Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public Bill.

Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment of the debate last night the hon. member for Johannesburg North had just completed his speech. I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I do not react to what he said. The times simply does not allow me to do so. When one considers the contributions by hon. members of the Opposition to this debate yesterday—and we have had the opportunity of analysing their speeches and thinking them over—it reminds one of a story which I read recently. It is the story of Sister Monica, a nun who broke her Order. She wrote a book in which she relates how she did this. In the book she says that it used to be her task to scrub the priory, clean the walls, the floors, the windows, etc., as part of her duties as a nun. She goes on to relate her recollections of how, after spending some time in prayer, she finally decided to quit. She describes how, walking to her room one night in the company of the Mother Superior—in the gloom of the huge building in which she had lived since childhood—she looked through the window and saw the sunset. Looking at the glory of the sunset over western France—I think it was—she said to the Mother Superior: “Look!” The Mother Superior looked and said: “Yes, Sister. I see the windows are dirty. We must clean them tomorrow”. This story reminds me of hon. members of the Opposition. They look at a department like this, a department which is dealing with things that are positive, with nothing that is negative, a department that is doing its best in all fields of endeavour to improve the social life of South Africa, and what do these hon. members see? They see only the dust particles sticking to the windows of the department. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I shall rather not listen to the hon. member for East London North. I do not accept any criticism from him. He wants to run away from South Africa anyway. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I shall substantiate my statement by quoting from the Hansard report of the provincial council, Volume 85, 17-27 May 1977. That is the Hansard of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province. I was speaking and said—

Here I am referring to the hon. member for East London North—

Mr. Malcomess: Yes.

†Mr. Chairman, I am not going to waste any more time on hit and run politicians.

I want to talk about the National Monuments Council. Just like the Department of National Education, the National Monuments Council links the hands of succeeding generations by way of preserving our past. Its function is chiefly to reflect the times and to give a permanence to our country’s form. The National Monuments Council stands in defence of our heritage. It controls over 1 000 monuments, all monuments of great importance.

I now want to read from Civilization by Kenneth Clark. On page 1 he quotes John Ruskin, who said—

Commenting on Ruskins words, Clark goes on to say—

That illustrates the importance of the task which is performed by the National Monuments Council in linking the hands of the generations and in providing the milestones which give us perspective. With a staff of only 11 people and a tiny budget, I think of only R118 000, the National Monuments Council carries out a tremendous task throughout South Africa and South West Africa. I can think of no other similar expenditure, with the possible exception of the hon. the Prime Minister’s salary, which has such a profound effect on life in South Africa. By way of comparison, the Cultural Museum in Pretoria alone has a White staff of 62 and a non-White staff of 20 or 30. When one bears this in mind, one can understand what these 11 people—and that includes typists, tea-boys, bookkeepers, and so on— have to do and the profound effect they have upon life in South Africa.

The scope of this council has increased enormously. They have moved away from the mere protection of artefacts, and are now protecting landscapes and even our natural environment, as we saw recently with the declaration of the beachwood mangroves and the promulgation as a national monument of the agricultural land in Constantia. Their activities in the industrial environment have increased as well. Here one thinks of the way in which they have protected our mining heritage. Therefore, their scope of control is widening. The assaults they have to deal with are gaining in intensity and in scope. Having said that, one asks oneself what we can do or what the National Monuments Council can do to protect those things in our society that we wish to protect. One can of course do what we are doing now and, as I have shown, that is being done admirably. One can buy or encourage other people to protect by way of proclamation those things which we want to have preserved. That is, however, to an increasing extent becoming impossible financially. The greatest threat to the artefacts, buildings or landscapes takes place when there is a change of land use, and the concentrations of capital which create a conflict situation usually occur at the point of development. Therefore it is clear to me that if we want to protect, we must plan far ahead. And, Sir, we do; the Department of Planning does an enormous amount of planning a long way ahead. Nevertheless, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the National Monuments Council be made far more intimately involved in that planning process. They are at the moment involved, for example as far as quarries and archaeological work is concerned, but they should form part of the planning function, because conservation has become a planning function. I should like to point out that this will not be expensive to implement. In fact, it will be expensive not to do this. By way of illustration, the Greater London Council spent £200 million on cleaning the lower reaches of the Thames. Had this been properly planned in the first place, this operation would not have been necessary.

I should therefore like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to see to it that the National Monuments Council is accepted far more, not only as a social and cultural body, but as a planning authority and that the council is restructured to make it more multi-disciplinary so that it can itself understand the kind of situation in which it operates and finds itself.

In conclusion I should like to say that I am very proud of what has been done by the National Monuments Council in particular, and by the department in general. I do feel, though, that we must redouble our efforts in order to demonstrate our faith in the future. I can think of no more fitting time in our history than the present time for us to demonstrate our faith in the future. I should like to quote what Clark has to say on this question of confidence—

He then gives illustrations of that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the positive contribution by the hon. member for Maitland in connection with the National Monuments Council. I am sure the hon. the Minister will attend to that.

There is not the slightest doubt that the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education will play a vast role in the development and advancement of South Africa during the next quarter of a century. In fact they will be compelled to fulfil such an important function. I know that the extension and development of the CATEs is regarded by the hon. the Minister, by this hon. House and by the department as a matter which is in the common interest, and that, what is more, it must enjoy high priority. The proof of this positive contribution and favourable attitude appears clearly from the phenomenal development of the CATEs during the past two years. The contribution for the fiscal year 1975–’76 was more than R13 million, and during the past fiscal year it was over R15 million. It has increased from R3 million in 1968–’69.

I am also grateful to learn that a new subsidizing formula is going to be instituted for the CATEs. At present, the CATEs are being subsidized according to a formula determined on a revenue basis. From the beginning of the 1978–’79 fiscal year, the subsidies of the CATEs will be based on an estimate of the number of students who enrol, as is the case with universities. The subsidy will be paid on that basis.

I am pleased about the approval of a new, improved salary scale for the lecturing staff and I trust that it will come into operation soon.

It is also interesting to learn that a countrywide survey has been made of the staff position at the colleges with a view to raising the standard of education of the college lecturers, inter alia, by means of further training.

For the information of this hon. House I should like to mention that at the Free State congress of the National Party last year, a draft resolution from my constituency was discussed, a draft resolution in which the hon. the Minister was urgently requested to consider the establishment of a college for advanced technical education for the Free State in Bloemfontein. The hon. the Minister then set out the specific criteria which are applicable in the consideration of requests for a college for advanced technical education, and said, inter alia, that the college for advanced technical education is normally established in a large metropolitan area with a strong and affluent local authority and influential employers’ organizations to support it. Closer liaison among the employers, commerce, industry, the authorities, and the colleges for advanced technical education is indispensable. Their multifarious interests necessitate a large polytechnical institution, an institution which is large enough to ensure economical sizes of classes and a continuity of courses. A centralized development is essential to make possible the concentration of lecturers and students and the utilization of the laboratories, the expensive equipment and the library facilities.

I was sincerely grateful that the hon. the Minister mentioned the following factors which are in favour of a CATE for the OFS. Firstly, Bloemfontein is the educational centre of the Free State. The Freestaters generally lend their support to their own educational institutions. Secondly, Bloemfontein is a metropolitan area and it is the junction point of the transport network. Thirdly, Bloemfontein already has a technical college, namely the Free State Technical College which has already been offering tertiary education for a considerable time and which at present has the necessary accommodation to ensure additional tertiary courses without heavy capital expenditure.

I was particularly pleased to learn that the department is already attending to the need for a college for advanced technical education in Bloemfontein, but that further investigations are still necessary before a decision in principle can be made. I was also delighted that the extension of the tertiary work in the existing college is being considered. I should like to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that all bodies and persons concerned in Bloemfontein will assist and support the hon. the Minister and that they have only to be called upon. I know that he will give constantly attention to this matter, and trust that such further investigation and consideration will have positive results.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we are all agreed that every one of us must build on and for the future of South Africa and that he must involve everyone in South Africa in this, also our retarded people who in certain respects have talents that are different to, and better than ours, talents which are also necessary for South Africa. Therefore it is our duty to meet their needs as well. Fortunately, it is encouraging to know that the Government and our people want to build on this future and are already engaged in doing so. Sometimes they are even engaged in it without doing so. An outstanding example of that was the inauguration towards the end of last year of the new, modern and unique school complex of the Martie du Plessis School for cerebral palsied persons in Bloemfontein. It cost more than R2 million to establish. That school, too, was born out of the efforts of people who were prepared to render unselfish service to the retarded person, and therefore, indirectly, to South Africa. The fact that this school was able to carry on for almost six years before it was declared a Government-supported special school, is an example of the spirit of service to one’s fellow man displayed by the people of Bloemfontein and the Free State.

But we ought never to forget the contribution by the Transoranje Institute for special education. That is the management body of this school and of four other schools, namely the Transoranje School for the Deaf, the Prinshof School for the visually handicapped and the blind, the Transvalia School for Epileptics, and the Sonitus School for the hard of hearing. This institute, which consists of members of the three Afrikaans sister churches, does a tremendous job and collects funds which are of crucial importance. Most of these former pupils are also successful people who take up their places in society and who make a contribution to our national economy and therefore to the building up of South Africa. If there are people in South Africa who have doubt about the future, because there are difficult times ahead, I want to tell them that they can derive courage from those retarded people who have overcome their difficulties and obstacles.

Mr. Chairman, all that remains for me to do is to reply to a few of the hon. members who participated in the debate. In the first place, I want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein East for his positive contribution. I want to tell him that we shall assist where we can as regards the establishment of a College for Advanced Technical Education in Bloemfontein. We should like to see such a college being erected as soon as is practicable. It would be a pleasure to see such a building and college being established in Bloemfontein. Therefore he may rely on our sympathetic co-operation as far as it is possible to give such cooperation in practice. I also associate myself with the other important points made by him and I particularly want to endorse that I personally have often derived inspiration from the manner in which handicapped people are enabled to make a contribution with the talents which they have. As I have said in this House before, I believe that few of the hon. members in this House would be able to make a comparable contribution in that particular field.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Maitland for his positive contribution in connection with the National Monuments Council. It is indeed an excellent council. That body is very active and quietly does an excellent job of work in the Republic of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that I shall consult with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment about greater involvement in planning. The hon. member has had talks with me about the matter. I share his view that it would, from the nature of the case, be a good thing if that council, now that it has reached its present stage of development, could have a greater share in planning. I do not have the slightest doubt that that hon. member’s very positive idea will have far-reaching and important consequences and implications in the interests of building works in South Africa in future. I want to thank him once again for his contribution.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Alberton in which he made a very positive contribution in connection with our external radio services. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I do want to point out that I owe him a debt of gratitude for having focused the spotlight on the excellent service which the SABC is rendering to the outside world. It is a service which is comparable—and I say this because it is true—with the very best in the whole wide world. Many thanks to him for his contribution.

The hon. member for De Aar made a fine and positive contribution in connection with culture. Something which really pleases me, is the fact that over the past two years we have had very interesting, lively and positive contributions on this very important subject of culture in this the highest council-chamber in the land. In the past there was the tendency that whenever culture was being discussed in this House, an apathy descended on the House as though there were no interest in the subject. I am grateful that a change has set in as far as that is concerned. Many thanks, therefore, to the hon. member for his contribution.

I think that after I have reacted to the next speech, I shall have reacted to all the speeches by hon. members to the best of my ability in the time at my disposal. The hon. member for Johannesburg North dealt with a matter I know is very near to his heart. He can speak with authority on the plastic arts. He wanted to know from me how it was possible that the plastic arts received so much less Government assistance than the performing arts did. This is a very wide subject, and I do not want to go into the matter in detail now. I give the hon. member my assurance, however, that I shall investigate the whole matter. While it is clear that the performing arts—from the nature and the extent of the field covered by them—have far wider functions and therefore receive Government assistance for several reasons, it seems to me that the hon. member has made out a case for looking into the plastic arts. If I find that that is indeed the case, I shall discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance in order to ascertain whether we can bring about an improvement in the present state of affairs. I thank the hon. member for having made a positive contribution on that note with regard to a matter about which his knowledge—unlike his knowledge of politics—is good indeed.

I want to conclude by expressing my sincere thanks to everyone who participated in the debate which, in my view, was a good and constructive debate, one with the theme “We are building for the future”. When South Africa acquired a Republican form of government in 1961, only those favoured by heaven could have formed any conception of what was awaiting the young Republic during the first two decades in all spheres of society. People who ask today whether we have a future, merely have to look at what has happened during the past 20 years and then they will realize the answer to their question is: “Of course, we have a future”. In fact, we have a wonderful and excellent future here in the Republic of South Africa. All that we have to do is to build and to work hard.

Since our becoming a Republic, we have had to consider afresh whether the previously existing systems of primary, secondary and tertiary education were meeting the requirements of all the communities in this country. We can tell one another today—I say this without fear, especially in view of the fact that someone from abroad told me just the other day that often we were too modest and were evidently suffering from an inferior complex—that our educational system is one of the best in the world. I wish I could convince the hon. members sitting over there of this as well so that they, too, may become proud of South Africa. This has come about after our becoming a Republic. Let us be proud of this, and let us say so.

In order to make a person fully able to render service, the nature and content of his education must be of high quality. Let us all help to achieve this. Then we shall be surprised about the results. In the 20 years since our becoming a Republic, the implementation phase of school education has virtually been completed and a period of consolidation lies ahead, a period in which we shall give guidance throughout on the basis of research. In the field of tertiary education, we have made excellent progress. As regards universities, we have had an excellent, monumental investigation in the form of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission and at present we are implementing the recommendations contained in its report. Hon. members heard what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East about the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. These institutions are on the eve of a new golden era with many possibilities. So as far as tertiary education is concerned, all is well in South Africa.

Community education through the agency of technical colleges and institutes, is constantly being extended. New visions are opened virtually every week by people working in this sphere with inspiration and terrific enthusiasm. Success is being achieved to an increasing extent in mobilizing the community through the agency of voluntary organizations to become actively involved in the advancement of culture. In spite of the freezing of our cultural agreements with the Netherlands and with Belgium, it is true—as the hon. member for Bellville pointed out yesterday—that there is a growing interest in an exchange of scholars and students with other countries. This is especially the case as far as the Latin American countries are concerned. I wish I had the time to read from the reports which land on my desk, reports by people who have paid visits to this country. If hon. members can see what a positive approach those people have, how they see South Africa after they have visited our country, and subsequently hon. members still doubt whether we have a future, I can tell them that there are people abroad who have no doubt whatsoever on this score. So it is a disgraceful thing for people in South Africa itself to have doubts in this regard.

The performing arts, television and the radio have become powerful instruments to increase the cultural experiences of the nation. The influence of television on our future still has to be gauged in full, but if it is used correctly—as is being done at present, even though the industry is still in its infancy—it is going to be one of the most important instruments in the future set-up of the Republic of South Africa. There will inevitably be criticism and there must be criticism, because that makes of television in South Africa an incisive instrument, as it ought to be.

I conclude by expressing two final thoughts. We are proud of the fact that we are able to build a future in this country. The instruments are ready to be used with a high degree of efficiency to work out a new dispensation in all contexts of life, a wonderful and safe future for all in this beautiful country of ours.

