National Transport Commission has not played a role in urban transport matters, the commission must now play a major and important role in regard to this aspect. It is true that the funds to be provided for this will to a large extent come from the State coffers. According to the White Paper it was decided on a previous occasion—and I am now referring to the funds only; the amounts may not be the same today—that R52 million per annum be spent, R44 million of which was to come from the State coffers or from another form of tax on which the central Government could decide. The other R8 million will come from the levies for which provision is made in clause 21. In other words, the local authorities will have few or no responsibilities in regard to the vast sums of money to be spent.

The hon. member for Orange Grove wants the local authorities still to play a decisive role in regard to the planning and expenditure of the vast sums of money which the Government is making available. However, there is a further argument. This matter has been discussed time and again, it has been the subject of endless discussion at symposia at which local authorities have been present, and at which there have been no particular complaints about these matters. What is more, the matter has been discussed with the Administrators in depth, and they object most strongly to the local authority being dragged in on every occasion. They say that it goes without saying that local authorities will be consulted in regard to matters which occur in their areas. Consequently it is unnecessary for the Administrators to be told to do it, because this will take place of itself. The hon. member goes still further, because in this case he expects the Minister to approach the local authorities to do what he has to do. That is why I say that the hon. member for Durban Point is right. In other words, the hon. member for Orange Grove wants the starting point to be brought in again at the end. We have already progressed beyond the question of the say of the local authorities. Why do I say this? Every local authority which falls within the area of the Metropolitan Advisory Board which is to be appointed, has a seat on and a say in that board. That is where the activities and the developments will be initiated and where the planning will be carried out. The hon. member now comes along and expects not only from the Administrator, but also from the Minister, to go and consult the local authority.

The commission.

No, it is not the commission. It can be the commission by implication, but clause 3(1) reads—

He wants the following added to that—

… determine a metropolitan transport area. There is another reason why the hon. member’s standpoint does not make sense. He states “the Minister may”. In other words, if the hon. member gets his way with this ridiculous amendment, there is still no obligation on the Minister to do so, because the wording is still “the Minister may”. If, then, the Minister feels that he does not want to consult the local management because it has already been consulted, then it simply is not consulted. This entire legislation has been drafted in such a way that in the nature of the matter there should be the closest co-ordination among the local authorities. The hon. member must bear in mind that in the Cape Peninsula, for example, the metropolitan transport area will in all probability include 12 or more local authorities.

About eight to ten.

Yes, at least so many. Now the hon. member expects me first to go and consult each of these local authorities through the commission. Sir, these things cannot be done in this way. I want to tell the hon. member that the Administrators are opposed to this. In the discussions they held with us they objected to this and said that the local authorities would be consulted in any event. Everything that is done is initiated by the body on which the local authority has a seat and in which it has a say, and that is why it is unnecessary to call in the local authorities again right at the end for consultation or anything of that nature. As a result I am unfortunately unable to accept this amendment and the other amendments of a like nature which follow it.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to repeat these arguments at every stage of this Bill when a similar amendment is moved, but I would just like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that what the hon. the Minister has just said indicates the basic difference between the philosophy and attitude of his side of the House and our side of the House. We do not believe in this centralized control from Pretoria. We believe that you get co-operation from people by consulting with them. We believe that it is necessary all along the line and right down the line to consult with everybody so that you get agreement instead of forcing policies from centralized control. That, in short, is our attitude.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

This clause deals with the designation of a core city. We again believe that a local authority should at least be consulted before it is designated as the core city of any metropolitan transport area. The same argument applies as in the case of the previous clause. If you are going to get co-operation from people and if you are going to work together, the very least you can do is to consult with the local authorities and not to come to them and say: “Here is a glittering prize; we have decided that you are going to be the core city. ” Talk to them beforehand. I do not see that this is a very onerous task and I cannot really understand the argument of the Minister when he says that the Administrators were against it. It is a very simple thing to do to consult with the City of Cape Town or the City of Johannesburg, for example, and to say: “It is our intention to make you the core city in this metropolitan transport area.” I do not really see the difficulty. I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude and accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really think that the hon. member for Orange Grove is now simply being wilful. When the previous clause was being discussed the argument was used time and again that no Administrator—and by this time he ought to know it—takes any decision affecting a local authority without consulting them. Now we have a case in which a core city is to be designated. Surely the hon. member knows that no core city will be designated before that metropolitan area has been designated. This is done by the Administrator and it will be done by the Administrator in consultation with the local authorities. After all, he will not simply say to a local authority by way of notice: “You have now been included in the transport area.” Once the metropolitan area has been established, that core city has to be designated and the Administrator will again consult every local authority in accordance with standard practice. I take it, too, that he will ask each one whether it has the manpower, the facilities and all those extra means necessary to be that core city. After all, it cannot be expected that the Minister should first consult each of them—and on the Witwatersrand there will probably be about 20 of them—and ask whether it is prepared to be the core city and which it thinks should be the core city. All this will amount to in practice is that every local authority will be consulted when a core city is designated and that the Administrator will determine in that way which local authority has the specialized manpower and means to provide the best leadership. I think that we should simply reject that amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Boksburg failed to perceive the essence of the amendment. The hon. member is arguing that there will be consultation among all the local authorities in order to decide which of them will be selected as core city. According to the hon. member it is therefore unnecessary to consult with those authorities again. That was the drift of his whole argument. However, this clause does not concern the consultation among local authorities. It concerns the appointment of the core city. Keeping history in mind, and since we know that the Government often appoints Administrators and members of executive committees, of whom we cannot expect the same responsibility as that which we find in Natal, I feel that it may be desirable that it be laid down that consultation with the core city should in fact take place. That is the point about an appointment; not to decide who is to be appointed, but to decide as to how the core city is to carry out its duties. I therefore see no reason why there cannot be consultation on this aspect.

This is not a question of who or what. It is a question of a city being designated and the assignment of its obligations to the core city concerned. In this case, therefore, it is fair that there should be special consultation, apart from the general consultation concerning the details of responsibilities which will rest upon the core city. I see no reason whatsoever why this cannot and should not be done. This is not a case of bypassing the Administrator. This is a matter in which a core city has to accept a direct responsibility. That responsibility does not pass via the Administrator. It is a direct obligation imposed on the core city.

If, for example, the core city is Johannesburg—for the Witwatersrand area—it is fair to expect that there will be direct liaison with Johannesburg in regard to the way in which the obligations must be complied with and also in order to determine what obligations there are. This is so because this is a matter which directly involves that city. We therefore support this amendment because it does not amount to the Administrator being bypassed. It is a purely administrative amendment and we feel that this is a case in which it will do no harm to provide that before anyone is appointed or before a city is appointed, that city must be asked whether it is prepared to accept the appointment and then to discuss the details of the appointment. This must be done because there is the possibility that the city could reject the appointment. For example, Johannesburg could refuse to accept the obligations imposed. Similarly, Bloemfontein, Cape Town or Durban could also say that they did not accept them. How, then, could a city be appointed without it’s being settled in advance whether that city is prepared to accept the appointment? [Interjections.] It cannot be done if the matter is not discussed in advance with the city in question. Now the plan has been discussed, but not the appointment, and in a case such as this we feel that there must be consultation. We therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the procedure, I want to suggest that we first consider the rejection of this clause. There is an amendment in my name printed on the Order Paper which amounts to the deletion of clause 4 and the insertion of a new clause in its place.

Order! I shall first have to put the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Very well. Then I shall wait until the amendment has been put.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause negatived.

New Clause to follow clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the insertion of the new clause as printed in my name, as follows—

I should like to point out that initially I moved an amendment which was later replaced by another amendment. This amendment provides for consultation with the Administrator concerned. The reason for this amendment is that the previous wording did not read well. What it would have amounted to was that the commission would have to issue a directive to the Minister and that the Minister would have to carry out the directive as submitted to him by the commission. This is the reason for the amendment, which signifies that the Minister shall, after consultation with the Administrator concerned, for every metropolitan transport area in which the areas, or any portion thereof, under the jurisdiction of two or more local authorities have been included, designate one such local authority as the core city. Where there is only one local authority, that local authority shall be the core city.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister meets the case advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point. In fact, it makes it worse. I shall say why, because I think it is important for us to know. In subsection (2) of that clause it says that where the area under jurisdiction of only one local authority is included, that local authority shall be the core city for such metropolitan transport area. Where, does the hon. the Minister say, is there a provision in this entire Bill whereunder this particular local authority should be consulted if it is prepared to undertake this particular duty? There is the question of levies which have to be provided and there is the responsibility on ratepayers, and I do not know that local authorities are in that position that they can lightly undertake something unless they have given consideration to the responsibilities which will devolve upon them as a result of being selected as the core of the metropolitan area. I understood the hon. the Minister to say that one must move upwards; in other words, everything is prepared with the co-operation of all parties concerned. When the hon. the Minister requires a recommendation, he receives the recommendation from the Administrator, or he consults with the Administrator. That was the point used in the previous clause when some hon. members on this side of the House took objection. I understood the hon. the Minister to express the point of view that somewhere along the line these local authorities would be brought into the picture for discussion and consultation. But according to this particular clause, it does not appear to be so. The hon. member for Durban Point correctly pointed it out in supporting the amendment. If the hon. the Minister can satisfy the Committee that there is some consultation somewhere along the line—that after all, is the democratic method of handling it—we shall be satisfied. Obligations and responsibilities, with all the ramifications which this Bill provides, cannot be imposed on a community or on an authority, particularly from the financial angle, without at least consulting them. That is at least a courtesy one should show to a local authority, because a local authority represents a large community of people, and here it is going to be a very large community of people.

Mr. Chairman, I do just want to ask that we should not get all kinds of imaginative ideas into our heads at this stage. Let us try to be realistic about this matter. Firstly a metropolitan area is demarcated. On the demarcation of that metropolitan transport area, all the local authorities must first be consulted. Indeed, they are consulted, because they will form part of the metropolitan transport area. Then, after consultation with the Administrator, the Minister must designate one of those local authorities as the core city. For example, let us take the Cape Peninsula as a metropolitan transport area. I consult with the Administrator and either the Administrator or I designate Cape Town as the core city. Surely Cape Town can then say that it does not want the work. It can say that it is not prepared to take the responsibility upon itself. However, I sincerely hope that this will never happen. However, it has the opportunity to refuse if it is designated as the core city. Why does that hon. member want to advance a different reason for a city to refuse it?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe is quite right when he says that the proposed clause in the hon. the Minister’s amendment does not, in fact, meet the case. We still believe that it is necessary to consult with more than the administrator before the Minister makes a decision. I should like to remind the House of the long history of strife between the Administrator of the Transvaal and the City of Johannesburg. The citizens of Johannesburg have no particular trust in administrators when it comes to matters of this kind. I am not going to repeat the arguments about what we believe should be done before a decision is made. I intend, therefore, to move the following amendment which is the same, in substance, as the amendment I moved on the original clause 4. The amendment reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am quite unable to understand where that hon. member gets the idea that there has been discord between Johannesburg and the Administrators. I am quite unable to understand how an hon. member can say anything of the kind in this House. In the first instance it is very clear that those hon. members have no understanding of the link between a city council and a province nor what discussions take place between the local authority and a province. This clause makes adequate provision for all contingencies. If those hon. members had only understood the interaction between Administrators or provinces and local authorities! I wonder whether those hon. members realize the advantages it entails for a city to be a core city. I wonder whether they realize what planning this really entails for a city. Large parts of the city’s own existing planning could be good enough to fit in with the new plan. However, hon. members are obsessed by a problem. They think there is a “Big Brother” who sits in Pretoria and wants to guide everyone along certain paths. That is by no means the case.

That is exactly what it is.

I can quite understand that that hon. member does not understand these things. I realize that it is quite possible that the hon. member for Orange Grove does not understand it at all. It is quite clear from his statements and his arguments that he does not realize what is going on at all. He comes to this House, however, and tells us that throughout the years there has been strife between the administrators and the City Council of Johannesburg. That is absolute nonsense! For years and years there has been only the best of co-operation between them. That hon. member can ask the hon. member for Jeppe about what his experiences were as mayor of Johannesburg. Throughout the years it has been nothing but a pleasure for the mayors to work with the administrator. In all the years there was never a time when the Administrator and the city council of Johannesburg did not work together wonderfully. There were no problems in any way. This clause provides that a city will, in a way, be given power. If they want to refuse it they can, as the hon. the Minister has just said, say they do not want it.

Will there be no trouble with roads?

I would advise the hon. member for Yeoville to stay out of this meeting for a while. The hon. member is going back to roads again. We are now busy with transport and not with the financing of roads. [Interjections.] The trouble is that the hon. member is not speaking to the clause. If he comes back to the clause I will answer him.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member for Langlaagte, one realizes why he was such a bad city councillor in Johannesburg. The hon. member says that he is unaware of the fact that there was strife. Perhaps I should remind him of one case—there were in fact many more—where the Johannesburg town planning scheme was overridden by the Administrator. Finally the Johannesburg city council took the case to the appellate division of the Supreme Court. Yet, the hon. member says there was no trouble. In many instances there was trouble over town planning decisions in Johannesburg. If that hon. member was unaware of what was going on around him at the time, I am afraid, I just cannot help him.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enter into this controversy. I may differ in my opinion on certain aspects …

Not with me.

The only matter that I am interested in at the moment is this: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister had to say and I am prepared to accept that, obviously, there should be discussions. But, quite frankly, as one looks through this entire Bill, one finds no reference to this question of consultation with the local authorities. One finds many cases where an Administrator is asked to prepare a plan, or the commission consults with the Administrator in preparing the plan.

The local authorities do the groundwork.

Yes, but you do not find any reference to it in the Bill. This is the point that we want to drive home. We accept what the hon. the Minister says will be the practical experience that will result from carrying out the terms of the Bill when it becomes law, but the fact is that if there is to be consultation at some level, it should be part of the legislation. [Interjections.] That is the situation. There must be some reference somewhere to the question of consultation. If there is no reference at all to that, we work on a basis where assurances are given that it should take place, but one does not know from individual to individual case what will take place. One accepts that everyone will work in the utmost good faith and will co-operate, and that is why I personally cannot understand why the hon. the Minister will not accept this amendment that there should be consultation at least at the particular stage where it is important and relevant to the attitude of the town council and it is also important and relevant to the acceptance of its responsibility. That is what I would like the hon. the Minister to look at. If he answers us it must not be by assurances, but rather by having something entrenched in the Bill which provides for the true situation as it should be carried out in practice.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

New clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

The amendment is aimed at excluding paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 5(1) which, in fact, are the basis of our objections to the Bill. We believe that these provisions impinge on rights and powers of local authorities which have been traditionally held by them. As a party we believe in decentralization of power. This Bill takes away power from local authorities and gives it to a central authority, in most cases the National Transport Commission. We cannot accept this. We do not like this idea of State centralized control in local authority matters which have been traditionally and very successfully handled by local authorities. During Second Reading the hon. the Minister made the point that if the State was providing the money they would have to have a say in how it was to be spent. Our attitude towards this is different. We believe that it is up to the State to lend the money to local authorities. We believe that the local authorities can do an adequate job in solving their own transport problems. We have no objection to metropolitan transport areas or core cities as such. That is logical. We do not believe, however, that because the State is the final authority, things will necessarily be more efficient. It has frequently been our experience that this sort of centralized bureaucracy results in considerable inefficiency. That is why we object to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 5(1).