Finally, I want to express a thought which means a great deal to me personally. To all teachers, to all involved in education, and all associated with the news media, I should like to express my gratitude for the good work which they are doing. The same applies to Dr. Van Wyk and the officials of the Department of National Education. I have become fond of them. They are people who work with enthusiasm and the greatest possible devotion, sometimes day and night. I have no words to thank Dr. Van Wyk, the quiet, grey-haired man who is simply always there to exert his strong stabilising influence, for his support and assistance. I can just tell him that this whole House and the whole of the Republic of South Africa appreciate what he is doing; only they do not always know how hard he works. But we know, and therefore we say thank you very much. This House should also like to express its gratitude to Dr. Meyer, the chairman of the Board of the SABC, the controlling body, the Director-General of the SABC, Mr. Swanepoel, Mr. Yssel and all others associated with the SABC and TV.

In spite of all the criticism which they have to endure every day, these people are making an excellent contribution and they are building in the interests of South Africa. We sincerely appreciate what they are doing. I should also like to express my gratitude to all the officials who assist these people. If we would only work according to the criterion of our Lord: “I wanted to do so much for the Master. I wanted to do great works for Him.” Then he said to me, “Just look around you. Who would then do the small works?” Then I said, “But this little place is trivial and no one will know that I am serving, no one here will know of my love or be able to see the light of my lamp.” “Just think,” said the Master, “so it was more or less with me, too, because Nazareth was not exactly big and Bethlehem was not really known throughout the world.”

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 12.—“Sport and Recreation”:

Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to start this debate on sport and recreation in a very different way and in a different light than the one we have just concluded. I want to make a short statement because I think it is necessary in view of what the outside world is, undoubtedly unsuccessfully, trying to do to South Africa. I shall prove it during the discussion which is to follow. It is obviously of paramount importance that we shall look at our sport in South Africa from a South African point of view. Following on a memorandum presented to me by the South African Sports Federation, I therefore appointed a working committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Sport and Recreation, Mr. Hoek, to investigate and report on the state of sport and physical recreation amongst all the population groups in South Africa. This report—which has since become known as the Hoek Report—is a document which is intended as a working document for my department with a view to providing an effective sport and recreation service for the whole of South Africa. It is a very good report; there is no question about that. It is a milestone in our sporting history in South Africa. Because of the fact that it is a working document, it is not considered necessary to release it for general publication, but the report will be released to all national controlling bodies of sport and departments involved. I shall also make it available to the spokesmen of the Opposition parties, provided they will deal with it in a responsible way. In any case, if they do not, we shall deal with them here in the House.

In view of the field covered by the investigation, certain recommendations were submitted to me by the committee to improve the functional efficiency of sports administration by the Department of Sport and Recreation, as well as the S.A. Federation and the S.A. Olympic and National Games Association. Some of these recommendations are already receiving the attention of my department, the S.A. Sports Federation and the S.A. Olympic and National Games Association with very good results.

An important recommendation is the clear demarcation of the functions of the S.A. Sports Federation and the S.A. Olympic and National Games Association. Whereas in the past possible uncertainty existed in regard to the exact functions of these two important sports bodies, it is a great pleasure for me as Minister to report that after discussing the recommendations, separately and thereafter jointly with the two bodies, a spirit of cooperation and understanding has emerged, to such a degree that uncertainties of the past regarding their respective tasks and responsibilities no longer exist. This new approach augurs well for the future of South African sport and recreation.

Although it is not possible to do justice to such a comprehensive report by means of a statement, I do regard it necessary to draw attention to certain matters which will now receive, and is already receiving, further attention: The expansion of the services of the Department of Sport and Recreation. I might add that the Cabinet Committee is considering whether this department should not also be a service department to other population groups in the White part of South Africa; the streamlining of the existing umbrella sport structures; the introduction of an umbrella recreation structure; the structural and functional strengthening of the national controlling bodies of sport; the introduction of a Trim scheme by the Department of Sport and Recreation in conjunction with local authorities; the establishing of training facilities for sports and recreation leaders; the rationalization in the use of existing sports and recreation facilities; and the construction of extensive sports facilities at national, provincial and regional level. This last aspect I shall discuss in a few moment’s time.

Some of the recommendations put forward by the committee will necessarily require additional financial assistance by the Government, but after discussion and approval by the Government, it was decided that as progress is made with the implementation of the recommendations, the Department of Sport and Recreation will follow the normal procedures when requesting additional funds from the central Government. I wish to emphasize that the Hoek Report contains no recommendations which cannot be dealt with by either me or the Department of Sport and Recreation in the normal course of events.

I foresee that the successful implementation of the recommendations contained in the report is possible only if a co-ordinated effort is made by the Department of Sport and Recreation, the S.A. Sports Federation, the S.A. Olympic and National Games Association, provincial and local governments, together with the active support of all South African sportsmen and sportswomen.

Lastly, if we tackle the whole question of sport in this fashion, I can tell hon. members now straight that the outside world will undoubtedly not succeed in what some of them are trying to do, because we shall then build up by ourselves such a strong sports body in the Republic of South Africa that it will be absolutely invincible. That is what we are all trying to do.

By hook or by crook!

Yes, by hook or by crook.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement and I should like to thank him for making the report accessible to hon. members of the House. In particular, I welcome the new thought which appears to be contained in the report—which we have not yet seen—i.e. that the services of the Department of Sport and Recreation should be extended to cover facilities and sporting affairs of all races in South Africa. We are very pleased that there appears to be a new spirit in providing new facilities for sportsmen in South Africa. I cannot comment further than that until I have studied the document when it comes. If the hon. the Minister’s response is, in fact, as positive as his response is in the House, I am sure he will receive support from us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to claim the privilege of the half hour. As with many aspects of South African life we have seen quite rigorous changes over the past 12 years in the sporting scene. It seems only yesterday, although it was 11 years ago in April 1967, that the hon. the Prime Minister told Parliament that inside South Africa there will not be mixed sporting events irrespective of the proficiency of the participants. On this there can be no compromise, negotiations or abandonment of principles.

Despite this closed door approach, as South Africa’s isolation grew, so the Government’s concept of multi-nationalism in sport developed, albeit side by side with restrictions, official warnings and even a certain amount of confusion. After 1970 lonely South African sportsmen began to assert themselves and inter-race contact on the sporting fields escalated apace. It was an ad hoc escalation and not a planned one. This ad hoc escalation rapidly outpaced Government policy and contradictions and misunderstandings abounded. In September 1976, in an attempt to get around the ad hoc development of the sporting policy and to clarify and advance matters in sport, a new sports policy was announced. This policy extended the multinational concept right down to club level. Mr. Bob Stuart, a sports administrator in Johannesburg, issued a little publication under the title Multi-National Sport-Where does the Club Stand? Incidentally, I see that it has been approved by the Department of Sport and Recreation. In that booklet he expressed his view in the following way—

But this new policy did not stem the drive to refrigerate South African sportsmen, nor did it provide the catalyst that was needed to unite finally our country’s various sports communities even though the policy did open the way to certain major advances. By now rugby, tennis and various other sports bodies were under heavy pressure, which resulted in the hon. the Minister’s declaration in February, this year, which was issued specifically for consideration by the International Tennis Federation, but which was of general application to other types of sport. It dealt with four basic areas of dispute. Firstly, it announced the opening up of all clubs and fields to all players; secondly, it opened the way for mixed spectator seating and facilities; thirdly, it introduced an ingenious method for sports clubs to avoid some of the provisions of the Liquor Act; and, fourthly, it pledged a fair spending of public money on the various sports types. In spite of all the defects which that declaration contains, I believe it represents yet another advance in Government thinking. By way of compliment I want to say that I note with pleasure the hand of the hon. the Minister in the bringing about of this new attitude. I believe this attitude has been achieved in the face of obstacles and opposition from both the left and the right and from groups both within and outside the NP. However, I want to ask whether this new attitude, as expressed in this letter, goes far enough, firstly, to normalize sport in the true sense of the word and thus make it possible for sportsmen of all colours within South Africa to co-operate and, secondly, to pull the carpet out from under the feet of those outside our country who wish to force South Africa into total sporting quarantine for political reasons.

I should like to deal for a moment with the last point mentioned in the hon. the Minister’s February letter to the ITF regarding the spending of money on the promotion of sport. The published figures relating to public spending in sport are baffling, to say the least. This year’s budget reveals a sum of R127 000 to be voted for the promotion of Black sport. Last year an amount of R78 000 was voted. However, a few weeks ago, in contradiction of these figures, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations stated that R31 527 had been spent last year from public funds by his department. To add to the confusion, his most recent report quotes a figure of approximately R10 million, a large proportion of which money was spent on salaries, administration and allowances. In so far as Coloureds are concerned, last year an amount of R100 was voted, which allocation has been retained for this year. Despite that, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations told us in February this year that R107 000 had been utilized last year in promoting sport. The Department of Indian Affairs makes no provision whatsoever for sport and recreation, and yet, according to an answer given by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, it spent some R5 000 on two sport sorts during last year. The budget for White sport has been set at R2 624 000.

Of course many not easily identifiable amounts are spent annually. I think for instance of the White provincial councils, who have spent millions of rands on sports facilities for the children in the schools and in various other institutions. I think of municipalities who, again, have spent millions of rands for White sport and for sporting facilities for Coloureds and Indians within their municipalities. I think of the amount set aside in the Defence budget for sporting facilities for the members of the Defence Force. I think of the amounts spent by the Railways and the Plural Relations Boards, within the Black townships, by the Coloured Representative Council, the Indian Council and the Department of Community Development. In all these departments there are hidden amounts of money which over the years are spent on sport, and this is readily conceded. And it is a great deal of money. But it makes the piecing together of a composite picture almost impossible. What is clear is that up to this time there have been and still do exist gross inequalities. In reality, discrimination in a form still does exist. It has not yet been completely eliminated. Also, there has been little or no co-ordination in the spending of that money. I say that in our interests and in the interests of all South African sportsmen, an end should be put to this state of affairs as soon as possible. There is only one answer to the problem, and that is to terminate the mass of bureaucracy which is involved in the spending of State funds on the promotion of sport. For instance, to allocate an amount of R2 197 000 to salaries and allowances in the Department of Bantu Administration, under the heading “Sport”, is really iniquitous and gives a totally false impression altogether of the activities of that department. To give real meaning to the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister to the International Tennis Federation, the Government should co-ordinate the spending of all public funds in the furtherance of sport, regardless of race, under one department. Furthermore, the Department of Sport, without interfering in the control of sport by sports bodies concerned, should extend its activities so as to provide a full service and a benefit for all South African sportsmen.

Among many reasons there are three particularly good reasons for this suggestion. Firstly, in these times, duplication of governmental sports agencies, administrations and governmental decision-making bodies is wasteful and confusing. Secondly, sport throughout the world and increasingly so in South Africa, is colour blind. In fact it should be the game that matters and not the race group of the participant. Thirdly, only under one department can the inequalities which doubtless do exist, be eliminated. The slogans which are used by us and the hon. the Minister himself, slogans such as “merit selection” and “equal opportunity in sport”, mean little and perhaps even nothing while the lack of facilities such as equipment and coaching ensure that many sportsmen can never aspire to excellence and can never aspire to a standard in terms of which merit selection means something to them. It is the urgent duty of the hon. the Minister to remedy that state of affairs.

Now, I would like to turn to another matter, to an incident which occurred in the full House a few days ago. I believe that the undignified outburst by the hon. the Minister a few days ago during question time, and the implications arising therefrom, cannot escape mention. I believe that it might assist the hon. the Minister in regulating his behaviour in future if I stated clearly to him my party’s standpoint and our attitude towards public debates on issues related to sport. Our objectives are severalfold.

Firstly, it is our goal to do everything properly possible to provoke, to aid and to speed up the normalization process in sport in South Africa. This, for the benefit of all sportsmen, who are interested, not in race, not in groups, but rather in getting on with the game. Secondly, it is our aim to assist South African sportsmen to the limit of our ability in our country’s efforts to get them back into international sport.

When one realizes that even if and when sport is completely normalized, we will yet have to combat what I can only term as international hypocrisy in politics, which will, no doubt, try to use sport as a lever against the Republic on a broader front, the enormity of the task which lies before us can be understood. However, we must get our priorities right. Our first priority is to put our own house in order. That is our first priority. It is to eliminate political restrictions, to eliminate discrimination wherever we find it, and thus to make it possible for South Africans of good will, White and Black, to play sport together on equal terms and free of official interference.

Thereafter, once we have achieved that, the fight for international acceptance of South African sportsmen stands at least a chance of success. I can understand and I can even sympathize with those South African sportsmen—mainly Blacks—who say that normal sport cannot be played in an abnormal society. They have for generations suffered from lack of acceptance, lack of facilities and lack of competition.

I must, however, say straight away that I cannot agree with them or support them in their standpoint. If that standpoint prevails which prevents the normalization of sport in South Africa, thousands of young people of today will be denied the privilege of making inter-race contact and sporting progress on the sports fields for the next so many years. Similarly, we carry no brief for the outsiders who seek to use sport as a stick with which to beat South Africa. But, Sir, having said that, this does not mean that the Government may not be criticized. On the contrary, the very essence of democracy is public criticism of Government action. No matter how difficult the situation may be, such criticism is, I believe, vital in the interests of South Africa. We cannot be seen as a nation of sheep, blindly following the Government, blindly remaining silent, whether they are right or wrong. Accordingly, I questioned the hon. the Minister in regard to a decision made administratively, not by sportsmen, but by a Government agency, to exclude all except a handful of officials from attending a multiracial soccer match in a Black township. In a prepared answer the hon. the Minister gave as a reason for this strict limitation that because of limited spectator accommodation, Black spectators should receive preference in regard to such accommodation. Now, Sir, this was a highly controversial and public decision. It was known all over South Africa and the world over, firstly because it required the Police Force to enforce it, and secondly, because it appeared to clash with what had been stated as declared policy as recently as 21 February. That policy was that as far as spectators are concerned—and I have the relevant letter before me—by arrangement with the Department of Sport and annual clearance could be obtained for attendance. Furthermore, the letter of 21 February implied clearly that such clearance would be granted. Not by the furthest stretch of the imagination could permission granted to only 30 officials of a club be construed as an overall clearance for general public spectators. It was my duty, Sir, to query this, and I did. I believe that the hon. the Minister would have done exactly the same, and probably a lot more, had he been in Opposition. Let us look at a particular case. We all know that Ellis Park could over the years at the time of rugby test matches have been filled twice over. Because of this fact, has it ever happened that a certain class or limited group of spectators has ever been barred from Ellis Park? For instance, because of the fact that Ellis Park was too small to accommodate all those who wished to see a rugby test match, did the Transvaal Rugby Football Union, the Government, or even the municipality, ever give preference by saying, “residents from the Transvaal only”, and barring any supporters from the Free State from buying tickets for that match? Of course they did not. Why then, Sir, discriminate in such a way as to exclude White supporters on the grounds of colour? It was my duty to query this discrimination, and I did so. Furthermore, Sir, we say that the question of spectators should be left to the sports administrators to decide, and not to the Government.

On 23 September 1976 the NP stated its policy. Point 8 of that policy reads as follows—

The decision taken a few days ago was in direct conflict with this policy statement, and I believe it was my duty to query this official interference by the Government in the affairs of sportsmen contrary to its own policy.

If by raising these issues publicly I can contribute in any small way to the cessation of the unpleasant incidents which occur as a result of the political errors made by the Government, I will have done South Africa a lasting service. I will also have helped to push the Government just a little further out of its racial cocoon and a little closer to accepting true normality in sport. I cannot be concerned with whether the Government was embarrassed at all; what I am concerned about is that the sportsmen of South Africa are not embarrassed by these silly decisions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it was to me disappointing—and I say this in all humility—that, on finding his decision indefensible and his position indefensible, the hon. the Minister should have resorted to throwing a tantrum and hurling what I consider to be undeserved personal insults across the floor of the House. I believe that in keeping with his stature—and I believe the hon. the Minister has a stature—he should rather have provided the information and thereafter have examined his own actions with a view to avoiding similar mistakes again. That is what he should have done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move on to one or two other problem areas. Although several aspects of disagreement between us in regard to sports policy have narrowed, there are still certain matters of principle outstanding on which we differ. One such matter touches on paragraph (b) of the Minister’s letter to the International Tennis Federation, which reads as follows—

This heralds a new method of opening up clubs and club matches to all races. It also marks a milestone in what is becoming a new way of life in South Africa, and that is that normal activities may be conducted provided the necessary permit has been obtained. There are three major pieces of legislation which apply. Firstly, there is the Group Areas Act which relates to the occupation, even temporarily, of sports fields, premises and the like. Then there is the Liquor Act which licences premises for use, by a specific racial group. As soon as a mixed group is present on licensed premises, unless the individuals have a permit, that group is contravening the law. Then, of course, there is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act which applies mainly to amenities provided by public bodies such as municipalities, and certain details of that Act require separate facilities and the like.

The way in which these obstacles are being circumvented is by making it possible, in most cases, for blanket permits or special exemptions to be obtained. While some people—and a large group of people—see the extension of the permit system as a step forward, I think it is my duty to report to this Committee that there is a very large body of opinion, both within and outside South Africa, which regards it as an injury to self-respect and dignity to be able to enjoy ordinary, normal, inoffensive privileges, as human beings, only by way of special permit. I am one of those who welcome change. I believe that when change comes it will surely lead to greater change in the future. I have consulted widely, however, and although I admire those people in sport—and say thank you to them—who are what I would call the bridge-builders, the Rashid Varachias of this world, it is as plain to me as the nose on my face that there will be no final coming together of South African sportsmen, which is a prerequisite for South Africa’s full re-entry into international sport, until the permit system is done away with, together with the restrictive laws which make that system necessary.

Hear, hear!

There is one other matter I should like to mention. In this country there is an organization known as the S.A. Council of Sport. Some members may not have heard of it, but nonetheless Sacos, as it is called for short, is a very influential body. It is affiliated to the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and has the ear of many world bodies, including the International Olympic Committee. It is at least partially politically orientated. In South Africa it is powerful in tennis, through the SANLTU, in soccer, in cricket and strong in rugby through its newest affiliate, Sara, etc. There are many other sports I could mention. In nearly all the cases where disputes are keeping sports bodies from combining on a non-racial basis, a Sacos affiliate is one of the parties concerned. Three weeks ago, whilst the ITF was visiting South Africa, Sacos issued what it called a Charter of Normal Sport which Sacos demands must be adopted before sport is taken out of the political arena. Much of what was said in that document, I believe, is somewhat unacceptable. I am thinking particularly of its style of language, its peremptory demands, perhaps even its dictatorial tone. I want to quote, however, just one or two things that it states—

Then there is a reference to schools—

So they go on. The demands made are for immediate application. The point they make is that, unless these demands are acceded to, there will be little or no co-operation in the future with other South African sportsmen.

Even though there is much that is, I believe, acceptable in that charter, I do not think that any sports body or even the Government would lie down in the face of immediate demands. What I do say is that, within the framework of what we and South African sportsmen as a whole believe, a lot can be done fairly quickly in line with this charter and also in a spirit of fairness, which action will only benefit South Africa. For instance, let us move away from the permit system to a system in terms of which the sportsmen can decide whom to play with, on what premises and in what circumstances.

Looking at this body which is causing as much difficulty as is being caused anywhere in the South African sporting scene, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot speak to the hon. the Minister of Justice and ask that the senior members of Sacos who have been banned—there are one or two—be unbanned. When the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development wanted to have a proper election held in Soweto, he went to the hon. the Minister of Justice and said: “I need these people released in order to get the election off the ground”. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he would consider talking to the hon. the Minister of Justice to get those members of Sacos who have been banned unbanned.

“Banned” is the wrong word.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he wants to suggest or thinks even for a moment that those people have been banned for reasons that have to do with sport? He must be stupid to think that.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Justice is not in the habit of explaining why people are banned. Very often people are banned and are later released without ever knowing why they were banned in the first instance. The point is that those members of Sacos are leading administrators of sport who are making it exceedingly difficult for South African sportsmen to get together What I am asking is that the hon. the Minister take the matter into hand to make it possible for those people to try to get together.

Then there is the question of passports. What have we got to hide? Various people have had their passports taken away because South Africa is frightened of what they might say as sportsmen overseas. Give them their passports and let them do their worst, because we in South Africa are doing something that is good and therefore we should not be afraid to hear from other people as well. If we want to improve the situation, let us also allow schools to decide their own fixtures without pressure from either the Government or the hard-line element on the other side. Let the schools decide for themselves whom they wish to play against. Let us not allow the situation to continue where one administrator turns a blind eye and the other takes a far right-wing stance. The hon. the Minister could do much, for instance, to prevent the Bantu Administration Boards and several municipalities from using fields and facilities as weapons, as has been done in Port Elizabeth against Sara, the rugby people, and as is reportedly being done in Pretoria against the South African Soccer Federation people. I say that we should move away from the position where the Government decides who may play and who may be seated where. Let us leave this matter to the sportsmen. If this is done, if a start is made along these lines, South Africa will be on the road to real, normal sport. Then re-entry into world sport and world competition becomes a feasible proposition.

Finally, I wish to direct an appeal not to the hon. the Minister, but to the people of Sacos. I say to them: Look anew at what is being done in South Africa in the field of sport; admit that there has been in the field of sport real progress and that that progress has been brought about by sincere people who want to normalize sport in the interests of all of us; work with those people, the sportsmen and the administrators of goodwill, who want only that everyone should have a chance to enjoy themselves and to reach the top. I say that they should realize that real, normal sport is nearer than they think.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton spoke for about two minutes before he asked for the privilege of the half hour. Standing Order No. 76(1)(c) provides quite explicitly—

I have allowed the hon. member the privilege of the half hour, but I shall not make an exception under similar circumstances in future.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can begin the 1978 sport debate on a more positive note than by mentioning that exemplary little chap who has won two international golf tournaments in the space of two weekends: Gary Player! When we honour Gary Player here, we are not only doing so because of his achievements, but also because of the example which he sets the sportsmen and administrators in South Africa.

Here and there during the course of his speech, the hon. member for Sandton gave me the impression that he was well disposed towards South Africa. However, I must say at once that it is very difficult to draw an uninterrupted line through his speech, because in some places in his speech he indicates that they are also prepared to make some sacrifices in the interest of sport, but immediately afterwards he makes the criticism that due to the policy which is being followed here, it is impossible to practise sport in the way they wish it could be practised in South Africa.

There is one very interesting question—I shall not say complaint—which the hon. member had, inter alia about the letter of 21 February 1978 which the hon. the Minister wrote to the chairman of the delegation of the International Tennis Federation, asking them to investigate the position in South Africa. I want to point out to him that after these people had been to South Africa, they identified three problem areas. After the three problem areas had been identified, they contacted the hon. the Minister. He was asked whether it was possible for us to do something about it. Without introducing any change of policy in South Africa, the hon. the Minister could give a reply which sufficed to eliminate the three problem situations.

However, the hon. member says that it seems to him as if we are not going far enough, especially as regards paragraph (c). He says it seems as if we are not prepared to go the whole way.

There is one very big difference between this and that side of the House, a difference which may perhaps not seem very serious, if we look at it superficially. This side of the House is responsible for maintaining order at public meetings at various places. After the policy had been modified according to the eight points which the hon. member also mentioned, the hon. the Minister once described the modification as follows—

Whenever we on this side of the House take measures with a view to preventing disorderliness, we have objections from that side of the House with monotonous regularity. This has been so from the time that the hon. member for Houghton was the only member of that party in the House, right up to the present day. When this side of the House comes up with measures to regulate meetings, we are attacked. However, when we come to a situation where a soccer match is arranged at which some people cannot be allowed, the Government is blamed. It is our responsibility to ensure that the disturbances referred to by the hon. the Minister will not occur. Critical reference is made to the playing-field concerned, which is only big enough to accommodate 30 people of other races.

Why has there been such an increase in the interest taken in soccer by those people? There are three reasons why it has increased. Firstly, there is the natural aptitude for ball control which we find amongst them. We enjoy their game and admit that they have a natural aptitude for ball control. Secondly, there is also the training which has been assisted by the department and private sponsors who have made their contribution in order to make it possible for that sport to be practised. Thirdly, the Government has also made it possible for those players to look forward to playing in international matches. As a result of these three aspects, soccer has developed so much that today it is no longer possible to allow everyone who wants to enter this particular stadium to do so.

The hon. member asked why we did not give each person the opportunity to decide for himself where to sit and where not. In this regard we do not differ very greatly from him, because we give everyone a separate seat, but an equal one, especially as regards the entrance, the exit and the seat itself. In doing this, one ensures that those who come to a sports meeting in small groups have an equal right to be there.

Separate, but equal?

Yes, separate, but equal. The facilities are separate, but absolutely equal. In this way the smaller group also has the opportunity to attend sports meetings like everyone else.

America tried it and it did not work.

In practice it works extremely well.

Most probably there are hon. members who are not tennis lovers, but they would do well to go and see how matters stand at Ellis Park and then come and tell me whether they received any complaints in this regard.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Sandton did not avail himself of the opportunity today to mention the annual report.

He does not even know about it.

As recently as yesterday, that hon. member thought fit to criticize this report in a Press statement. He tried to criticize the report because it allegedly failed to show what planning was being done to keep South African sport on an international level in the future. In the years he has been in the House, has the hon. member not yet learned the difference between an annual report and the Hoek Report, to which the hon. the Minister referred a moment ago?

This annual report is not a blueprint for the future; it is a report of the occurrences of the past year. When I take a closer look at this annual report, I can find only one fault with it, and this is that we are appropriating too little money for the department to be able to do its work. This is the only objection which I can raise. That is why I want to congratulate the department on having succeeded in doing such excellent work with the limited means at their disposal. I feel every official of the department deserves a compliment because, in spite of the lack of funds, they succeeded in doing particularly good work. There are spheres, in spite of everything, where there is sufficient agreement between the hon. member for Sandton and myself to make it unnecessary for us to be angry with one another simply because there is a difference of emphasis between us.

One of the biggest problems which we experience in the sporting arena in South Africa today is the fact that we are to a large extent, excluded from international participation. It is not imperative that we should have certainty about international participation so that we can develop sport in South Africa. There are many challenges ahead, because we do not yet qualify for international participation in many types of sport. There is also the challenge of reaching a level where we can qualify for international participation. One of the dilemmas which we are experiencing at the moment is that in spite of the fact that we are a sports conscious country and in spite of the fact that we live in a geographic area which enables people to spend too many hours in the open air, participating in sport, and in spite of the many branches of sport which are offered, there are still problems due to a lack of co-ordinated planning by official as well as voluntary bodies. This should receive urgent attention today.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to afford the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Hillbrow. Concern has already been expressed in the past about the fact that South African sport must largely be administered by overworked voluntary sports officials. There is a feeling of frustration and desperation about the fact that there are simply not enough hands available to do all the work. This complaint is made by all sport administrators, without exception. As a result of a lack of part-time administrators, planners, technical staff and researchers, amateur bodies simply cannot handle the extent and problems of sport in the Republic in an efficient way any longer. The present way of training sports leaders, i.e. the coaches, administrators, officials as well as the participants, has already been investigated carefully and a shocking conclusion has been reached. The conclusion has been reached that, inter alia, there is a serious lack of administrative skill amongst our sports leaders. Of course, we have a great deal of appreciation for those people who are paid for their time and who devote all their energies to sport. Secondly, the conclusion was reached that the overall sport programme of the Republic, at every level, needs efficient, professionally trained leaders. There is unfortunately no coaches’ or sports leaders’ profession in South Africa with whose standards people have to comply. There is no system of registration or grading. Scarcely 30% of the national sport control bodies make provision in their structure for a separate division for training coaches. Thirty-six per cent of these sporting bodies have indicated that there is no training system in their sport. Others have said that they do in fact have some training, but due to a lack of funds they cannot make use of the facilities which may exist. There is no overhead national sport training plan in South Africa which complies with the requirements of availability, quality, continuity, certification of qualifications and professional security, and that is why I think the time has come for us in South Africa to take a new look at this. Then I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to give very urgent attention to a well-organized, scientifically based sport and recreation training system in South Africa. If a system like this were established, our sports coaches and officials could qualify in order to improve the standard and quality of South African sport in this way.

Earlier on in my speech I conceded that one of the problems which this department has had over the past year has been the lack of funds, and for that reason I think we should express our appreciation for the way in which the private sector has served sport in South Africa over the past year by means of sponsorships. Applications to the Department of Sport and Recreation for financial assistance by the sports control bodies increase by the year. This aid is sought not only to be able to arrange larger events, but also to contribute towards overhead organizational and maintenance costs. Sponsorships are essential to enable sports bodies to offer programmes. Membership fees and admission fees must be kept at a realistic level in order to prevent players from being bought out of sports. For this reason, I ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the possibility of granting the necessary degree of tax relief to those people in the private sector who consider acting as sponsors. I am sure that some of these bodies would be only too pleased to provide the necessary sponsorship in that event.

I want to conclude with just one thought about the RSA Sport Trust. This trust was founded in 1975 by the national sport administrators to serve as a dynamic coordinating organization for collecting funds to expand sport in South Africa. We must accept that the State cannot provide sufficient funds to carry through sport projects of a high priority and of national importance. The South African sportsmen and sportswomen have therefore decided to help themselves. Last Thursday evening I had the privilege of attending the inaugural meeting of the RSA Sport Trust and there I once again saw the enthusiasm amongst the sport administrators and sportsmen. They want to give something back in return for the great benefits which they have received from sport. The RSA Sport Trust functions independently of the Department of Sport and Recreation and has already been registered as a non-profit-making company. The trustees have been announced. They are all people within the sporting sphere. The RSA Sport Trust aims at financing the establishment of sporting facilities on a national, regional and club level, training and coaching projects, championships and international liaison. When the new trust was announced, it was ascertained that there are approximately 1,4 million people in South Africa who have a direct interest in sport as participants or as officials. Membership of the RSA Sport Trust costs R10 per year for 10 years or one payment of R100. If all these people are involved, we will be able to spend a total of R140 million per year on sport and the promotion of sport. I think that since these people are making such a praiseworthy attempt, we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister to ask the Cabinet whether it is not possible for the State to bear the administrative costs which the RSA Sport Trust may incur, as a return for the work they are doing. If those of us who are interested in sport want the RSA Sport Trust to do its work across the colour bar in South Africa as well, I think it is the duty of every sport lover, and of every one of us sitting here who takes an interest in sport, to apply for RSA Sport Trust. I want to set the example on this side of the House. I have here with me my application form for membership of the RSA Sport Trust, which I have already filled in. I hope my example will be followed by other hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Bethlehem touched on a whole series of matters. I should like to support him in the plea he delivered for the training of coaches. He commenced his speech by paying tribute to South Africa’s great golfer, Gary Player. Last year in the same debate I concluded my speech by paying tribute to a great rugby team in South Africa. This team notched up a brilliant achievement over the Easter weekend. All the Tukkies around me say that they want to pay tribute to the Maties for this!