I should like to move the second amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Paragraph (g) of clause 5(1) stipulates that the commission shall—

We in these benches believe that this provision is far too wide in its ambit. It gives the commission virtually unlimited power to do what it wants. The same arguments apply. We certainly do not support the inclusion of this paragraph in clause 5(1).

Mr. Chairman, again I regret to have to inform the hon. member for Orange Grove that we cannot support these amendments. If they were to be adopted, they would completely emasculate the whole Bill. If one takes these provisions out, one really need not pass the Bill. If, in fact, local authorities could do the job perfectly well—a job which they have always done—we would not be in the position where a commission had to be appointed, which had to sit for nearly two years and which had to collect the voluminous evidence throughout the country which is in the report before us. That commission recommended that there had to be co-ordinated planning of transport, and that unless we did that we would have traffic chaos in South Africa. The mere giving of money to local authorities will not solve the problem unless one has co-ordination. Coordination cannot be effected by a multitude of local authorities. If one removes these powers here, nobody then has the power to draw up policies, because only the commission can approve the final plan. One will create a Metropolitan Advisory Board, one will have an Administrator investigating and making recommendations and one will have a plan which has been recommended but nobody to implement it as a result of the teeth having been taken out of the measure. I really believe that the transport chaos in our cities is of such a nature that we have to act to deal with it. To remove these four paragraphs from the clause to my mind negates the whole object of this Bill. Apart from that, the United Municipal Executive has been consulted and it has accepted the principle of this measure. All four provincial administrations have been consulted and they have also accepted the principle of the measure, although with reservations here and there. We do not always agree with what they have accepted, but this is the heart of the matter. If the municipalities themselves are satisfied, and if all the major cities are satisfied—there was consultation; symposia were held last year, and there were months of negotiation—we are not going to oppose the granting of these powers for the theoretical argument that it is centralizing power. The cities themselves have clearly acknowledged that they cannot solve the problem, unless there is some co-ordinating machinery. Therefore we support the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what the hon. member for Durban Point has said and I want to thank him for the way in which he supports me in regard to the point of view which we seem to share in regard to this piece of legislation. If I were to agree to the amendment, I should be emasculating the National Transport Commission totally and watering it down so that it becomes a co-ordinating body. That is not the intention, and that is why I must insist that the clause must remain. I cannot stress enough to what extent there has been consultation with the local authorities, with the Administrators and with other bodies. I should like the hon. member for Orange Grove to tell me on whose authority he is speaking. I cannot understand on whose authority the hon. member is speaking. If he is speaking on behalf of Johannesburg, he must bear in mind that the City Council of Johannesburg has been present throughout at most of the discussions. The hon. member for Jeppe nods his head; therefore that is true. I therefore cannot understand on whose authority the hon. member is speaking and putting so many proposals to the House.

For the information of the hon. member for Jeppe, I want to indicate that if he looks at clause 13, he will see to what extent the local authorities have representation on the Metropolitan Advisory Board. They play their part in that board in which everything is initiated. Clause 16 indicates what is expected of the Metropolitan Advisory Board as regards to the Administrator and also to what extent the Metropolitan Advisory Board must advise the Administrator. That is why we cannot bring the local authority into the picture on every occasion and that, too, is why it cannot be expected of me to negotiate with the local authority. The matters which I have to deal with, I deal with on the recommendation of the commission, after consultation with the Administrator when necessary. The role of the local authority is interpreted by the Metropolitan Advisory Board through the advice furnished to the Administrator by that body.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important at this stage that I should make our position perfectly clear. The reason why local authorities cannot do the job at present, is because they do not have the sources of revenue for that. We believe that the urban taxpayers, who contribute the largest share to the national Exchequer, are not getting their share. We believe that more money must be made available to them and that there should be other sources of revenue. This does not detract from the argument that those local authorities should have a say as to how the money is spent. The hon. the Minister referred to symposia that have been held and said that there were no objections raised there at all. But there were objections. However, a vote was not taken at those symposia.

There were no objections at all.

The hon. the Minister says there were no objections at all, but I know that various provisions of the Bill were objected to and that there were reservations expressed by, for example, the United Municipal Executive. There is considerable support for this viewpoint, certainly amongst the people in Johannesburg, including many members of the Johannesburg city council. Therefore I am speaking for somebody when I express these viewpoints. The hon. the Minister must not say that I am not speaking for anybody. I am, and the hon. the Minister should know it. In case he does not know, I want to tell him that there is, in fact, considerable objection to many of the provisions of this Bill. There is also considerable objection to the centralization involved. I said it during the Second Reading debate and I say again that centralized control from Pretoria is an anathema to the people of Johannesburg; they do not want it.

Amendments negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Berea, Mr. Inspector Wood. I am sorry, I mean Mr. Lawrence Wood. I suppose I can be forgiven for that slip because the hon. member to whom I have referred has been blessed with the name “Inspector Wood” for some years and is known by that name on both sides of the House. However, the amendment printed in his name reads as follows—

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that a number of Statutes already on the Statute Book and which have been dealt with during the last 10 or 15 years, have this very provision, worded as we propose, viz.—

That is the essence of the point one wishes to make in proposing this amendment, namely, that it should not be necessary for the inspector to wait for this authority to be questioned, but rather that he should produce his authority when he does an inspection or carries out his duties. I notice, if it is some comfort to the hon. the Minister, that the hon. member for Bryanston on a previous occasion when dealing with the Plant Improvement Bill last year supported an amendment of this nature. In fact, he said he could not understand why the Government was not prepared to accept unconditionally the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Berea. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Drugs Control Act of 1965, the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1965, the Hazardous Substances Act of 1973, the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act of 1972, the Dental Mechanicians Amendment Act of 1972 and the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act of 1965 all carried this provision. Even the Health Bill, which went through the House very recently and concerning which a monumental task was accomplished by the commission, the hon. the Minister and all those with whom he had been in consultation, was amended to read similarly to the amendment I have now moved, namely that the inspector should exhibit his written authority when doing his inspection. For that reason I would strongly press the hon. the Minister to consider this very carefully and to accept it. I do not think that it diminishes in any way the purport of the Bill, the powers of the inspector and the appointment of the inspector. It does, however, make it absolutely clear that if an inspector enters any premises for any purpose in terms of this particular Bill or if he inspects any vehicle or whatever it may be, he must produce his authority and then he is able to carry out his duties. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment.

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

This has to do with clause 6(1)(h). I should like to read this clause. It provides that the commission may—

One must realize that in South Africa many urban transport undertakings are run by private enterprise and local authorities. This clause will enable them to pry into the running of such urban transport operations when they are in a situation of not even receiving any money from them. The effect of my amendment, which is to insert after “transport” the words “and receiving any grant from the fund”, changes the whole picture. I would think it reasonable that the commission could look into management practices if they were giving a grant to a local authority or a private transport undertaking. But if they are not giving the transport undertaking any money, why should they interfere. It amazes me that this clause presupposes that the National Transport Commission are experts when it comes to the whole question of management practices. It is not my understanding of the functions and operations of the National Transport Commission that they are experts when it comes to management practices. Certainly, in principle I would not quarrel with a situation where, if they are providing the funds, before they undertake to make a grant they look into the management practices and see that they are satisfactory. If they are not doing that, I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that they should not have the right to pry into affairs which are not theirs. I believe that the addition of the words “and receiving any grant from the fund” in clause 6(1)(h) would serve the purpose.