If I analyse the speech by the hon. member for Sandton, then I am really at a loss. He wanted to give some praise and I think at times he was inclined to lean over in our direction. However, he would have made a much better speech if there had been more incidents in the past year. Our policy has been implemented, people have been playing their sport and there have been no incidents, with the result that the poor hon. member for Sandton really does not have much to talk about. I want to ask him to agree with Advocate As Burger, who, according to Die Vaderland, said the following yesterday—

He went on to refer to people who were deliberately undermining sport in South Africa. If the hon. member for Sandton wants to help us, he must take action against the people who betray South Africa and who undermine our sport. If we can show these people up by means of the policy of the NP, there will be no problems at all and we shall be allowed to compete internationally. The issue is these people who betray us and not the few minor things to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member said we should abolish all control over school sport. But surely it is right for the school principals, the school committees and other bodies to be able to take their own decisions. Surely this is how school matters are arranged. Does the hon. member want us to simply throw everything open and to allow things to take their own course? After all, we are living in an orderly community where these things must be controlled. I am sorry, but we cannot go any further than this.

However, I should like to address the Committee on a very contentious, and in my opinion, a very topical subject—I want to call it a problem situation really. It concerns adequate sporting facilities. When discussions are held with sporting and recreation bodies, there is always one aspect which comes to the fore, an aspect which creates a serious problem for them, even up to a national level. This is that there is a lack of adequate and suitable sporting facilities. I am aware of the financial position in which the country finds itself, but it is against this very background that I want to ask that our first priority should be to ensure that we shall have full, optimum utilization of the existing facilities which have been created at great expense by the educational authorities, local authorities and private bodies. The problem in this regard is to be found in the fact that the aforementioned bodies often plan injudiciously and without co-ordination. Everyone is blinded by his own needs and consequently does not take the rest of the community into consideration. Even if these facilities are used for a few hours a day or night only, and are unused for the remaining hours of the day, or even for the rest of the week, petty excuses are advanced as to why another section of the community, or people who play another sport, cannot use them. I want to address a very serious request to the hon. the Minister, viz. to initiate negotiations in his capacity as Minister of National Education and of Sport and Recreation with all the various bodies with an eye to the joint use of existing facilities, for instance school halls, community centres and other recreational facilities. We in South Africa will have to learn, in the field of sport as well, that we must not budget and go for the luxurious, but that that which we do create must be functional and utilized to the full. I believe we must guard against, in the field of sport as well, the creation of white elephants which actually are of no value to us.

Another very important matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, concerns the development of our sports policy. I believe that a serious problem has been identified, viz. the absence of properly planned and equipped stadiums throughout South Africa at which multiracial sports meetings can be staged. At the moment officials and the police have to handle extremely explosive situations under very difficult circumstances. Let me say at once that this is not because we bring together players and spectators from the various population groups. It is due to the fact that there are simply too many spectators for the stadiums we have today. The stadiums at which meetings are staged—soccer and other kinds of sport—simply cannot accommodate the vast numbers of spectators who turn up. It is true, and we have to face up to this, that the essential security aspects for both players and spectators are lacking. I believe that multiracial meetings have given a new dimension to South African sport and that this will be increasingly so in the future.

I still believe sport to be a powerful means of establishing sound human and national relations. In that case, however, it must be practised in the right atmosphere. We cannot allow people to come to Hartleyvale in their thousands to watch a soccer match and then not have room for them so that they are unable to gain admission. We must naturally expect there to be problems if a person has taken all the trouble to go to a stadium to see his team in action and he is refused admission. We cannot delay this matter any longer, and I consequently want to deliver a very serious plea for funds to be placed at the disposal of the Department of Sport and Recreation to establish facilities which meet the required standards. No one likes jostling and trampling. When I go and watch a rugby match, or whatever match it may be, I do not want to be jostled or trampled. I also want to ask that we should no longer involve our police in sports meetings.

I want to point out another aspect, and that is that we must prevent spectators from getting on to the playing area at the stadiums which we establish. I very strongly disapprove of the poor behaviour of some spectators, and the tendency to rush at players who have scored, must also be stopped. When a cricket player scores a century spectators rush on to the field, as happened at Newlands this year, and sometimes they even pour beer over his head, while the batsman has to continue batting. This actually happened at Newlands. However, it happens at other grounds as well. Now we can also take cognizance of what happens abroad. The stadiums are designed in such a way that it is simply impossible for spectators to get on to the playing area.

At Twickenham, for instance, there is the very fine custom that spectators do not come on to the playing area at all, and after the match, the players exchange jerseys with their opponents. The losing team forms a type of guard of honour for the winning team and each one shakes the other’s hand. This is tradition. This is what is fine in sport. This is what we as spectators want to see as well.

We, however, have to contend with spectators storming on to the field in their hundreds and thousands when a players scores or when the final whistle goes. I wonder how many of us have seen how rugby players have to dash for the tunnel leading to the changing-rooms. Sometimes they virtually have to flee for their lives. Therefore I want to deliver a plea that officials, sport administrators and local authorities ensure that irregularities of this nature do not occur, that in future our stadiums will be correctly planned, that the stadiums which we already have, will be replanned and that we condemn unpleasant incidents and uncivilized behaviour. Above all we must ensure by means of proper education that our people—White, Brown and Black—learn how to behave themselves at sports meetings.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn has dealt with a number of matters, one of which was the additional facilities which are required, in particular for interprovincial matches and for international matches. The annual report of the department indeed illustrates the necessity of having additional facilities. In the report it is said—

There is obviously a great deal of money involved and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister must be rather disappointed that the es now before the House indeed reflect a reduction of the figures for last year. At the beginning of the debate the hon. the Minister, referring to the Hoek Report, indicated that there would be structural changes and that there would obviously be changes in the availability of suitable facilities. Yet, the estimates we have before us indicate a reduction in the amount to be spent under this Vote.

While I am dealing with the question of the reduction, I should like to also ask the hon. the Minister why, on page 12-6 of the estimates, under the heading “coaching”, under “grants-in-aid,” the amount spent during the financial year 1977–’78 has been reduced from R189 700 to R63 500 for the current financial year. One would have thought that this aspect of the department— the aspect of coaching and the assistance given to various sporting bodies—would have reflected an increase rather than a decrease in the amount provided for under this particular heading.

Now, the whole question of the Department of Sport and Recreation, I believe, is summed up under the heading “AIM” which is to be found on page 12-1 of the estimates pertaining to the Department of Sport and Recreation. It reads as follows—

We agree with this. We know the history of the department. I think it was established in about 1966. At the time some of us who were in the House then were rather sceptical about the role this department was going to play. However, it has become obvious over the years that this department is playing a positive role in assisting various sporting bodies, and sport as such. The department obviously also plays an important role in the field of recreation. Therefore, we realize that the department has a difficult task. We also realize that this task has been made even more difficult in recent times by virtue of the fact that the political pressure which is building up against South Africa also results in an accumulation of political pressures on the sporting activities within the country. I realize that the crunch is on South Africa in this regard. Even those national bodies which have endeavoured to meet certain demands find that after meeting those demands they are nevertheless rejected by some of the international bodies. We believe that this is hypocrisy, and we condemn the actions of those sporting organizations which reject us even after our national bodies have met the requirements laid down. Purely political considerations are being taken into account and these are outweighing the interests of sport as such. We believe that with international participation South Africa can achieve a great deal in the field of better understanding.

Fortunately there are still some spheres of sport in which we do have international contact. I refer particularly to the boxing situation. We have in recent times seen a resurgence of interest in boxing, both professional and amateur. This has resulted in the sport gaining a tremendous following. The Government’s policy in this respect has also not met with any incidents. This is a contact sport, and when a White man has to fight a Black man in front of a mixed audience, there is a danger that there could be a reaction amongst the public. It is, however, pleasing to note that such a contest can be staged without fear of this happening, because of the strict control in the boxing world. This has meant that we have been able to stage several multinational tournaments in South Africa successfully.

I want to say too that I believe it is imperative that South Africa remains in good standing with the World Boxing Association. This is a most important aspect in relation to the question of South Africa’s contact with outside world bodies. I understand that a conference is to be held by the World Boxing Association in South Africa in October this year, and I am pleased to see that an amount of R41 500 has been allocated in the estimates for this purpose. I believe that some 250 delegates will be attending the conference from various parts of the world, and this is indeed a great opportunity for South Africa to show what is being done in this country for our sportsmen of all race groups. Let us hope that this opportunity will be used. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us an indication of how these funds are to be allocated.

The International Olympic Committee, through its chairman, Lord Killanin, recently stated that South Africa was wasting its time. I believe that this was a great setback for us in South Africa, particularly as far as athletics is concerned, because of all the sports bodies, our athletics administrators have endeavoured to implement multinationalism—if one can use that term—and to bring about a situation in South Africa which should meet the demands by the international sporting bodies. Nevertheless, in spite of all the efforts that have been made and in spite of the administration at the top being constituted on a joint basis with all the race groups represented, this body has received a setback from the IOC. As far as our internal administration of sport in South Africa is concerned, we must not be deterred by this rejection from the IOC and by this setback. On the contrary we should be spurred on to greater efforts to bring about a normalization in our sport. We in the NRP believe that we too can help the Government to formulate the necessary policies. The various points of the Government’s policy have been referred to already, and I do not wish to delve into that matter again. Other hon. members who have spoken have already dealt too with the hon. the Minister’s letter to the International Tennis Federation. That letter has also been featured in numerous documents, including the S.A. Digest, which goes overseas. The heading of the article in the Digest reads “Koornhof clarified policy on mixed sport”. It then sets out various steps as set out in the letter to the Tennis Federation.

We in these benches believe that we have to place on record what we stand for in relation to sport. First and foremost, we believe that sport should be kept separate from politics at every level, where possible. We believe it is not a political issue, and that the emphasis must be retained on sport alone. Secondly, we believe that sport should be left to the sportsmen to administer. The question of whom they should play against and whom they should play with is also a matter that should be left to them. We believe too that those who wish to have open clubs and mixed teams should be able to decide to do so. Facilities should be made available to them in order to allow them to put that into effect. This should especially be the case with regard to professional sport. Soccer has already been mentioned by other hon. members. Soccer is a sport which I believe is at present in disarray as far as a national body is concerned. This does mean that these people will have to indicate how they can bring together the various leagues under a national body, because it would be better to see mixed sides playing than to see a White side playing against a side of another colour. This is obviously an emotional game.

We also believe that national sporting bodies should be constituted on a mixed basis and a national team selected on merit and merit alone. We also believe in the provision of suitable venues to cater for sport spectators of all races who wish to attend such sports functions. We should, consequently, endeavour to find the sponsorship for stadiums in the various areas which require such stadiums. We find that today major cities are unable to cope with the increased crowds that attend many of the sporting functions, particularly on a multinational basis.

Sixthly, recreational areas for all should, in co-operation with local authorities, be encouraged every step of the way to ensure that we have a maximum number of people participating in sport and recreational activities. This is going to require a substantial amount of money, and I believe that the South African Sport Trust must endeavour to find ways and means of eliciting greater support than we do have, e.g. sponsorship from free enterprise. People in the private business world can render a great service to sport as sport.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for the very positive way in which he presented the first part of his speech. We are also pleased that we have now been able to hear from an official spokesman of the NRP what the policy of that party is. It appears to me as if that party is a bit tepid. It does not want to be warm nor does it really want to be cold. Therefore they take up a standpoint of which one can think what one likes.

We are not like you people with a new policy every day.

We do not have a new policy every day. It is disgraceful that the NRP has only one speaker on sport. I think that hon. member also ought to participate. I shall come back later to what the hon. member for Sandton has said, but first I should just like to express a few thoughts in consequence of a plea made here by the hon. member for Bethlehem. I am referring to the question of the sports leaders in South Africa. I have had the privilege of looking for a few minutes at the Hoek report which was tabled here today. I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the announcement he made here today, an announcement which is going to give the Department of Sport and Recreation new impact. That follows on the investigation by the Hoek Commission. On page 203 of the Hoek Commission, I read the following, and I quote—

This is a reference to the pyramid of sport—

Sport is today playing an extremely important role in the lives of all people in South Africa. We can divide these people into two groups. Some are active participants, and a small percentage of them are top sportsmen and women. Then there are the spectators, who unfortunately form the vast majority of participants in sport in South Africa—the inactive participants. They practise their sport in front of the TV set or on the pavilion. The rigours of modern times require that the Department of Sport and Recreation, and all who mean well by South Africa, should look at this situation with great responsibility, to carry out research and to make an active contribution towards converting the majority of the South African population into active participants, rather than that they should remain mere spectators. The time in which we live is marked by love of ease on the one hand, and, on the other, by the physical onslaught against us, an onslaught which necessitates a physically strong South Africa. South Africa needs a healthy, strong and physically prepared nation. In my view, this physically strong and prepared South Africa can be achieved by participation in sport and physical activities. But sport has strong competition from anything which does not require much exertion or activity. I want to quote what I read in Rapport-Ateljee of 9 April this year. In an article, Dr. Jan Helper wrote as follows—

or have a drink, as some people do when they are on edge. He continues—

Participation in sport, instead of the pill, the powder, the tonic and liquor, can stave off the headache, the tired feeling, the ulcer, the blood pressure, the heart attacks, the frustration and the alcoholism. The participant in sport runs, trots, hits or jumps himself free of this symptom of civilization which is running away with him.

Then I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department under the guidance of Mr. Hoek on the positive steps which they have taken once again this year to motivate South Africa towards mass participation, and on the sports meetings which they arrange to promote mass participation by means of the national fitness scheme and on their projects “Walk for your life”, “Run for your life”, “Swim for your life” and the recreational gymnastics which were instituted.

I am pleased that the Trim Movement has taken shape in South Africa as complementary to “Walk and live”, “Trot and live”, “Swim and Live” and the recreational gymnastics. The Trim Scheme has already been implemented by the municipality of Pretoria at the Magnoliadal complex. I trust that the Tukkies will also make use of this Trim Scheme because I think they are meeting the Maties on 5 May. Seeing that Magnoliadal is the first place where the Trim Scheme was implemented, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation would not persuade the hon. the Minister of Public Works to establish the next Trim Scheme project in Acacia Park, because if one looks at the bodies of the hon. members who have to sit here for six months and, as Minister Schoeman has said, dig their graves with their teeth, it will perhaps be a good thing if the next project can be established in Acacia Park. During this decade, Trimm dich durch Sport has become the German formula for physical fitness and well-being. This project was initially planned and launched because the German Government realized that they were faced with the same dilemma which South Africa has at the moment, namely that the vast majority of the population were physically and mentally unfit. This Trim Movement as a mass participation movement has already been adopted with great enthusiasm in a number of countries. If this healthy exercise consciousness becomes worldwide, it will make the world in which we live, a better place. I request the hon. the Minister that he and his department do everything in their power to make the Trim Movement take root in South Africa too.

As I said in the beginning, sport leaders have an important task to ensure mass participation in sport and physical activity in South Africa. However, sports leaders have also the important task of identifying promising young sportsmen and putting at their disposal the best possible coaching to create opportunities for competition for these young sportsmen and women.

South Africa today has top sportsmen and women from all population groups—people who, under the guidance of top sports leaders, have been identified, and are being trained and placed in a position to participate in meetings which are arranged for them. These are sportsmen and women who show that they can compete with the very best in the world. As I have already said, the report makes mention of the fact that no neophytic or unskilled leadership can be burdened with this responsibility. I request the hon. the Minister to afford very urgent attention to the training of sports leaders.

There sit two of my old friends of the “Jokkel” faculty of Stellenbosch who are today playing an active role in the Department of Sports and Recreation. Looking at the report, I notice that as sports leaders they accomplished excellent results. They are skilled people and are playing a leading role in the department in making South Africa a country of participants. I also want to make mention of sports teachers at schools and universities, the sports officers in the Defence Force, and the sports organizers at mine complexes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Kuruman in thanking the hon. the Minister for the major developments which are envisaged on the grounds of the Hoek report, especially the recommendation that the Cabinet should consider extending the activities of the Department of Sport and Recreation to other population groups as a speciality department. That is particularly welcome. This is something I asked for some years ago and I therefore appreciate the announcement.

It has already become commonplace to talk about our world which is changing so radically and so drastically. Even though it is a platitude, it still remains a fact, a fact which we must keep in mind when we debate about sport. The changes in life, in living patterns, approaches and even values, are reflected in the manner in which people practise sport. The practice of sport reflects the spirit and the values of the time in which they are practised. As the practice of sport in the Athens of old reflected the spirit and the values of the Greek culture, so in our time it reflects the traits and characteristics of our life, and—perhaps I should also say—not only the traits of our lives, but also the scars of our time.

I do not want to elaborate further on this interesting aspect, except to point out that we are living in a time which is strongly influenced by economic forces. Life has become commercialized, from the cradle to the grave. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact, a trait and a characteristic of our time. In this commercialized life, sport must also find its place, and that means that sport simply cannot manage without the necessary financial means. I think that this is a problem which is not always sufficiently realized by the general public. It is this problem which compels sportsmen and sport administrators to make use of sponsors on a large scale. The cost of administering a large sport organization today, of arranging large sport meetings, is phenomenal. If one considers only the travelling and subsistence expenses, one realizes the extent of the cost of sport meetings and sport administration. It is simply impossible for most types of sport to function properly or to present good, large meetings and competitions on any scale without the assistance of sponsors. That also applies to rugby. It is often said that rugby is a sport which can look after itself, and then reference is made to the large sums of money which the provinces, for example Northern Transvaal and Transvaal, collect. That may be true, but people lose sight of the fact that most provinces eke out a precarious existence and that most provincial rugby unions live below the breadline. There are only five provincial rugby unions which may be regarded as self-supporting. In a time in which South Africa is being ousted from international competition in particular, it is necessary in my view that domestic meetings and competitions of high quality should be presented. This will not only retain the lively interest of the public, but it will also serve as a motivation for sporting people, especially young sport people of whom we have so many today, to do their very best. But to make that possible, money is necessary. The financial requirements of sport organizations is enormous—greater than in the past— especially because it is necessary to fill the vacuum which has arisen from the lack of international competition. The dearth of visits by overseas touring teams to South Africa results in a reduced gate.

To give hon. members an idea of the extent of the financial requirements of national sports bodies, I want to refer briefly to the applications for support which the department has received from national sport control bodies in an effort to finance the presentation of their annual sport promotion programmes. That includes their administration costs, their participation in meetings, coaching, and also their international liaison. The applications for aid which the department received for the year 1978–’79, amount to R7 322 000 and to that must still be added the applications for a further R1 287 720 for special projects. Applications from national sport control bodies—and that does not even include national bodies—therefore amount to R8 609 720 in total. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has referred to the stadiums, and if one adds to that amount the R21 175 540 for which the department has received applications for sport facilities for 1978–’79, I venture to state that sport in South Africa would sink to a very low level of competition if the present sponsorships were to fall away. What I am trying to say, is that sponsors are today making an enormous contribution to the practice of sport in South Africa. I want to express my thanks to those people who undertake sponsorship and I want to express the hope that the public will show more understanding and appreciation for the services which companies render to sport by their sponsorship. I call these “services”, because the amounts of money which these bodies spend on sport, cannot really be justified in terms of the advertisement value it holds for them. In a report which appeared in the Financial Mail of 24 March 1978, the following reasons are advanced why some companies grant such large amounts of money to sport. I quote—

Many people also do it for the sake of their love of sport. In this connection I have in mind a person like Mr. Louis Luyt who, in his personal capacity, has spent hundreds of thousands of rands on sport—and especially athletics—in his personal capacity over the years. Then there is Dr. Anton Rupert and his organization, who do a tremendous amount in the field of sport through the Sport Foundation. The Sport Foundation is not linked to a product, and spends R120 000 annually on coaching and sport instruction for all population groups. Apart from these praiseworthy contributions by Mr. Luyt, Dr. Rupert and others, there is also a whole series of companies that can be mentioned that make large amounts of money available to sport every year.

According to the report in the Financial Mail to which I referred, South African Breweries are the biggest single sponsor. They make R600 000 available annually to a variety of types of sport. It is also generally known that the SAB has provided R1,25 million to rugby over a period of five years. On its heels is Intercontinental Breweries with R500 000 per annum; Datsun with R400 000 per annum; General Motors with R350 000 per annum; the Citizen with R200 000 per annum; Holiday Inns with R100 000 per annum and Sanlam, which sponsors gymnastics, with R100 000 over a period of five years.

While, on the one hand, there is great appreciation for what these companies are doing for sport in South Africa, there are also a few dangers involved, to which I should like to refer briefly. On the one hand I want to warn that the sport which is sponsored, should not be so dominated by the product of the sponsor that this derogates from the game or the appearance of the players. The product must not be forced on the players and on the game in such a way that the players move about on the field like a bunch of advertising agents. I therefore want to plead that sport administrators, in co-operation with their sponsors, at all times display good taste, and that product-linked sponsorships should be presented in such a manner that it does not derogate from the appearance of the players or the spirit of the game. There are enough other ways in which these companies can promote their products.

On the other hand, we should not be afraid, either, to give prominence to the sponsors’ names out of a sense of gratitude towards them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Johannesburg West wholeheartedly on the illuminating speech which he made here. I listened attentively and it was good to hear such a positive contribution to this debate. It is true that when we discuss sport and recreation, we should do so in a spirit of goodwill, a spirit which will do justice to this wonderful institution of ours. I want to quote what a sports writer once stated. He said—

Nicely hooked, Willem, nicely hooked!

Mr. Chairman, because that statement is true and because sport has been recognized through the years and has developed throughout the world, we can today state with pride that almost 14% of the total population of South Africa already participates in sport. This interest which our people in South Africa display in sport, is reflected in the television programmes to such a degree that already five hours per week are devoted to that, i.e., 14% of the total television time, and one can state that as far as sport is concerned, there is a very fair allocation of time on television. On the other hand, we as sportsmen always want a little more, and if we look at the position as a whole, it may be that an adjustment can be made in this field. What do we find? We find, firstly, that 1,25 million of the people in South Africa are spectators at weekend sport and, secondly, that between 25% and 30% of these people are active sporting people. Thirdly we find—and this is important—that all who are sports enthusiasts or sportsmen, find a powerful instrument in television not only to stimulate and encourage our sporting activities, but also the interest in sport and recreation. But we must admit to ourselves and also with deep gratitude to the SABC, that the SABC has contributed its share and that the ball is now in the court of the sports people. If we want a new dispensation, a bigger apportionment, we shall have to prove our case.

I think it is only fair and just that on this occasion I should make a few requests to the hon. the Minister and the department. Firstly, I want to ask that if possible, a survey be carried out in co-operation with the SABC to establish, in the first place, what the viewing habits of our people are, and whether this type of television sports programme finds full acceptance among our people. I do not want to anticipate the result of this survey, but I do believe that if we were to undertake this survey, we should be able to ascertain—and I think the reply would be positive—whether we should have a greater allocation of television time for our sports people and whether the nature and type of our television programmes could be considerably improved—although at this stage we can declare with great pride that our sports people are very happy and grateful about the quality of the sports programmes already being presented on South African television.

Secondly, I want to request that there should be more direct sports transmissions over our television. When one speaks of live sports transmissions, one thinks instinctively of our national sport. When one makes this request, one does so with the knowledge that great difficulties are being experienced in this field. I do believe, however, that the Department of Sport and Recreation, in co-operation with the SABC, will be able to deal with these problems. I should like to request the people who have the final say in connection with this matter, to reconsider it. I also want to make an earnest appeal to the South African Rugby Board to do everything in their power so that as sports people we will not be further disappointed in this respect during this season.

As we have noted with great appreciation the establishment of the fund collection scheme—the RSA Sports Trust, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Bethlehem has already referred—and we realize the necessity of the financial means for the extension of our sporting activities, I want to request, in the third place, that we should use television, not to explain the objectives of this trust fund, nor to make propaganda about the necessity of financial means for our sport activities, but purely to acquaint our general public with this institution—for example in respect of the progress which the trust fund has already made, the services it has rendered, the projects it has undertaken and, above all, the rallying-cry of this foundation.

Finally, I believe that we can bring our scientifically founded fitness programme more effectively to the notice of our public. I do not think that nowadays it is necessary to propagate the question of fitness; I think we all realize how essential it is. But what is really necessary is to bring fitness programmes to the attention of our people at all times. To give these fitness programmes the necessary impact, they should be presented on television on a regular basis. The Juvenal’s classic words in this connection have perhaps already become commonplace, but they are still valid: “Only a healthy body can accommodate a healthy mind.” We must realize, however—this has been referred to today by implication—that in this lovely country of ours we are involved in a struggle for survival, a struggle which is directed at the destruction of our way of life, of the existing order and, above all, of ourselves. I know of no better human armour for our nation in this struggle than total fitness. The well-known Dr. D. F. Malan uttered these stirring words: “The greatness of a nation lies in the first instance in the extent and greatness of its inner qualities and in the strength of its character and spirit.” If that is so—as a nation—and we accept that—then I think there is no better way to arm ourselves for the struggle that lies ahead. I believe that the hon. the Minister will accede to my requests. However, on this occasion, and by way of encouragement to the hon. the Minister— because there are many problems in this connection—I want to put to him the words which my good friend and rugby colleague, Jaap Bekker, sent to me by telegram on the eve of the general election. The telegram read: “Hierdie vasskop moet ons wen”.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the last two speakers, I think it is right and proper that in a debate of this nature we should have heard two well known Springboks, who have made a considerable contribution in the sporting world. We listened with considerable interest to what they told this Committee. I have no quarrel with what the hon. member for Newton Park has said with regard to television. The only thing that we should be careful of is that we do not become a nation of watchers instead of a nation of participators in sport and recreation. This is what we should encourage. As far as the hon. member for Johannesburg West is concerned, I do not think there is any objection to having sponsored sport. In fact, few organizations would be able to exist if they were not sponsored. I must say, however, that I rather agree with the hon. member for Brakpan, who spoke yesterday about the advertising of liquor on television, and I am not sure whether, in the light of what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said about sponsorship by the breweries, they should be entitled to advertise their liquor indirectly on television as often as they do.

Since we are dealing with the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, I want to say that we are very concerned at the moment, because we are a sport-loving nation. South Africa has prominent sportsmen and I think they have made their contribution. South African sportsmen are equal to sportsmen all over the world. They have been fully accepted and have made their mark. We would have loved to have left sport to the sportsmen and politics to the politicians, but unfortunately, in the policies which have been adopted by the Government there is a weapon which has been used against us, and the weapon which is being used against us is sport, the sport which we love. This is a weapon which hurts us deeply. In other words, it would appear that this is our Achilles heel. There are those who are now trying to hurt us where it hurts us most, i.e. in the field of sport. They also use the argument of discrimination, which irks people overseas. They have found our Achilles heel in South Africa.

I remember, not so long ago, watching the Olympic Games in Montreal with the present Minister of Plural Relations. There were a number of prominent sportsmen from Pretoria who were knowledgeable about athletics events in particular, and they were telling us that if only “so and so” from South Africa had been running in a particular race, South Africa would have won a silver medal or perhaps even a gold medal. It hurt us very deeply to know that our own Springboks were not participating in the Olympic Games when they were of world class and world standard and that we could have acquitted ourselves so well.

I think there are areas in the field of sport, so ably dealt with by the hon. member for Sandton, on which this Committee can largely agree. For example, there is the objective to improve the physical and mental well-being of the community, something with which we all agree. I think we can adopt the slogan mens sana in corpore sano, “a sound mind in a healthy body”, because we want to promote physical fitness and mental fitness for all South Africans. I think our objective should be to provide recreation facilities for people to play the sport of their choice and that they should be able to participate in the type of recreation which they desire. I think it should be the responsibility of the hon. the Minister’s department to provide funds for needy organizations, and in particular for stadiums where sport can take place. There is a great need—and we on this side of the Committee appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist local authorities, sporting bodies, etc.— to build stadiums where multiracial sporting events can take place on an equal footing, where there can be mixed audiences and where people can participate normally, so that in this way we can bring about a complete normalization of sport. This is something to which internally I think we should move very rapidly.

There are certain other basic things on which I think we can agree. We believe that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour. Our policy is well known. One has only to look at the speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for example, on 2 February, col. 379 and 4 April, col. 3861. I think it is common cause that we should leave sporting decisions to the sporting administrators and that sporting bodies should have the sole and unfettered right to choose who should be members of their teams, what leagues they should play in, against whom they should play, where they should play and what merit should be given to them. On a national and international basis, we stand unequivocally by merit selection. There can be no substitute for merit selection.

However, where there is an area of difference is that we are asking for the removal of the laws which infringe upon equality in sport, as outlined by the hon. member for Sandton, namely in the field of liquor, group areas and separate amenities. I would be failing in my duty if I did not, on behalf of my party, pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation for what he has done for sport. Sportsmen are grateful to him for what he has done. If we look at where we stand today in national and international sport, we realize immediately that it is a far cry from where we stood in 1965. However, I do not want to relate the whole history here; it is well known to every one of us. The hon. the Minister deserves compliments for what he has achieved. I do not want to quote too many examples, but I should like to refer to what has been done in the field of soccer. In professional soccer, teams now compete on a multi-racial basis. Mixed teams of mixed leagues play before mixed audiences. The old NFL has been disbanded and in its stead was formed the S.A. Soccer Federation and the African National Professional Soccer League.

I nevertheless want to refer now to an aspect on which we differ from the hon. the Minister. In this respect I want to refer to his letter written to Phillipe Chattier of the ITF on 21 February 1976. This is very important. It is important because the hon. the Minister said that no permit or other legal permission was needed by any player to play on any court in South Africa or to join any club. The hon. the Minister also said—

Now comes the question of his reference to the Liquor Act concerning international status. This is where we immediately find a difficulty when it comes to professional status. This letter, incidentally, was received with great acclaim. I want to deal with the letter before moving on to the question of international status. On 23 February 1978 the Rand Daily Mail carried a lovely headline: “Koornhof ends sport apartheid.” The newspaper then goes on to quote the hon. the Minister stating to Phillipe Chattier—

Now, that is all very well. We fully support the hon. the Minister on that. However, the first question that arises is whether this applies to all other forms of sport. Here, I think, the hon. the Minister should clarify the matter. He should tell us whether this applies to all other sport or not.

As far as international status is concerned, I want to point out, if I may, two areas of confusion. Firstly, the present law says that a visiting Black is actually classified as a White. Therefore, if he finds himself on international premises, he is entitled to dance with anyone. However, one of our own Blacks, when at a club where he enjoys international status, cannot dance with anyone. In fact, we now have the ridiculous situation in which a Black international visitor classified as a White cannot even dance with a Black South African. That is how ridiculous it is. Of course, one of our own Black South Africans, when on international premises, cannot dance at all.