I now move amendments (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) on page 6, in line 49, to omit “and the Administrator” and to substitute:
   , the Administrator and the local authority
2. (3) on page 6, in lines 53 and 54, to omit “prior consultation with the commission” and to substitute “the consent of the Administrator”;
3. (4) on page 6, in line 55, to omit “Administrator” and to substitute “local authority”;
4. (5) on page 6, in lines 56 and 57, to omit “agreed upon by the commission and the Administrator and”;
5. (6) on page 6, in line 60, to omit “the Administrator and the commission” and to substitute “that local authority”;

These have to do again with the question of who has the power when it comes to giving permission to draw up plans, who alters town planning schemes and who decides on the question of bulk within the jurisdiction of any local authority. A normal local authority operation is to have town planning schemes. We believe that that authority should remain with local authorities. We do not believe that the Administrator, or in fact in this instance the commission, should have the final say on, for example, the bulk factor or changes to the bulk factor in any planned area. The arguments that would support this are again arguments that have been advanced earlier in this Committee Stage and I am not going to go over them all again. I believe that, as it stands at the moment, the plan is completely unworkable. If local authorities are to put forward town planning schemes and then Administrators are to be able to change those town planning schemes if they should want to, without even necessarily referring to the local authorities, we are going to have a completely untenable situation. I believe that it just will not work.

Mr. Chairman, before moving the amendment standing in my name, I should like to give our reaction to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. We support his first amendment, because we, too, feel that, if there is to be inquiry into and control over the management practices of a transport undertaking, it should only be in cases where that undertaking receives a subsidy or moneys from the fund. Otherwise it means that any transport undertaking which is operating in a metropolitan plan area can be investigated and have its management practices questioned irrespective of whether it is subsidized or not. We feel that this is a reasonable amendment and we support it. The second and third amendments are part of the principle which has been debated and I will not repeat our arguments. We oppose these because we believe that, if a plan is drawn up after consultation, that plan will have taken into account the views of all the people to be considered. We support the fourth amendment because here it is a question of enforcing a floor ratio. We feel that the person on the spot is in the best position to control and check on the maintenance of a determined ratio.

The local authority is there, it controls its area’s buildings, is responsible for its town planning and has the necessary inspectors to do the job. We do not see why an Administrator should have to send inspectors to a dozen local authorities to check that a ratio agreed upon and determined as part of a plan, is in fact being applied. It will create a new bureaucracy of inspectors and public servants, whereas the machinery already exists within the local authority to deal with that. We therefore support that amendment.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 again touch on the principle of centralization: in both cases the amendments bring local authorities back into issued on which they have already been consulted, and where, we believe, the Administrator is the correct authority to act as co-ordinater.

Amendment No. 7 has not yet been moved, but in order not to have to speak again, I want to state now that we oppose the deletion of subsection (6) as proposed. The next amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, we support. If the hon. the Minister needs any more persuading, we will come forward with a few more arguments and a few more inspectors to persuade him. Nevertheless, we hope he will follow the good example followed by his colleague in the examples listed by the hon. member for Jeppe.

I now move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

, taken in consultation with the Administrator,

I move this amendment merely as a matter of principle. The commission takes the final decision, but the Administrator is the coordinator and the person who deals with the local authority. We feel that he should therefore be brought into the final decision. If the hon. the Minister would look at subsection (2), he would see that it reads as follows—

Now, this is correct. This is the right attitude to take. We believe that where one has something as important and as far-reaching in its effect on local authorities, on transport in general, on traffic and on property owners as this measure—something which affects them directly, financially and in every other way—one should seek to get agreement and not have a dispute between the Administrator and the commission on matters so basic. Therefore we believe that the same principle contained in subsection (2), applying to ratios, should be applied to all aspects of the plan. If it is good in subsection (2), it should also be good with regard to any aspect of a plan.

We, therefore, move that if the commission and the Administrator fail to agree, the decision shall be taken by the Minister whose decision, taken in consultation with the Administrator, shall be final. We deem this necessary so that one can keep the co-ordinating authority in the picture, consulted and working together on the final decision.

If the hon. the Minister would like it that way, I am quite prepared to include “commission” as well, so that the Minister, the commission and the Administrator should take the decision together in consultation. I accept the argument that he put forward that if one has a dispute between two people, one of the parties to the dispute should not act as a judge. Let us have all of them in, and if the hon. the Minister will accept it, I shall amend my amendment. But let us have them all in so that it can be a joint, agreed decision and not something imposed on local authorities. I do not want to argue this matter any further. The principle has already been debated.

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

The effect of subsection (6) is that if a city or local authority which has, without consultation, been declared a core city, without consultation made a part of a metropolitan transport plan, does not carry out or perform any of the powers or functions conferred or imposed on it in terms of the Bill before us, the Minister, after consultation and recommendation of the commission, can, after written notice to that administrator or local authority, direct the commission to exercise or perform, or cause to be exercised or performed, such power or function and not only that. The commission may then recover from the Administrator or local authority the expenditure in connection therewith. Without adequate consultation, as far as I am concerned, without a process which ensures that local authorities have some sort of say in their own destiny, the Minister can say: “You do that and if you do not, we will still make you pay for it. We will get that money from you somehow or another.” We cannot accept it. We believe that this is absolutely unwarranted interference into, not only local authority rights in this instance, but also the rights of an Administrator. Therefore we cannot support the retention of this subsection in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall begin by dealing with the amendment of inspector Wood, the hon. member for Berea. This clause deals with the written authorization given to an officer of the commission to examine the books of the bus passenger transport service. What the hon. member is asking for here is that this authorization should be produced by the inspector. As the clause reads at present, i.e. without the amendment of the hon. member for Berea, he can produce it if he wants to and he must produce it if he is requested to do so. We discussed this same principle yesterday or the day before during the discussion of the Road Transportation Bill. My feeling is that it is sloppy to provide that a person should come along with an authorization in his hand when he approaches someone in connection with inspection work he is carrying out. It seems to me much more fitting that he should come to me and say: “I am an inspector.” If he wants to, he can produce the authorization if the circumstances warrant it. If not, I can ask him where his authorization is.

Why not give him a sheriff’s badge to wear behind his lapel?

That is what we do in the case of road transport inspectors, but in this case that does not apply. I should like to point out the impractical portion of the suggestion to the hon. member for Jeppe. When an inspector goes to carry out inspections at a bus company and has to produce that authorization, it means that to every officer, whom he wants to ask something, he must say: “Here is my authorization; I want this or that.” It would create a ridiculous situation. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Now I want to come to the amendments of the hon. member for Orange Grove. At this point I only want to speak about the first amendment. I do not want to speak about the others because I think I have already said enough about them. His amendment relates to clause 6(1)(h). The hon. member argues that when a subsidy is paid to a bus company, the commission must have the right to investigate the efficiency or otherwise of that bus service, but that it must not have the right when no subsidy is paid. What do we envisage with this legislation? What we envisage here forms one of the cornerstones of the legislation, i.e. the establishment of efficient public transport.

This does not involve the service; it involves the administration.

That, however, forms a part of the whole. If one aims at efficiency, there is no sense in saying that something like that can only be done in respect of public services that receive a subsidy and not in respect of the others. The hon. member’s other proposals have, to a greater or lesser extent, to do with the subject we have already discussed, and I really do not see my way clear to accepting any of those amendments. These provisions were drawn up with the utmost circumspection. There was consultation and consensus. Apart from the fact that I am hesitant about meddling with that aspect at this stage, I must, in all fairness, say that we must first give it a chance to work.

The same applies to the hon. member’s amendment which is aimed at the deletion of subsection (6). The hon. member for Orange Grove’s whole approach is one of reducing the effectiveness of the National Transport Commission and the Minister. He wants the powers of the Minister and the commission watered down. If what we envisage is not implemented, without a measure such as this we shall find ourselves in a checkmate position. It will then be impossible to implement what we envisage doing with the legislation, though we would want this to be implemented in some way or other. That is why the clause is there.

The last amendment is that of the hon. member for Durban Point. That hon. member asks for the insertion, after subsection 7, of “, taken in consultation with the Administrator,”. In other words, when the Administrator and the commission cannot agree on the aspects that are referred to in clause 6(1)(a) and (b), the position will be one of checkmate. So that progress can be made, this clause provides that the matter may then be submitted to the Minister. From the very nature of the case—and I want to emphasize this—the Minister shall and must consider the views of the Administrator and the views of the commission. The hon. member, however, wants the Minister, the Administrators and the commission each to be his own referee when it comes to matters that are in dispute. I, however, want finality. The hon. member says that if I am not satisfied with his “in consultation with the Administrator”, he is prepared to move “in consultation with the Administrator and the commission”. In other words, the Administrator the commission and the Minister must reach consensus. If we do not reach consensus, it would merely mean that we are back where we started.

You are a good diplomat, not so?

I think the point I raised during the Second Reading debate, i.e. that one should not make the party in a dispute a judge of his own case, still applies. For this reason I feel that it is best to leave matters as they are.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived and amendment (3) dropped (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived and amendments (5) and (6) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. Miller negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (7) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

I believe this is the correct level at which consultation should take place. I accept that it would, normally, take place. An Administrator would not act without consulting, but I believe it is wise that we should insert provision for that in the clause to demonstrate to anyone who is not involved or who is not accustomed to procedures between local authorities and Administrators that this is the course to be followed. I cannot visualize a study being drawn up without consultation; neither can I envisage a plan being drawn up or an investigation being made without consultation with those affected. My amendment imposes no additional burden, but merely puts beyond doubt the aspect that at this level the Administrator will co-ordinate and consult. I hope the hon. the Minister will not oppose this. If he does we will have to believe that he is not sincere when he says that there will be consultation.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage, having failed to have the amendments on consultation approved at other levels, we would support the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendment because we believe this would be better than no consultation at all.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to the explanation he gave me earlier, while dealing with this matter, with regard to the constitution of a Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, viz. that such a board would only be established after a metropolitan area has been created. With all respect I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the Bill does not deal with the question of consultation relevant to the setting up of a metropolitan area by virtue of fact that local authorities will be represented on the board. It is only when the metropolitan area has been established that a board is established for that area, and then there is representation for local authorities. The case which has now been presented by the hon. member for Durban Point really goes to the essence of the entire Bill, because this is the one occasion when it will be necessary to consult as this particular clause provides the necessary machinery for the investigation which will lead to the establishment of a metropolitan area. There must obviously be consultation at this stage. Here, therefore, the hon. the Minister has an opportunity to put into print and to entrench in the statute what he has assured us will actually be the position. In the interests of co-operation and goodwill which is so necessary for this very important measure, the hon. the Minister must accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Chairman, this clause was discussed specifically and in detail with the Administrators. Their attitude is that local authorities are, in any case, consulted and that it is not necessary to prescribe to the Administrators that local authorities must be consulted.

Dictatorship!

I am not prepared to prescribe to the Administrators, particularly not after the in-depth discussions on the clause. I also want to refer hon. members to clause 16(1)(c). As I have just said to the hon. member for Jeppe, clause 16 makes provision for the functions of the board, inter alia, that a board shall—

Exhaustive discussions have taken place with local authorities because they liaise with the Metropolitan Advisory Board and link up the functions of the Metropolitan Advisory Board and the Administrator at all levels in respect of the advice they give him.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not noticed that what I have just referred to involves the metropolitan plan? This clause refers to a study, an investigation or a plan in relation to transport. In other words, it is not only a metropolitan plan, but also a study or investigation in connection with transport. A plan is a larger concept than the investigation into a transport matter to which this clause refers. It does not only include a transport plan.

Mr. Chairman, in this Bill as a whole one cannot get away from transport. Any plan drawn up in terms of this Bill will therefore deal with transport. In other words, where mention is made of a plan, it would inevitably include transport matters.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—22: Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Noes—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; 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. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, clause 13 deals with the constitution of Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards. The two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper have to do with additional members who we in these benches believe should be on those Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards. The present membership is outlined in the clause. There is a profusion of civil servants and there are representatives from the commission itself, the Railways, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Planning and the Environment and the Postmaster-General. There are also representatives of the core city and local authorities. The only people who fall outside officialdom are the representatives of organized commerce and organized industry. One of the prime stratas of society affected by the Bill, is the motorists. We believe that motorists should be represented on a Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board. Because of this, I should like to move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I believe it is quite reasonable and I suggest that motorists, who are primarily concerned with this Bill, should have representation. Since organized commerce and organized industry, in other words management, are represented, I believe it is reasonable that one should also give representation to labour, and accordingly I should like to move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I believe it is fair and just that, if one is giving representation to management, the workers themselves should also have some sort of representation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Berea on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should also like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention once again to the fact that there are precedents in legislation for the provision of alternates. I want to quote a few to indicate to the hon. the Minister how wide the range is. The Unemployment Insurance Act provides for no fewer than eight and not more than sixteen members. The Minister may in addition appoint such number of alternates as he may deem fit. The Architects’ Act of 1970 makes it obligatory that there shall be an alternate member appointed in the same manner as a member of the council. The Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act also provides that the hon. the Minister may appoint alternates. The Bantu Administration Act states that there shall be alternates appointed. The Stock Exchange Control Act provides that “the Minister may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, likewise appoint an alternate member”. The Fuel Research Institute and Coal Amendment Act of 1963 makes the appointment of the alternates obligatory. Also the Universities Act (Act No. 61 of 1955) provides that alternates may be appointed. I am able to give this information because of the interesting research work done by the hon. member to whom I have referred. I think the hon. the Minister should take note of this, because in a board of this nature, it is always as well to have the fullest possible attendance in view of the important matters that have to be dealt with, an aspect which the hon. the Minister himself emphasized. The wisdom of appointing alternates is therefore that one will have continuity of interest and of knowledge, so that should a member not be there an alternate would represent him. Should a member of commerce, for instance, not be able to attend at least one of his colleagues could attend the meeting on his behalf. I think it would serve a very useful purpose. The precedents were quoted merely to indicate to the hon. the Minister that the House is well in favour of this procedure, and I hope the hon. the Minister will therefore accept the amendment.