The other difficulty we have is connected with the serving of liquor. Now, according to the law, a Black who has been classified White because he is a visitor on international premises, can drink at any bar or in any place. Our own Blacks, however, have to intimate their intention to have a meal whereas a visiting Black can be served liquor without having a meal as well. That means that it now has to be examined whether a Black, at an international hotel or on the premises of a sporting body with international status, is a visiting Black or a South African Black and whether such Black intends to have a meal or not. Now, is this not a ridiculous situation in which we find ourselves?

In the passage I have quoted here the hon. the Minister also refers to the question of permits and arrangements. In reality the permits and arrangements spoken about here, all involve conditions applying to the rights given. I know that the hon. the Minister has certain difficulties within his own ranks. I know that he has to advance the policies of his party towards international status and the breakdown of discrimination, things which are badly needed in sport. I am sure, nevertheless, that the hon. the Minister, in carrying out this task, will have the full support of all sporting bodies in South Africa, on the condition that he goes all the way. However, I want to draw the attention to the permit system. The hon. member for Sandton has already referred to this system, but I want to do so in greater detail. First of all I want to draw attention to the representations and the feeling of those bodies who have to obtain permits. I refer to bodies such as the Transvaal Council of Sport, the Western Province Council of Sport, the Natal Council of Sport and the Eastern Province Council of Sport. I merely want to quote … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has touched on a few interesting points which I should like to refer to in passing. In the first place, he addressed the hon. the Minister on the question of dancing. Dancing is however not a recognized form of sport which falls under the Minister of Sport and Recreation; it rather falls under the category of “sports”. I do not think we need discuss the question of dancing in this debate.

The hon. member referred in passing to discrimination in sport which must be broken down. I am sorry that the hon. member has not also said what discrimination exists in sport. He speaks as if it were common cause that there is indeed discrimination in sport. As far as I and this side of the House are concerned, it is clear that discrimination no longer exists in sport. It is therefore wrong simply to talk as though it were common cause that discrimination exists in sport.

The hon. member has also spoken of the normalization of sport and said that such a process was afoot. The question is, however: has sport not already been normalized in South Africa? I should like to return to those particular points. Before I do so, I should like to point out that I am pleased that the hon. member said a few other things. He referred to the hon. the Minister in a complimentary manner and also said: “We must leave sport to the sportsmen and politics to the politicians.” I also basically believe that we should not meddle unnecessarily in sporting matters.

In my view, the hon. member expressed an honest desire that South Africa should be able to participate in international sport gatherings. He then referred to the case of Montreal. I have no doubt that the Government, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, is doing everything in its power to obtain precisely such participation for South Africa.

I find it such a pity that the hon. member for Sandton acted in a—let me call it—deplorable manner this afternoon specifically in order to prejudice South Africa’s chances of re-admission to international sports fields. [Interjections.] I am referring to what the hon. member said in connection with the three leaders of Sacos. The crux of his speech—it will be taken up and used against South Africa—is the irresponsible statement that three leaders of Sacos have been banned. I do not know who they are. The implication in the hon. member’s statement is that they were banned because they were leaders of Sacos who advocate certain things which are not in accordance with the policy of the Government. The hon. member of course made use of the word “banning”. This word has an additional meaning—an unfavourable connotation—which is not applicable in this case. These people’s movements are restricted as far as certain matters are concerned; they have not been banned. They have not been sent out of the world; their movements have only been restricted as far as certain matters are concerned.

For what reasons? [Interjections.]

I think the hon. member for Sandton would do South Africa a favour if he were to get up and apologize for the statement he made and the implication which he left. We are extremely disappointed that he has acted in that way in these circumstances.

I want to return to the question of the normalization of sport. The question is: Has sport been normalized in South Africa? A further question is: When will we have normalized or normal sport in South Africa? I think there are three possibilities. People can approach the matter from three different viewpoints and if we are to summarise the matter, we say that there are three possibilities. Some people may argue that it is normal sport when each population group practices its sport separately and is compelled to practise it separately and when they may not compete against one another. One group of people will argue that way. But another group might say one has normal sport when there is compulsory mixed sport in South Africa. In neither cases do we have normal sport, normalization of sport, in my view. We have normalization of sport when a man who wants to belong to a White club and wants to play rugby against Whites, can indeed do so but when there is no legal obligation on him to do so or not to do so. But the impression we have gained on occasion from the Opposition and from abroad—and to a great extent, the two run parallel—is that one does not have normal sport when one has a natural association of people, sports opportunities and clubs, but that one only has normal sport when there is necessarily mixed sport.

That brings us to the policy of the Government in respect of clubs. The policy of the Government in this respect is that apartheid is not a legal requirements. Apartheid is not enforced in clubs. That, in the first place, is the policy of the Government. We must, however, remember what that entails, and that is the other leg of the argument. Integration is also not imposed on clubs. In these circumstances, a report I read in the Sunday Times is very disappointing to me. In the Sunday Times of 9 April 1978, the following is stated—

Spartan Harriers decided, however, that they did not want the “Whites only” clause in their constitution. But if a club desires that its members should be only White, it is making use of its own rules and is not acting in accordance with a legal directive. It acts according to the decisions of the members of the club in question. It is therefore so important that this type of news reporting should not be aimed at presenting sport decisions on a national basis at club level— which is the clearly stated policy of the Government—as racism. Why should it be presented as something which is not normal sport? Why should it be presented as something against which we should act?

In South Africa today, we have achieved normal sport. Sport in South Africa has been normalized, and it will remain normalized as long as we do not have legislation which enforces apartheid, but also—and this is very clearly the policy of the Government—as long as there is not legislation which enforces integration. We are definitely opposed to that type of policy as well. Because that is the policy, and because we have this normal sport in South Africa, we have attained a specific result of which this country and this Government can indeed be proud. I am referring to the fact that we have had a year which has virtually been free of any incidents. My friend, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, has referred to that. The hon. the Minister really deserves a compliment from South Africa as far as that is concerned.

A year has passed in which, as far as sport is concerned, there have been virtually no race incidents. We have experienced a year in which the relations between White and Black people on the sports fields of South Africa have improved. We have also experienced a year in which the sportsmen of South Africa have been able to live their lives to the full. For that reason reference can be made with pride in the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation to, inter alia, all the multinational gatherings which have taken place, free of incidents as they were. I refer to page 19 of the annual report. The following is stated—

Then reference is made to no fewer than 41 kinds of sport. It is also important to note that for these 41 kinds of sport, there were 2 653 club meetings on a multinational basis. There were 214 provincial meetings, 90 national meetings and 46 international meetings. Altogether, therefore, there were 3 003 multinational meetings in South Africa and they were successful and without incidents. That is normal sport. That testifies to a normalization of sport and for that we on this side of the House, and indeed the entire South Africa, owe a major debt of thanks to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister certain disturbing facts in connection with amateur boxing. I make my speech against the sympathetic background of the fact that I am myself an ardent supporter of amateur boxing, that I myself was actively involved in it, that my own child boxes, that I know that the quality of junior amateur boxing in South Africa is probably the best in the world and that many hundreds of our boys regularly climb into the ring.

Undoubtedly, boxing is inherently a dangerous type of sport. It is a contact sport in every sense of the word. Concern about boxing injuries is not about visible injuries like a black eye or a cut eyebrow, but the possible invisible injuries like brain damage which only becomes apparent later in life. Protagonists of boxing believe that there is ample justification for its existence as a type of sport, but on condition that special safety measures should be scrupulously adhered to in order to prevent injuries. My viewpoint is that this is not the case in connection with amateur boxing in South Africa; that the medical rules of the S.A. Amateur Boxing Association are totally inadequate and that we can consider ourselves fortunate that our sons are not injured in the ring. Authority for this drastic statement is to be found, inter alia, in a statement by the former Surgeon-General of the S.A. Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Cockcroft, who was also very much involved in amateur boxing. He said the rules of the S.A. Boxing Association were not worth the paper they were written on.

Let me describe the rules briefly. In the first place, it perturbs me that as far as sparring sessions are concerned, boys spar at least ten times more often than they take part in actual tournaments. There is authority for the statement that sparring sessions are just as strenuous as tournament boxing. The problem is that there is no requirement in the medical rules of the S.A. Boxing Association that a boxer must be medically fit to spar. That is a crucial deficiency in the rules. As far as tournaments are concerned, the rules merely lay down that a person suffering from tuberculosis or epilepsy may not box. There is one further proviso and that concerns the eyes. A person wearing spectacles or contact lenses may not box with them on. He must have the use of both his eyes; he must not previously have had an ablatio retinae operation; and he must not have myopia of five diopters or worse; in other words, he must not be nearsighted. Furthermore, a doctor must certify a boxer as fit at the time of weighing in. That is all. There is nothing in the rules of the S.A. Boxing Association in connection with the condition of the brain, the heart, the hearing or anything else.

Now I want to tell the House what happens in practice. We do have these inadequate rules on paper; but what happens in practice? I have discussed this aspect with many doctors. I have discussed it, inter alia, with certain members of the Council who are medical practitioners. When boys are examined at tournaments, it is a very superficial examination. The doctors cannot tell with certainty what the actual medical condition of the boys is. The doctor merely does a general examination and then certifies the boy as medically fit.

The medical rules of the S.A. Boxing Association are a farce. If their rules are the same as those of the World Association, those rules are also a farce. It is perfectly clear that boxers land in the ring with possibly inherent brain problems, sight problems or other latent medical problems. Then such a boxer has his head jolted in the ring for a number of rounds. The position of the medical profession, especially, worries me. It worries me that a doctor arrives there and, without knowing the rules, certifies a boy as medically fit. If that boy has for example undergone an ablatio retinae and sustains a blow on the eye as a result of which he becomes blind, what is the position of the doctor who has certified him as fit? If I were a doctor I would not place my services at the disposal of the Boxing Association to certify boys as fit.

I have a suggestion to make, however, and that is that an examination be carried out by medical experts and that a medical form should be designed on the lines of the form used, for example, when a person is medically examined when he applies for insurance. It is then the duty of the boxer or his parent to see to it that he undergoes this proper medical examination every year.

I request the hon. the Minister to consider ordering an investigation into the medical aspects of amateur boxing.

It would perhaps also serve a good purpose if all sportsmen had such an intensive medical examination every year. There have been instances of rugby players and athletes dying after participating in those sports. Such tragic events could then possibly be prevented.

In a lighter vein, I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that many politicians have also made their mark in the ring. People like Sir Roy Welensky and Mr. Oswald Pirow are examples of such boxers. According to the hon. member for Von Brandis, Sir De Villiers Graaff was a very accomplished “southpaw”. The hon. member for Von Brandis was, however, himself a Western Province boxing champion. There are also other hon. members in the House who have boxed, for example the hon. member for Sandton with his big mouth. As far as I know, the hon. member for Pretoria Central, and several of our hon. Whips, were also outstanding boxers. One of the NP candidates during the recent election has had the questionable privilege of sparring with Pres. Idi Amin. Sometimes when I sit in this House and the debates become so hot, I long for the days when I sat at the ring as a judge. If I have to say, as a judge, who is the best debater on this side of the House, it is, in my view, undoubtedly the hon. the Prime Minister. If I were to describe his fight with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that our man undoubtedly knocked their man punch-drunk as early as the opening rounds. I hear that a new champion will probably come forward from the PFP stable to challenge our champion. That is the hon. member for Parktown. The boxers all have nicknames and I think the nickname he should be given is “Candle de Beer” because when he meets our man, it will be a case of “one blow and he is out”. They have sent us a man from the NRP stable, too, and he is a heavyweight in every sense of the word. I want to give their heavyweight, too, some advice as far as a nickname is concerned: He should call himself “Painter Raw”, because against our man he is always “on the canvas”. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I just want to say that boxers, too, are really only people of flesh and blood. They cannot accomplish the impossible. Even if Kallie Knoetze and Gerrie Coetzee had both been in the PFP as the Whips of that party, they would still not have been able to stop this “in-fighting”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe has just made an interesting contribution with regard to an important subject. I am convinced of the fact that the hon. the Minister and his department will attend to this very important matter. He has also referred to the hon. member for Sandton and I, too, should like to have a word with this hon. friend of mine. I understand, however, that he was a boxer, too, so I can understand why he is so shortsighted in the policy which he pursues. He spoke with reasonable responsibility this afternoon, but he quoted in a spiteful way from Hansard what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister on 11 April 1967. The words he quoted, are true and we do not argue about that, but quoting those words was petty, cheap politicking, and I want to say to the hon. member that it is unworthy of him. It will not benefit him in any way to quote these things now; we have already stated these things unequivocally to our voters. [Interjections.] The best proof of their reaction to the policy which we stated to them, is the fact that today there are only 17 PFP members sitting in this House.

The hon. member also referred to the provision of facilities. I agree with him that we should provide more facilities. But it would be an evil day if the State, the Government, had to take the lion’s share in the provision of facilities for all types of sport played in this country. I think the sports organizations themselves should take a much larger share in meeting their own needs.

The hon. member also made a very irresponsible remark this afternoon in connection with the banning of certain persons who serve on sports organizations. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has already referred to that. Surely these people were not banned because they had participated in sport. That, however, was the connotation which the hon. member tried to attach to the situation by linking these types of events. In my view that is scandalous. If we take a closer look at these matters, we find that the maintenance of law and order, of peace and quiet, and the security of the people and of South Africa, have a much higher priority with us than has the playing of sport. The hon. member must please get his priorities right in this regard.

There is a further matter which I should like to raise, and I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot help us in this regard. In this connection I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park with regard to the question of televising rugby matches. In my opinion an unpleasant deadlock in this regard had been existing between SABC-TV and the Rugby Board for a considerable time. We as Northern Transvalers would like to have the people here in the WP and in the Free State share in our winning of the Currie Cup this year! [Interjections.] This matter has been dragging on for a considerable time, and in my opinion this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for our rugby public and for the wonderful game of rugby. At present our children see other types of sport on television, and I think we are shortsighted if we believe that this will not have an influence on the youth of South Africa in future.

I concede that the parties involved in this matter, i.e. the Rugby Board and SABC-TV, probably have their own problems. I do not want to express an opinion in that regard. They probably have good reasons for their points of view. But I am convinced that these two bodies are able, in the interests of our viewers public and in the interests of our national game, rugby, to settle this matter so that the difficulty may be resolved to the satisfaction of all of us. We also know that the hon. the Minister is a man who has the ability above all to bring people together and to get them to negotiate. So we ask him to take the lead in this regard in bringing these people together so that, as far as this matter is concerned, we may, with one criterion in view, i.e. the interests of our rugby public and of the game of rugby, find a solution which will satisfy everyone.

Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, is the question of the regular staging of national sports festivals. Since 1963 we have regularly had sports festivals in South Africa. We have had, inter alia, the S.A. Games, at which Whites and non-Whites competed, as well as the Republic Sports Festivals.

Probably the greatest single sports festival ever staged in South Africa was the S.A. Games of 1973. However, it is a matter of five years ago that we last offered our athletes and our viewers public an opportunity of this kind. It takes a year or two to organize a sports festival of this kind, and for that reason it seems improbably to me that we shall be able to stage a sports festival of the same magnitude in South Africa prior to 1979 or even 1980. In view of the discriminating and scandalous sports boycott of South Africa, which deprives our sportsmen of the opportunity to compete against one another and against the best of the world, I believe it has become of cardinal importance that we see to the interests of our own sportsmen and sportswomen here in South Africa and that we ourselves create those opportunities for them. We must do so in an imaginative way so that they may compete against one another and reach the top rung of the ladder. For the sake of our extremely promising sportsmen and sportswomen, for the sake of our youth and the many thousands of sports lovers in South Africa, I am making an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his urgent and active attention. It is in the interests of South Africa and of all its people that we arrange national or regional sports festivals on a regular basis. Such sports festivals ought to be staged at intervals ranging from three to four years, and they ought to be open to competitors from all population groups. Today in South Africa we have sportsmen and sportswomen of international calibre. I can mention many names. I am thinking of people like Danie Zaayman, Hildegard Eloff, Werner Stals, Henning Gericke and Matthews Batswadi. There are still many, many more. We must see to the interests of these people and provide competition for them. The outside world is not going to help us. They only boycott us, and consequently it is up to us to fulfil our own needs in this regard. I agree that sports festivals cost a lot of money, and that in the present times of inflation some people might take a dim view of the matter if we were to start organizing a sports festival of great magnitude. In the present situation in South Africa—one of hard work, tension and a mad rush from day to day—it is essential, however, that we strike a proper balance between constructive labour on the one hand and creative recreation on the other. This is something indispensable; its absence would lead to the moral downfall of our people. Therefore I believe that the emphasis should fall not only on the economy and the labour structure, but also, and equally important, on physical recreation—because without the latter, our survival and the maintenance of our moral standards would be totally unthinkable.

I, too, think that the problem is not insurmountable. The hon. member for Johannesburg West referred to the question of sponsorship. I think that if we were to offer the private sector in South Africa the opportunity to organize festivals of this nature on the basis of sponsorship, they would be able to do so. Therefore, all we ask of the hon. the Minister and his department, is to take the lead in this regard and to set the organizational work in motion so that we may stage national sports festivals on a regular basis in South Africa in the interests of all our people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all those hon. members who participated in this debate in a positive way, very sincerely for doing so. In the first place, I want to react to a speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. He, as well as other hon. members, referred to the question of television broadcasts of rugby matches. The question of live television broadcasts of rugby matches puts me in mind of what someone once said: “Some of my friends are in favour of live television broadcasts on Saturday afternoons and some of my friends are opposed to such broadcasts; I always stand by my friends.” [Interjections.] I can give hon. members the assurance that it is a thorny problem. From the nature of the case, and because it is my responsibility, I shall try to deal with the matter with the greatest circumspection and with an understanding of the problems attached to it. Since I am a person who has to deal with sport on the one hand and television on the other, I shall try to assist in arriving at what I know the hon. members would like us to arrive at, i.e. at an arrangement that will satisfy all the parties concerned.

Let me say at once that I do not want to make any secret of the fact that I, too, should like to see such an arrangement being made. But I think it would be wise if I did not elaborate any further on this matter at this stage. The parties who play a part in this, know precisely what my personal standpoint on the matter is. In any case, my standpoint is not all that important. All we have to do is succeed in achieving this objective, and I believe that it will be achieved, in the near future I hope.

The hon. member also raised the question of national sports festivals. The problem in this regard is of course the financing of such festivals. I think our circumstances have now improved, and I can therefore give the hon. member the unequivocal assurance that we are already devoting attention to this matter and I hope that we will also be able to show the country the results we have achieved in the not too distant future.

We are very proud of having succeeded in normalizing sport in South Africa. Whether people like it or not, the fact of the matter is that it has happened, and we are proud of it. If it is normal for other countries to practise sport freely, without legislation, we shall also do so. If it is normal for other people to have merit teams to represent their country in sport, regardless of race or colour, we also have this in South Africa. I say we are proud of this. The hon. member for Pretoria Central pointed out that that normalization had been accomplished without any incidents. That is absolutely correct. I sat here with profound gratitude in my heart when I remembered that at times sport debates had been held in this House which created a stir. What is happening today? Today a calm and peaceful atmosphere is prevailing in this House on this matter. This really redounds to the credit of all the people and population groups in South Africa, regardless of race or colour. We are very sincerely grateful for this.

We are also proud that we have eliminated race discrimination from sport. If we tell this to one another, we will make even better progress in future. If other nations can practise sport without discrimination on the basis of colour, we in South Africa are doing the same. Essentially our policy of multinational development is the same as that of other nations in the world. Only yesterday I told an important person from America that the phase we were now going through, was one which his own country, America, had already gone through. The only difference is that America went through this phase a 100 or more years ago. Scandinavia, Europe and other countries, have also gone through that phase. What the world overlooks is that we have entered this phase in our history so much later than they did as a result of our unique circumstances. After us there will again be other nations and countries that will have to go through this same process. Our leaders have always said that if we take our policy of multinational development to its logical conclusion, discrimination on the basis of colour will disappear. Dr. Malan, Advocate Strydom, one leader after another, all said this. Our present Prime Minister made speeches on this subject year after year. In sport we have done this with success without endangering the identity of our nation, or any nation. In South Africa this point has therefore been reached in an evolutionary way, with the support and the blessing of the NP congresses and the people of the Republic of South Africa.

It is now necessary for me, against this pleasant background, to make a few comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton. I feel compelled to do so. I would not have done so if the hon. member had refrained from making certain allegations this afternoon. But I shall try to do this in the best spirit of which I am capable. If someone reproaches me with having given way to an “undignified outburst”, I feel obliged to react to it. This is a pleasant debate, and I should like to keep it that way. The hon. member for Sandton should see it in that light.

I shall now try to reply very carefully to the arguments, and to react as I see the matter.

The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke with great responsibility. In his absence—he tendered an apology, for he had to leave for very important reasons—I want to congratulate him very sincerely on a brilliant first contribution as chairman of the NP sports group in Parliament. He is a person whom I think has wonderful possibilities. He demonstrated this very well today. I am very grateful for that. I shall reply in a moment to a few of the matters which he raised. No one in the House could have stated it better than he did when he said that here and there he had got the impression that the hon. member for Sandton was sympathetic, but that for the rest he did not know where he stood with the hon. member. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who with equally great responsibility made a very neat contribution, also indicated that here and there he had got the impression that the hon. member for Sandton was sympathetic, but that for the rest he, too, just did not know what to think. Of course they do not understand him all that well, and I want to say why. Hon. members must pardon me now. I do not want to spend much time on this. However, it is important that we understand one another in regard to this matter, for I, too, am rather in the dark about this. If the hon. member for Sandton—and I should like to give him the benefit of the doubt—is honest, if he is truly sympathetic, he will get the same treatment from us. We should like to keep politics out of sport, and co-operate. But I find it very difficult to understand precisely what I am dealing with here, and I find it very difficult to understand precisely what the country is dealing with. I am speaking very quietly and circumspectly now, and I should not like to arouse anyone to anger if I can help it. As they say, I shall contain myself. Of course the hon. member has the right, and has every right to criticize me as much as he pleases. I shall guard my wicket well; that I can promise him. The hon. member is also within his rights to criticize the Government. We welcome it, for sound, constructive criticism makes for better government. However, when he harms his country then I am filled with anger. Then it is no longer criticism and then it is no longer fair. That was why I acted advisedly on that occasion when that hon. member put that question here. That morning the hon. member had a question on the Order Paper, which definitely created the impression in the outside world—as I shall demonstrate here— that what I had said to Mr. Chatrier by way of a letter had not been correct, that I had therefore told a lie. That is the impression which the hon. member created. While this was happening—and the hon. member put this question every week for three weeks— the Western countries of the world were holding a conference in Paris that same morning to decide on South African sport. There were motions before them on whether they should adopt a similar formula to the Glen Eagles agreement. During the preceding three weeks my department and I had worked until the early hours one weekend—and it was a pleasure to do so—to prepare a document, which was concise and to the point, for people do not read long-winded documents. Churchill once said that if one speaks for three hours, one need not spend very much time preparing, but if one has to prepare something of 1½ pages which is concise and to the point, it takes 30 hours to do so. To prepare such a document required a great deal of work from us. Subsequently several ambassadors told me that that document was a brilliant one. I am saying this in all humility. While we were doing so—and the hon. member can laugh until he is blue in the face—that hon. member was asking questions for three weeks to create the impression abroad that we were engaged in something false here in the Republic of South Africa.

That is not true.

If I acted in an “undignified” manner that day, according to that hon. member’s view, it was justified. Do hon. members know what my purpose was that day? It was to deflect the thunder from the hon. member and draw it upon myself, for the sake of my country, South Africa. That is in fact what I did. I succeeded 100% in my purpose. I now want to produce the proof of what the hon. member was doing for three weeks. I am not making any accusations; I am simply saying that I should like to know precisely where we stand with that hon. member, and precisely where we stand with the Official Opposition in this regard.

I should like to quote a telegram which I received on 27 February 1978 from Washington. That was when the hon. member began to put questions here, in the first place to the hon. the Minister of Justice. Hon. members will recall that when the hon. Minister replied, the hon. member rose, and arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, asked another question. After the hon. the Minister had replied to that question of his as well, he said that the hon. the Minister should go and do his homework. I subsequently raised the matter with the Speaker. On each occasion—there was no opportunity to debate this matter as we are debating it now—the hon. member immediately went to the newspapers and made statements, as I shall now demonstrate to hon. members. This was all done against the background of the following telegram which I received on 27 February 1978 from Washington—

Then they proceeded, with reference to the question which the hon. member for Sandton had put here and they reply given to it by the hon. the Minister of Justice, to suggest to the newspapers that here was an obvious example of a difference between practice and theory. According to them the Minister—they were referring to me—said one thing which became something entirely different in practice. With reference to what was this being said? It was with reference to what happened in Pretoria when, shortly after I had sent that letter to Mr. Chatrier … Every word in that letter was correct and was written with the approval of the departments concerned. As the hon. the Prime Minister also said, by the way, it was absolutely correct in word, in sense and in meaning.

To all sport?

I am coming to that. I shall try to reply to every question. [Interjections.]

But let us see what happened in Pretoria. According to our information the city council of Pretoria received complaints in regard to one of their clubs—the club grounds of which were the property of the city council, for which the city council has to pay for improvements and which it has to maintain. The lessee of the club in question complained to the city council that other people—it does not matter whether they were White or Black or mixed—were, contrary to the wishes and desires of the club, making use of their club facilities. The city council argued that this was simply a case of entry upon the premises, something which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Group Areas Act and with discrimination on the basis of colour. I personally ascertained from the city council that they had warned the offenders. After they had warned the offenders repeatedly the city council felt that, since the club had paid its rent and since the club had to be maintained by the city council, it was compelled to take up the matter with those entering upon the premises unlawfully, and warned them to stay away. I wonder what the reaction of the hon. member for Sandton would be if strangers simply entered upon his property as they pleased. To tell the truth, I wonder what the reaction of all the hon. members of the Opposition would be if something like this were to happen on their properties.

At the instigation of the Pretoria city council—my argument is that this took place without discrimination of any nature and with no difference whatsoever in practice and theory—the police went to the club in question, where they simply warned those who were unlawfully entering upon the premises. But what happened then? The hon. member for Sandton then put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister of Justice in this House, and immediately afterwards he created the impression in public that in this act a difference between theory and practice existed. The hon. member was placing my integrity—in fact the integrity of all of us—at stake. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing whatsoever to do with criticism of myself or the Government. All that can be achieved by such conduct is to harm South Africa, not so? [Interjections.]

That is why, at the very first opportunity, I clearly intimated to the hon. member for Sandton that he had roused me to anger. Up to now—and I want the hon. member to take cognizance of this—I have always regarded him as a person who tries to act reasonably and fairly within the political arena. But when this happened, I got the feeling that something was happening here which was neither fair nor correct.

What else happened? After that—only a week later—the hon. member for Sandton put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister for Plural Relations here in this House. His question was in connection with another matter, the same matter which he raised again in this House this afternoon. It was that I had allegedly granted permission for Black people to play soccer against Whites, and furthermore that I had given them unlimited permission to do so. In the meantime, however, the fact of the matter was that I had furnished the hon. member with all the relevant information in regard to the matter. We received the application for the match in question on 30 January. Completely in accordance with what I wrote to Mr. Chatrier, I granted the soccer people unlimited permission on 7 February for play throughout the entire season. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with my action. After I had granted permission, a soccer match was arranged. But the local people then argued, with the full knowledge of the sports bodies concerned, that owing to practical considerations it would be possible to allow only a certain number of Whites to attend the match, because it would take place in Orlando, a Black township. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with colour discrimination. The only reason for this step was the fact that the stadium in question could accommodate only 33 000 spectators. Now, it had already happened in the past that as many as 50 000 Blacks had turned up at the gates. Consequently the organizers of the match felt that it would be in the interests of all the parties concerned if only a certain number of Whites were allowed to attend the match. I repeat that this entire matter has nothing to do with race discrimination. He then put a question on the Order Paper and an hon. Minister replied to it. He then asked a further question arising out of the reply. He wanted to know whether I had been consulted, and quite correctly the hon. the Minister said: “Yes.” However, I had been consulted in regard to the unlimited permission which I had given on 7 February for the entire season. Further to that there was nothing that I, on my part, had to do.

What did the hon. member do then? Hon. members must remember that this was the second week. He again told the hon. the Minister that the hon. the Minister should do his homework. My goodness, Sir, that hon. member had himself failed to do his own homework. What did he do then? He then made me extremely angry, terribly angry. Remember, now, we are still in the week before our country had to try to convince the Western countries that everything which had happened in South Africa as far as sport was concerned would justify the Western countries not applying a Glen Eagles agreement in regard to South Africa. We have sporting contacts with certain of those countries— thank heaven for that—such as Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and many others. If they were to make a Glen Eagles agreement applicable to us, it would of course cause embarrassment. We on this side are fighting for all we are worth to prevent this, but that hon. member rises to his feet here and, believe it or not, tiresomely insists that there is a difference between the practice and the theory. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member tells me that I am “undignified”. I make no apology if, in the interests of my country, I fight so hard that that hon. member thinks that I am “undignified”.

I want to tell that hon. member candidly that I felt so strongly about this matter, for the reason which I am going to quote, that I gave very serious consideration—however I shall not do so, because I stand for fairness and I should like to have peace if I can, but I stand up for my country and that is why I am prepared to fight to the last breath for sport and in other spheres as well—to asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to relieve the hon. member for Sandton of his position as spokesman on sport on that side of the House. I wanted to do this because of his conduct in the House on those three occasions.

What did the hon. member do? After the hon. the Minister had replied to the questions, had replied to them absolutely correctly, and colour discrimination was not involved anywhere while there was no question whatsoever of a difference between practice and principle, and the Washington Post had contacted me by means of a telegram the previous week as a result of the hon. member’s questions, the hon. member went from this House to The Cape Times—it also appeared in the Rand Daily Mail and other newspapers—and what did we read there?

Koornhof knew about bar on White spectators.

I shall quote only a few passages—

There I am proving it in black and white. The hon. member went further. I was quoted absolutely correctly as I had stated in my letter to Chartrier—

The hon. member went on to say other things and I take these extremely amiss of him. According to the newspaper report—

Is that fair now? [Interjections.] Is it fair to put these questions in this House for three consecutive weeks to three Ministers with the aim with which the hon. member did so, while I can prove to him that all his insinuations were completely incorrect all the way? With that he then ran to the newspapers. They are outside this House, and I cannot defend myself there, for who picks it up? Other newspapers abroad pick it up. Who suffers as a result? Surely it is not I.