May I further inform the hon. the Minister that as far as these benches are concerned, we support the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Mr. Chairman, if one looks at clause 13, one sees that it makes provision for the constitution of the board. I have not counted to see exactly how many members will be serving in that board, but as is apparent from clause 13(1), the board will consist of the members referred to in paragraphs (a) to (k). In some of the paragraphs even two members are mentioned. The result is that this will, in any case, already be a very big board. This board naturally deals with transport matters, as its name indicates, i,e, the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, which is appointed by the Administrator. The result is that transport matters, more than any others, will be the subject of discussion by this board, and not interests lying outside of transport. Under these circumstances I am therefore not prepared to accept the two amendments of the hon. member for Orange Grove, but I do want to point out to him that in terms of subsection (7) two additional members can be appointed if it should be necessary. With regard to the hon. member for Jeppe’s amendments there is likewise the argument that, to begin with, this board is already a big one and that in this legislation, as indeed in the Road Transportation Bill where we had the same arguments, no provision is made for alternates and neither do we regard it as necessary or desirable. Under the circumstances I want to ask that we leave the provision as it is at the moment. I think it will work very well. In fact, I think the board is already far too big. I would have preferred a transport advisory board such as this to have been smaller so that it could work more efficiently. However, one of the reasons why it is so big, is that all the local authorities have to be represented on the board in addition to all the other experts we should also like to have in the board, plus various representative departments. I personally think, however, that the board is already too big. I believe in a small board, and under the circumstances I do not think we must try to expand it even further.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. Miller negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

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

This clause deals with the publication of approved transport plans, and subsection (2) of the clause states—

Once again, I believe that this is a divisionable authority, which is unnecessary. I believe it should be up to a local authority to enforce a town planning scheme. This is in line with the arguments I have advanced in relation to earlier clauses, and I am not going to labour the point.

Subsection (3) deals with the contravention of these provisions and makes it an offence to contravene these provisions. It sets down a penalty of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months. We believe that it still should be the responsibility of the local authority to enforce penalties.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member moves that subsections (2) and (3) of clause 19 be omitted. This matter has been given thorough consideration and I should like to state that the Transvaal in particular insists that the provisions of clause 19(2) remain unchanged. They advance the following reasons for this. Supposing that in terms of the town planning scheme an owner has the right to construct a building of six storeys on a piece of land but that on publication of the approved transport plan, only two storeys of the building have been completed. If the land is then needed for the transport plan, consideration will have to be given to the fact that in terms of the town-planning scheme, the owner may construct a six storey building on the premises although it has not yet been constructed. Therefore, the clause protects the existing rights of a landowner but it also ensures that an owner who, in terms of the town-planning scheme, owns a building of only two storeys, for example, in a particular street, whilst all the other buildings are six storeys high, cannot claim that if the transport plan had not been approved, he would in fact have been able to build a six storey building. Experience in the Transvaal has taught us that whenever anyone, due to the nature of the position of his land and the rights to adjacent land, asks that the same rights that are applicable to the adjacent land also be accorded to him, such a request is approved virtually automatically.

Of course, subsection (3) is merely consequential to subsection (2). Therefore, if subsection (2) is to be retained, then subsection (3) must also be retained.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

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

What I envisage with the first amendment, is that the levy need not be the same in all cases. Certain problems have been brought to my attention with respect to subsection (1)(b). The question was asked as to whether the wording made it perfectly clear that a dwelling unit which, for example, formed part of a larger building in which there were also business concerns or in which business concerns were predominant, would also be exempted from taxation. That is why I am moving the second amendment. I believe that if we insert the supplementary wording as contained in my amendment, there will no longer be any ambiguity. I think that if we insert it, there will no longer be any ambiguity; in other words, any property which is not only used for private dwelling purposes but which is also intended for that purpose, will also be exempted.

Mr. Chairman, we shall vote against this clause, although we accept the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister. We have another amendment to this clause and we shall also vote against the clause as a symbolic protest against the hon. the Minister’s rejection of what we believe is a basic approach to this whole Bill. This is the clause which imposes the penalties, the levies which in fact are penalties on motorists—which will penalize them should they be forced, to enter into declared central business districts, or have to operate from CBDs or for other reasons have to make use of proclaimed areas which carry levies. It will be a penalty on property owners in the CBDs and it will be a penalty against people who provide facilities for parking and off-loading in order to keep vehicles off the road so as not to block or hinder traffic. We say these provisions may well be necessary, but that they should not be imposed until after adequate public transport which is efficient, quick, cheap, convenient and comfortable is available, because the passenger must first be drawn to public transport before one starts penalizing the motorist. The hon. the Minister has rejected that concept. He rejected it and our fear is that because the Government has no money and because the motorist is the convenient milk cow who is milked whenever money is wanted for any purpose—he already pays over R600 million per year to the State—he will be milked again. We are opposed to the motorist forever being the victim of more and more, and heavier and heavier taxation. So we shall vote against this clause to indicate our opposition to the Minister’s refusal to give the assurances that we have asked for, i.e. that this clause will not be applied until after public transport has been stepped up to meet the requirements of the public. I might add that if the hon. the Minister’s exhibition tonight of listening to the instructions given to him on each amendment in the form of directives why he should not accept amendments is any indication, it does not augur well for the motorist if he gets advice that he should in fact approve levies.

Must you always be petty?

No, I am not being petty.

You are childish.

If we receive replies to reasonable and helpful amendments, replies which have no bearing on the matter to which the amendments pertain, I am entitled to say that the Minister did not make a full investigation and did not give his full attention to the amendments. Therefore, we shall vote against this clause to record our opposition to the Government’s attitude to the motorist of South Africa. The motorists of South Africa will certainly take cognizance of the attitude of Government members. Their attitude to the motorists is typical of their respect and their feelings towards the motorist.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches will oppose all the provisions of this clause. I propose to move separate amendments to each paragraph in the hope that the hon. the Minister may have a little mercy in respect of one or other of the individual methods of taxing motorists. Like the hon. the member for Durban Point, we believe that this is an unfair and selective taxation on motorists. We also have a further objection. The levies are to be determined or approved by the Administrator concerned. When it comes to parking fees, for example, it will therefore not be the local authority that decides. It will be the Administrator who will decide how much the parking fees will be. The parking fees go towards the fund and this amounts to taxation by the Administrator about which the inhabitants of the area concerned have no say at all. I think we made our standpoint on this very clear in the Second Reading debate on this Bill and it is therefore not my intention to labour the point any further. I consequently move the five amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 20, in lines 36 to 40, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (2) on page 20, in lines 41 to 43, to omit paragraph (c);
3. (3) on page 20, in line 44, to omit paragraph (d);
4. (4) on page 20, in lines 45 and 46, to omit paragraph (e);
5. (5) on page 20, in lines 47 to 51, to omit subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

Our argument is a very simple one. This is an additional burden on the shoulders of the motorist. It is unfair; to tell the truth it is blatantly unfair because it is sectional and for that reason it is discriminatory. Every member of this House …

[Inaudible.]

Being an average taxpayer as well as a motorist, even the hon. member for Boksburg, and that is saying a lot, knows exactly what type of burden the motorist is already bearing. He is already stooping under this heavy burden. Therefore, we think that this additional insertion is absolutely unfair. That is why we view this additional levy as unnecessary and unfair and why we propose that it be deleted.

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

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe as it involves increased expenditure and accordingly requires the State President’s recommendation. I shall, however, allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of his amendment in an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to take over the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. In an effort to persuade the hon. the Minister to propose this amendment himself, I should like to point out to him that with regard to the contribution that the State is presently making, to a small extent, towards the rates and taxes of municipalities, a precedent has already been established in principle, despite the fact that the State is aware that it has considerable property and that these properties have hitherto not been taxable at the behest of the local authorities in terms of their rating ordinance. In this particular year the amount has been increased from R3½ million to R6 million, not entirely for relief to municipalities in respect of rates and taxes, but nevertheless partially for that purpose. I think the hon. the Minister is well aware that the United Municipal Executive has also made representations to him to consider the removal of these words from this provision to enable the levy to be imposed also in respect of State buildings in the various metropolitan areas where the plans will be put into operation. The point they make is a very simple one. They say that this issue differs entirely from the question of rateable property. It is not a tax that the State will pay by virtue of a levy that may be imposed. It will really be a service levy because the State will receive as much benefit and advantage as will any other building in the town. Therefore, they believe very strongly that the State should in some measure contribute towards the levies that will be payable to the local authorities together with all the other various bodies that will be so burdened with taxation.

I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that these representations have been made because they were made rather fully. They made one further point, viz. that the plan after all is a plan which will have been established by organs of the State itself as provided for in this Bill. Therefore, in bringing about of their own desire a special plan for transport purposes, they are not only serving a metropolitan area, not only serving a city, a town or a municipality, but they are also serving the country’s transport generally. Johannesburg is an excellent example because through Johannesburg passes the heaviest traffic imaginable from the south to the north. A very big burden is imposed on a big city like Johannesburg or even on a city like Pretoria. I would strongly recommend to the hon. the Minister to take into account that these levies, as determined or approved by the Administrator, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment may differ from case to case. In other words, if one is not able to obtain the full levy from an imposition of such levies on State property, by the removal of these words the hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of making representations to the Treasury to make the same gesture as has been made through the Public Works Vote towards rateable value of property in the various towns. Even if the entire levy is not imposed, a portion may, because the State property will have all the benefits that will be derived by any other property owner in the town.

The point that is made in the commission’s report is that a property, having been built under hitherto existing circumstances, where no account was taken of wider roads, where no provision was made for satisfactory parking, where no account was taken of the increase in the volume of traffic, the owners of those properties have gained value in those properties because of the larger piece of land occupied by such buildings and the larger floor space they have had for letting purposes. They therefore have a certain inbuilt advantage and because of this the commission felt justified in recommending that a levy should be imposed on these properties of, I think, up to 20% or 25%. The White Paper now recommends that this should not exceed 12%. It is certainly an important responsibility and burden placed on those property owners. Likewise, the State has also gained its advantages through the town planning system which has existed hitherto and by not making provision for the traffic situation. The State’s advantages are therefore also inbuilt and the increase in value has also been inbuilt. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to move for the deletion of these words. The power will still remain with the commission and the Administrator to determine what the amount of the levy should be. It could even be a gesture which would afford very great encouragement to property owners in the various cities to face the music in so far as the levies are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the motorist cannot deny the fact that he constitutes a considerable contributory factor to urban congestions. The motorist is already heavily taxed, but unfortunately he will also have to help carry the financial burden in order to solve the problem. If we cannot accept this fact, we are actually denying the whole essence of the investigation carried out by the Driessen Committee. We in these benches accept clause 21 because it penetrates to the heart of the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Maitland because unfortunately, that is the standpoint I have to adopt, viz. that if clause 21 is removed, then the heart will be taken out of this legislation. It is the heart which must pump the lifegiving blood to this legislation.

You are draining the blood from the motorist.

The intention of this legislation is that there be both encouragement and discouragement in respect of traffic. As far as possible, coercive measures should not be implemented. However, the motorist must be discouraged in one way or another from entering the city centre, but at the same time he must be encouraged to do something else. The same holds true for the buildings in the city centre. The hon. member for Durban Point need not be concerned that we will place heavy burdens on the motorist.

He wants everything but he does not want to pay for it.

Exactly. The hon. member for Durban Point need not be afraid that we will place heavy burdens on the motorist without creating alternative transport facilities. Those things will work together hand in glove. Clause 21 must remain unchanged, however, otherwise we might just as well abandon this Bill. It would have no teeth and then we would definitely not achieve what we were striving for.

I shall now reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe.

Order! His attempt at an amendment.

Yes, his attempt at an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to tell the hon. member for Jeppe that the matter he has raised, has been discussed expressly and specifically in the Cabinet. In the Cabinet the conclusion was reached that the clause should be left unchanged in the Bill. I want to tell him that it really does not make any difference, except for a psychological aspect here and there. I want to come back to the provisions of clause 21. Initially, it was the intention and recommendation of the Driessen Committee, firstly, that all the cars in the country be taxed in order to cover the costs involved in this urban transport scheme; secondly, that all the cars within a metropolitan transport area be subjected to additional taxation to cover the costs involved; and thirdly, that cars entering the city centre be taxed extra because they are the real scapegoats.

Why scapegoats?

We have already thrashed out the matter. What is the cause of congestion in the city? Is it people, buses or trains? No, it is cars! It is cars and nothing else that cause the congestion in the cities. Do we have to argue this further? The Cabinet then decided—this has been recorded in the White Paper—that we did not want to tax those people who lived a long way from the cities. Moreover, it was decided that we did not want to tax all the people simply because they were in the metropolitan area, but that the only levy on cars which should remain, was the very one which was applicable to cars which cause the congestion in the city centre. That is why the provision remained in addition to the other provisions which provide for levies on buildings and so on. All this has to serve to discourage the traffic which causes congestion in cities. Under the old dispensation we should have had to have collected the entire amount of R92 million, as recommended by the Driessen Committee, by means of taxes of that nature. The recommended figure, however, has been reduced to an amount of R52 million and of this only R8 million will be obtained by means of levies and taxes as provided in clause 21. Therefore, R44 million will still have to come from the Treasury in one way or another. That is why my question to the hon. member for Jeppe is the following: What difference does it make whether the Government is taxed in one way by paying the balance or whether the Government pays the total anyway, the balance plus the tax which it would have paid in any event? The upshot of the matter, therefore, is that it really makes no difference and I do not believe I ought to argue the matter any further.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has been pestering us the whole evening with a request that the local authorities have a say in the matter. I wish the hon. member would be consistent. Now that the local authorities are imposing the tax, the hon. member says that we cannot hold them responsible for this and that it is the Administrator who ought to be held responsible for it.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Amendments (2) and (5) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 22:

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

Clause 22 deals with the further powers of authorities and my amendment has the effect that the second portion of the clause, subsection (2) should be omitted. Subsection (2) provides—

That is fair enough, but it then reads—

We believe this is unfair, because if the land has been paid for by the local authority, we feel the local authority should get the benefit of any revenue that may accrue as a result of the letting of that land. I may say, for the benefit of the hon. the Minister, that I am supported in this viewpoint by the United Municipal Executive.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the hon. member is moving this amendment. After all, it is obvious that the body which has incurred the costs involved in acquiring the land or building needed for the execution of the transport plan, is entitled to the revenue which accrues from its use. The hon. member says he is talking on behalf of the United Municipal Executive. According to my information, the United Municipal Executive has expressly asked that this clause be inserted and therefore I can see no sense in omitting subsection (2). It is there at the request of the United Municipal Executive.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

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

This clause deals with the liability of a local authority or any person in the State, and is, in fact, a blanket indemnity to all such employees. We have seen a similar sort of indemnity offered to State employees in Bill after Bill that has come before this House. We do not believe that it is necessary that there should be such indemnity specifically in this Bill. Our legal advice is that the State or the local authority could not be held responsible for negligence, provided an act has done in good faith. On the other hand we believe that the State has a certain responsibility if there has been negligence. I know that the legal advice given by the Government law advisers to the hon. the Minister and others, at one stage was that negligence was not covered by this indemnity. I believe they have changed their ideas on this and now admit that there is complete indemnity, even in a situation of negligence. I would therefore like to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that provisions to the contrary notwithstanding, where such exercise or performance is proved negligent, the local authority concerned, the State or the commission shall be liable for compensatory damages.” I think that this is only fair. If somebody suffers damage because of the negligence of an employee of one of these authorities, I think he should be entitled to get it. I see no reason why there should be no liability on the part of these authorities in a situation of negligence. If they were carrying out a duty—and I find it difficult to think of a situation where this might arise—and damage is done to property through no negligence on their part, there may be a case for exemption from liability. However, in this instance I can see no case at all.