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

I shall give the hon. member a chance to put a question to me; I just want to finish my argument first. Who suffers? Surely not I; I am a small cog in this entire matter. Nor is it the NP that suffers. It is not even the Government that suffers. My contention is that it is our country, South Africa, that suffers. The sportsmen suffer. I say this is not fair. Sir, you know what word I used that day, but I shall not repeat it. I said the hon. member was playing a certain game. However, I did not have a chance to state my case. Hon. members must understand what the hon. member is doing. He is conducting a debate outside the House of Assembly, and if I want to reply to him there, I have to take up the issue with the newspapers. And to whose detriment is it then? It is very definitely to the detriment of the country. Then, at the next opportunity, after he had put a question to me, the hon. member …

You will not take a question?

I shall reply to a question. Let me finish my argument first.

Let him put his question.

He can put his question. Let me finish my argument first. [Interjections.]

Order!

After the hon. member had done all these things, he asked me a question during the third week. I replied to him in full and said that it was in accordance with my undertaking with Chatrier that we had given a blank permit—no, not “permit”, for I do not like the word, as I shall indicate in a moment—that we had made an unconditional arrangement and that everything had taken place according to our undertaking to Chatrier. The hon. member then jumped to his feet and asked a question arising out of the reply. It was then that I brought down the thunder upon myself, as I explained here a moment ago, for the Western countries were meeting that morning. But what did the hon. member do? Once again he left this House and ran to The Cape Times. The next day the following headline appeared: “Angry clash over Whites at Soweto stadium.” Hon. members should just see the size of this newspaper headline. My question is: With what purpose? The hon. member went to the newspapers when I was unable to defend myself …

You can go on television!

What did the newspapers say then? I quote—

So if I do not have the right to expose this matter in this House, in this debate, I do not know who has. I am doing this without anger, but I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken heed of this. I also hope the hon. member for Sandton, who is a young member, will take heed of this. I personally am not angry with the hon. member. I should like to co-operate with him. I should also like to co-operate with the Opposition, and there will be areas in which they can be of assistance as far as sport is concerned. I just want to ask this question: “Is it in the interests of South Africa that such things should happen?”

Finally, I should just like to point out the following. While that hon. member was doing this …

May I put my question now?

I shall give you an opportunity to do so in a moment. [Interjections.] While this was happening in this country, there was an independent international inquiry into sport in South Africa. A Frenchman, Mr. Chatrier, was the chairman. Inter alia, there was also a Jamaican. What was their finding?

†They completely absolved the South African Government from the recent failure of moves towards fully integrated tennis.

*Another finding of theirs led to the following, which was published in bold headlines in the newspapers: “Warning to Black tennis”. These were international outsiders. What makes one terribly angry is the fact that while independent outsiders arrived at that conclusion about our fatherland, there were people in South Africa itself who were stirring up feelings against our sportsmen and against sport in South Africa.

I just want to make one final comment now. Then the hon. member can put his question. Because I know sport so well from the inside and because few things happen in sport in this country—I am saying this in all modesty—which I do not take cognizance of and do not know about, and also because I know a struggle has to be waged and that a struggle is being waged against us in sport, I am able to expose this game with chapter and verse this afternoon. I also wonder—and this is what concerns me and is something the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must reply to—whether this happens only in sport or whether it also happens in other spheres. Before the hon. member for Sandton puts his question to me, I just want to tell him something. I am fully prepared to accept the bona fides of the hon. member, as he intimated at the beginning of his speech here this afternoon, but then he will have to produce evidence, against the background of what I have communicated to the House this afternoon, of his bona fides on these matters and prove that he is really acting in the interests of sport in South Africa, that he really wants to join us in furthering the interests of his country. Then he will find us completely approachable. Then he will find that we are prepared to co-operate well with him and with the hon. Opposition. We should like to believe this, but we should like evidence that this is in fact the case. Now the hon. member may put his question.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the passage quoted by the hon. the Minister, the passage in which he mentioned the politics of the toilet, is the hon. the Minister aware that, contrary to the reasons given by both him and the hon. the Minister sitting behind him, the chief officer of the West Rand Bantu Administration Board stated, as the main reason for the limiting of spectators to 30 officials, the fact that there were insufficient separate facilities for Blacks and Whites?

To begin with, that is not correct at all. I gave the hon. member a full reply to that. He can look up my reply. I took a great deal of trouble with it. I quoted what spokesmen of the Police, of the Department of Plural Relations and Development, the Department of Sport and Recreation had said. I can quote to him what Mr. Rapp and other spokesmen of the players said. After they had seen the practical arrangements— which had nothing to do with race discrimination—they took that decision because it was possible that 50 000 Blacks could turn up in Orlando, a place in which we try to avoid incidents and a place in which we must act responsibly in the interests of South Africa. It was by no means only a question of toilets. In the final instance, in fact, toilets did not in fact come into the picture at all. I can deal the hon. member an ugly blow concerning toilets, but I shall refrain from doing so. As I have said, the issue had nothing whatsoever to do with toilets. It seems to me the hon. member has toilets on the brain. [Interjections.] I have said enough about this matter now. Let me now refer to positive matters.

At the Nico Malan Theatre they were barred for that reason.

I have tried to be as fair as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not answered my question. My question was: Is the hon. the Minister aware that Mr. Wilsenach, the head official of the West Rand Bantu Affairs Board, stated publicly in the Press that the main reason for this decision was the fact that there were not separate facilities at that stadium?

Mr. Chairman, after I had gone into the matter, I furnished the hon. member with a full reply in regard to it. There were various reasons for the decision that only a few Whites would be allowed. Let me tell the hon. member, who is so keen on rummaging around in toilets, that the hon. the Prime Minister …

That sort of allegation does not become you.

… had stated the general policy in a previous debate, i.e. that when it is a matter of sporting functions in Black areas, the Blacks take precedence in respect of the facilities there. He said that. That is the policy. These bodies were therefore merely acting in accordance with policy. However, the hon. member is now trying to raise the matter of toilets every time. It involves far more than toilets.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to cross swords with the hon. member on another matter.

You have not answered my question.

You do not have a reply to the question. You keep rattling on like a machine-gun, but you do not reply to the question. [Interjections.]

I have replied to that in full now. I want to cross swords with the hon. member in respect of another issue. Referring to Sacos he said: “They are powerful in soccer; they are powerful in tennis,” and so on. I want to ask the hon. member a simple question. Would the hon. member take the trouble to find out how many tennis members they have, and then communicate that information to the House? Would he take the trouble to ascertain how many they have in soccer, and cricket, and then come and tell this House whether they are “powerful”, or who are “powerful” in those sports? These organizations are using sport to achieve political objective. They say so themselves. The hon. member also said that, but he rose to his feet here and described them as “powerful”, while they are no more “powerful” than that clock here in this House is “powerful”.

The hon. member said that they were “powerful”. I object to that, because the honour of my country is at stake. It will of course receive attention abroad when the chairman of the sports group of the Opposition in South Africa states that these organizations are “powerful”. What must the outside world believe? Of course they believe it! That is why we repeatedly make the accusation that there are people in South Africa who are making common cause with our enemies, and that that is why we are encountering such difficulties in the field of sports and in other fields. I make no apology if I become emotional about this matter.

What is your allegation?

I want to cross swords with the hon. member on a third point. He said here that in my capacity as Minister of Sport and Recreation I should ask the Minister of Justice two things: Why does he not release from prison certain people who happen to be sports administrators, and why cannot they obtain passports. Apparently the hon. member does not even consider the possibility that those people, who happen to be sports administrators as well, were not imprisoned because of offences they had committed in the field of sport, or that they were refused passports because they had done anything detrimental in the field of sport. I can give the hon. member the assurance that, to my knowledge, I have on no occasion …

Like Basil D’Oliveira.

… made any recommendation as Minister of Sport and Recreation to the effect that a person should not be given a passport. I do not deal with that. People are refused passports for other reasons. I can give this hon. House the assurance that I have never yet made a recommendation that a person who was a sportsman or a sports administrator, should be imprisoned for any reason. I have never yet had any reason to do so. Therefore it is my opinion that that hon. member is acting in a way which does not redound to the credit of the country or our sportsmen.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us, seeing he knows so much about this, why Hassan Howa, Normal Middleton and M. N. Pather are not given passports, people who are senior sports administrators?

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I do not deal with that matter.

You should.

I do not deal with it. I repeat that I have not, to my knowledge, made such a recommendation. In fact, I refrain from making recommendations because I feel that sport is a matter which should be elevated above politics, and should stand aloof from politics. I want to make this very clear to the hon. member once more.

That hon. member, and other members as well, raised another matter which I want to dwell on for a while. This is the question of the financing of sports facilities for Blacks, Whites and so on. In that regard, too, a gross misunderstanding exists in the outside world and also here in South Africa. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how much money was directly and indirectly appropriated last year to sport for Black people in this country? More than R10 156 000, plus R1 million for the Punt Janson Fund. This brings the amount up to almost R12 million, while the amount appropriated for Whites—hon. members can look at the estimates—amounted to R2 480 000. But nothing is said about these facts. On the Coloureds, more than R5,5 million in aggregate is being spent, as against an amount of R2 480 000 which is being expended directly and in all other ways for the Whites. In this respect as well, therefore, no unfavourable picture need be presented to the outside world.

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

Mr. Chairman, my time is very limited, even so I shall give the hon. member a chance to put another question.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister. I was very interested in his earlier announcement in regard to the question of the Hoek Report. My question relates to the spending of moneys. Is it possible, flowing from the Hoek Report that from what the hon. the Minister has just said, for one Department of Sport and Recreation to control sport for all races in that portion of South Africa outside the homelands? Is that possible? Can such a system come into being?

In June last year I asked the Cabinet to appoint a committee to go into the question of whether the Department of Sport and Recreation should not be a service department for all the population groups owing to the findings of the Hoek Report which we already had at that stage. The Cabinet then appointed a committee. That committee did very thorough work. All the departments involved in this matter served on that committee. Mr. Hoek was the chairman of that committee. The committee has completed its activities, and it is finalizing the report, and as soon as the report reaches me, I shall take it to the Cabinet for a decision. I tried to do everything in my power to make sure that I got it before my Vote came up for discussion, but the intervention of various factors made this impossible. Therefore we are taking this matter very seriously.

I want to refer to another very important matter in this connection, and I am doing so so that hon. members may take cognizance of this. On 6 April I received a letter from abroad. I could quote many examples of how, on every occasion when I made a positive statement on sport and the normalizing of sport, that statement was accompanied—and I can prove this conclusively—either by an artificially generated incident or by the artificially generated adverse publicity associated with a specific incident, so that the positive side of the matter was absolutely drowned out in the foreign Press by the negative publicity. I have now received a letter which absolutely confirms this. I quote the following passage from it—

Who wrote that?

We must take cognizance of this kind of behaviour. If I had had the time at my disposal, I would have informed this House, giving chapter and verse, of how these things happen. I now want to ask hon. members of the Official Opposition—not in my own interest, not in the interest of the Government, but in the interest of our fatherland and of our sportsmen—not to take part in this. Hon. members are taking part in this, either wilfully or out of ignorance, and the one is just as bad as the other. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Groote Schuur must please contain himself.

There must be no doubt at all that a fierce onslaught is being made on South Africa to isolate us in the field of sport. Nor is there any doubt that in certain respects they have been successful. However, we are not going to take it lying down and, thank heaven, the sportsmen in South Africa are not going to take it lying down either. The more pressure they exert on us in order to isolate us, the more they will fail, for the more our sportsmen and sportswomen in South Africa, here among themselves, will generate so much sport with so much enthusiasm that they will ultimately place South Africa in the position where the outside world will want to know, with great interest, how we succeeded in doing this, and they will have no other choice but to take us back of their own free will. Hon. members will still see this happen, for we have already made a great deal of progress.

Let us consider for a moment how successful they are in their efforts to isolate us. As regards the numbers of sports visits to South Africa between the years 1973 and 1978 up to 31 March 1978, the figures are as follows: In 1973, 48; 1974, 50; 1976, 48; 1977, 53 and so far in 1978 up to 31 March, 22. This includes some of our major sports such as rugby. The number of countries that were represented were. In 1973, 44; in 1974, 37; 1975, 53; 1976, 40; 1977, 41 and up to 31 March 1978, 19.

As far as visits to overseas countries are concerned, the types of sport represented totalled 43 in 1973, and 44 in 1977. The types of sport represented up to 31 March 1978 totalled 13. In 1973 25 countries were visited, and in 1977, 34 countries. Up to and including 31 March 1978, the number of countries visited was 16. As regards the types of sport in which there was international participation, the figures are: In 1973, 62; in 1974, 65; in 1975, 68; 1976, 64; in 1977, 65 and up to 31 March 1978, 30.

Last year international congresses and conferences of various kinds were held in this country. Therefore it is not true to allege that we have become effectively isolated in this process, because we have not. For that reason I say that it is necessary that our sportsmen— all of us—should simply continue the struggle, for we shall be able to wage the struggle successfully, and I have no doubt at all that we shall be victorious in this process, because we have set our own sports house in order.

I want to reiterate on this occasion that we are prepared to practise sport with any country in the world. In this way we are prepared to compete with African countries. You, Mr. Chairman, are my witness that I invited Mr. Ordia of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa, as well as the president and other delegates from Kenya, to South Africa. We are also prepared to participate in sport against Russian, China and other such countries, against all countries, without any exception. I am prepared to say that if the chairman of the Olympic Committee of Russia wants to pay a visit to South Africa as a sports administrator, we shall gladly receive him here. I have discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We are prepared to do anything imaginable to demonstrate to the outside world that not only are we normalizing sport in South Africa, but that we also want to keep politics out of sport, and that we want to practise sport in such a way in South Africa that it will be an instrument it was intended to be, namely to establish sound relations between peoples, nations, groups and individuals.

I very much wanted to reply to all the requests and questions of hon. members, but since time does not permit, I shall unfortunately be unable to do so. I want to thank everyone very sincerely for participating in the debate. I want to give them the assurance that I shall see to it personally that every request addressed to me here will receive the necessary attention and that the hon. members will be furnished with a written reply. The only reason why I did not reply to each question and request of each individual hon. member, as I did in my other Vote, was because I considered it my duty to discuss certain specific matters during this Vote, as I consequently did. I hope that what I have said will have a good effect, so that we can all cooperate unanimously, because sport, as humble as it is, is nevertheless a very important instrument to help solve the problems in South Africa and to find formulas so that we as nations and as people can live together in peace, with sound interrelations, all to the glory and honour of our country and the heavenly Father who put us here in South Africa.

I want to conclude with the words of a poet for whom I have a high regard. I want to do so in the ardent hope that it will also find acceptance among those hon. members and among our sportsmen and women. [Interjections.] I am quoting this because I think it is splendid, and very applicable here. I make no apology for it being sentimental, because I like it very much. The words are—

Finally, I want to thank the Secretary for Sport, the Undersecretary for Sport, Mr. Keet, and the staff of the department very sincerely for what they are doing for sport in South Africa. It is a small department, but precisely because it is a small department and does not have many officials, those officials who are there have to work twice as hard. This is exactly what they do, and they do so brilliantly, in the interests of their country, and one is very grateful that we have such competent officials. On behalf of this entire House, I want to thank them sincerely for the brilliant work they are doing. We shall without any doubt at all be victorious on behalf of sport in South Africa. I have no doubt at all about that.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.