Mr. Chairman, we are quite amazed at the line taken by the hon. member for Orange Grove. If he had been in the House when we discussed the Bill dealing with civil defence, he would have remembered the arguments that we put up in respect of a similar amendment which was moved by his party in respect of that Bill. There we completely cleared the air in regard to the question of negligence. What we said there was that if one eliminated negligence from this provision, the provision would have no validity whatsoever. There are only two bases for fault. One is dolus and the other is culpa. If one takes away negligence, which is culpa, one is left with dolus, which is intent. If one is acting with intent, one is not acting bona fide. The clause actually provides that a person in such an instance “… shall not be liable in respect of anything done in good faith … ” If one takes negligence out of the situation, one gets back to where we, in fact, want to go. We want to eliminate this clause altogether. Quite frankly when we picked up the Bill and read clause 26—I am speaking to the hon. the Minister as a lawyer; he too is a lawyer and therefore knows what I am talking about—we were quite amazed. In fact, we became horrified when we realized the true import of this particular provision. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Algoa is not here, but the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is a lawyer, is here and I hope he will have something to say about this provision as well. The reason why we are amazed about this provision is the fact that when one looks though this whole Bill one finds that it is simply a Bill providing for administrative machinery. It provides for the administrative machinery in order to control urban transport. There are other forms of administrative machinery which control urban transport and which we have at the moment. I am thinking of the regulations which are made in terms of the municipal ordinances with regard to, for instance, traffic control. One finds that in those ordinances there is no indemnity clause at all indemnifying the local authority, the Administrator, municipal employees or whomsoever against any actions that are taken. That is why we were completely flabbergasted when we found that in this completely ordinary administrative Bill there is a provision dealing with exemption from liability.

I want the hon. the Minister to understand that we are being as careful as we possibly can about this particular provision. We supported the Indemnity Act which was passed during the early stages of this session, except of course that we objected very strenuously to a provision in that particular Act which placed the onus on the claimant of proving mala fides on the part of the State or its servants. We objected to that very strongly. However, we supported the indemnity provision in the Civil Defence Bill because we felt that in the relevant cases not only was there protection in that there was a provision for bona fides to be proved by the State when a claim was made against it, except for the Indemnity Act of course, there was also protection in the light of the fact that such action was taken because there was either a state of emergency or a state of disaster. We realized that the normal human being will act in a particular way when he thinks it is in the interest of the State as a whole and that he may possibly overlook the normal precautions that a reasonable man should take. Sir, we supported that.

Here, however, we can find no reason whatsoever for supporting this particular provision. Firstly, we considered the rights of the individual, and the rights of the individual should be balanced against the interests and the rights of the people as a whole as represented and epitomized by the State. We find that it is in this sphere of public law and administrative law that there is the greatest threat to the private interests of the man in the street. I think that the hon. the Minister must realize that we are dealing with a very delicate matter. We have to realize the implications of passing a clause of this particular nature. It is in this sphere, too, that the greatest care must be exercised if we are to try and maintain the equilibrium between the public and private interests. This Bill, as it is set out here, seems to create grounds of justification for acts which would otherwise be wrongful in that they infringe on private interests. In terms of the Bill, such acts will be condoned provided they are committed in good faith. In other words, if an act is committed in good faith, it is protected by this Bill although it infringes on private interests. We have a conflict here between private interests and public interests. Nowhere in this Bill is there any provision for a state of emergency or a state of disaster such as I have referred to. It is an ordinary Bill which will operate in a planning sense; in other words, foresight care and consideration will be required. I cannot imagine any circumstances arising whereby the person who is acting in terms of this particular Act need not act with care and consideration.

This Bill is unique. I have searched through numbers of Acts to find a similar situation. I must admit that I did find one, viz. the Post Office Act, where there is a provision which indemnifies the State against any loss of postal matter while it is in transit. But that is a particular circumstance which has no real relation to what can transpire here.

Finally, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must remember the basic principles in regard to the consideration of the reasonableness of actions taken in terms of the administrative law. The first one is that such act must be performed in such a way that no obvious injustice is done to anybody. Secondly, the powers of the authorized person, acting in terms of that Act, must be interpreted so as to burden as little as possible the persons affected by that administrative law. Thirdly, there should be no discrimination amongst people affected by the exercising of the powers given under that Act. Finally, the action of any authorized person must not be arbitrary.

We have the State Liability Act of 1957, which clearly indicates that the Government and the State are prepared to accept that the State is responsible in respect of contractual obligations in terms of which the State may well be liable, and in respect of wrongs committed by servants of the State acting within the scope of their authority. I believe that if the hon. the Minister looks at the particular provision with which we are dealing very carefully, he will find that it clashes completely with the normal considerations that one should apply in regard to the rights of the individual and the rights of the State carefully and evenly balanced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a plea for the elimination of this clause in its entirety. What it entails, however, is that the local authority or the State or the commission or their officials will be exempted from liability if they act in good faith in the execution of their duties in terms of this legislation. In other words, wherever there is deliberate action, they will be held responsible for it. I do not want to agree to the deletion of the clause. However, I will give the hon. member the assurance that I shall take a careful look at the plea he has made. If I am convinced that it has merit, then I should prefer to introduce an amendment to that effect in the Other Place. I do not feel inclined to agree to the deletion of the clause now, however, because that would mean that if, after due consideration, I decided that it was in fact to be retained, I would not be able to put it back into the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the assurance given by the hon. the Minister, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to record my regret that when we try to make constructive and non-contentious contributions in order to improve a measure, we are met with what appears to be an arrogance of thinking which indicates that anything anyone else proposes is wrong. We regret it. We shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill as we did the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches, having proposed a number of amendments which the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to approve of, must continue our objection to the passing of this Bill. Basically, to summarize, our reasons therefore are that it centralizes power and control, that it infringes upon the proper functions of the local and regional governments and also that it accepts the principle of an increased, selective financial burden on urban dwellers and on motorists. We will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in South Africa’s history the State is playing an active role in an attempt to deal with the urban traffic problem. I think this is a step to be welcomed. We on this side of the House are pleased that this is being done. I have no doubt that those hon. members who are voting against this Bill this evening, will live to regret their action.

Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry about the attitude the hon. member for Durban Point is adopting. He apparently feels hurt because I did not accept his amendments, more specifically the amendment to clause 7. I could not accept them, however, because they are not in line with the standpoint I have adopted in respect of local authorities. In that regard, I just want the hon. member to reread clause 16. The hon. member says I am wrong, but if he reads clause 16 once again, he will be convinced that the spirit of the legislation as a whole is that the Administrator is the father whilst the local authorities are the children. The local authorities are those bodies which, via the advisory boards, do everything which the Administrator requires of them. The Administrator can ask them in the advisory boards to do those things for him, those things for which he is requesting the authorization. It makes sense. It is petty of the hon. member for Durban Point to vote against this vital legislation because of that consideration. I have been criticized for the legislation in certain circles, simply because we want to pull the local authorities’ chestnuts out of the fire on behalf of the Government. In terms of the legislation, the State is now taking over those responsibilities which concern matters which the local authorities have not done down the years. The entire country has approved and acclaimed the legislation. I do not know on whose behalf those hon. members are speaking.

On behalf of the Progs.

That is why they will be cast into the outer darkness.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.