Mr. Chairman, because the Sport and Recreation Division of the department was mentioned in the debate last night, I just wish to reply to some of the outstanding aspects mentioned in the debate.

†I should like to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo about the medical faculty at the University of Natal. I merely want to correct one impression. I do not want to allege that the hon. member intentionally misrepresented the facts. The hon. member did mention that I had discussed this matter at the Natal congress of the NP. It is perfectly true that I was approached there by several people for permission for their children to be allowed to study at the University of Natal. We referred this matter to the relevant autonomous body, which is of course the council of the University of Natal. This council pointed out that it would only be prepared to admit these students on condition that there were no applications from Black or Asian students. They also pointed out that they had received such a number of applications from the other groups that they could not even consider allowing Whites to enrol at the faculty until such time as extra facilities had been provided.

This, of course, does take a lot of time to complete. Not only that, but I also pointed out yesterday that we would have to consider the whole question of extensions at universities very carefully in future. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training—and I hope he will allow me to say this—expects his commission of inquiry to report soon. I think I mentioned this in passing yesterday.

The whole question of providing extra facilities for Blacks, facilities which are sorely needed, will be dealt with after receipt of that report. Meanwhile, I do not believe we can allow vacancies for non-White students at the University of Natal to be filled by White students. Another reason why it should not be done is the fact, also stated here by the hon. member for Umbilo yesterday, that there are so few doctors in the Black community that we do need each and every one of them.

With regard to the hon. member’s question about the Children’s Act, I kindly request him to write me a letter so that I can deal with the matter in depth. I promise to give it my serious attention.

*In a very thorough speech, for which I thank him, the hon. member for De Aar brought certain matters to my notice which are already being considered by the department. The one very practical matter is that it is certainly necessary that there should be closer consultation between the various bodies which exercise control over education. I have referred in passing to the multitude of organizations which exist. What the hon. member says is quite correct, i.e. that if all these people are working independently of one another, it can only cause confusion. I therefore intend to consult all these separate bodies at an early stage in the parliamentary recess. I shall do so in cooperation with the Education Council—not the Teachers’ Council—and try to work out methods for initiating that kind of discussion which the hon. member suggests.

His remarks in connection with the Afrikaans textbooks touch on a question which is still giving rise to problems, especially since we have only limited funds for financing the provision of Afrikaans textbooks for the natural sciences and special subjects. However, I hope that we shall be able to make ample provision for this in next year’s appropriation, since this has also been pointed out to us as a problem by the departmental branch concerned. I also want to request the hon. member, as far as the problem at Venterstad is concerned, rather to put his requests to us in writing so that I may reply to them at greater length.

I also thank the hon. member for Roodepoort for his contribution. I can assure the hon. member that his representations and his suggestions will receive the necessary attention from the department.

Then the hon. member for Rissik—being a representative of a constituency in which there are many students—naturally raised the subject of the failure rate at universities. This is a matter which has been under discussion for a long time and for which no solution has yet been found anywhere. It is a tragedy that in spite of all our endeavours, the failure rate at our universities is unfortunately not diminishing, but still rising. I do not know whether it is being caused by too much money. I do not know what the causes are. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who has been active in the academic world, and other people who are more familiar with the problem, will be able to form a better judgment of it.

The hon. member for Rissik advanced a few reasons. I should like to add one further reason to those. I know the hon. member also had it in mind. In fact, he has discussed it with me. That is the question of more discipline for students so that they will study when they are at university. It is an unfortunate fact that students are sometimes sent to university merely in order that their parents may say that their child has been at university. Under those circumstances, they simply do not study. Especially when that student has reached maturity and nothing but his work should count for him any longer, so that he may at least fulfil his obligations towards society, we find that kind of lack of discipline which I am afraid we shall have to counteract. There are members from the world of Tukkies who may disagree with me. However, I am sorry about the disappearance one thing from our student life, and that is the initiation of freshmen year students. The psychologists can all tell me about the harm that those “cruelties” of initiation do to a young man’s sensibilities. I have always believed that when a freshman arrives at university, he must be made aware of the fact that he is a freshman who has to find his feet and that he can most certainly receive the right guidance from his seniors.

I want to suggest that the rise in the failure rate at the ARU should be very carefully examined. I have another unpleasant idea in mind, concerning which I want to warn the hon. member for Rissik. There is a subsidy formula—in saying this, I am not making any accusations against university authorities—which provides for subsidies to be paid to universities based on the number of students, among other things. There are certain measures, for example, a person studying for his master’s degree is counted as two students. The formulas are intended to prevent people from going to university only to have fun. I am afraid that we may have to ask the co-operation of the universities in working out the subsidy formula on the basis of the number of students who qualify in August for the final examinations. If there are students who do not qualify in August, therefore, this would have an adverse effect on the subsidy of that university. However, I am not an authority on this subject and I believe that universities are doing their best to combat this unfortunate phenomenon. I wish them every success in their efforts.

We have also had a contribution from the hon. member for Virginia, for which I want to express my sincere appreciation. If there is positive thinking of this nature in terms of which we can create channels of negotiation without the unpleasantness which has arisen, we shall have come a long way. The hon. Opposition rightly pointed out the unpleasant aspects. It is their duty and privilege to do so. However, if we can have this positive thinking from the hon. Opposition as well, concerning the way in which liaison can be achieved and unpleasantness can be stopped before it threatens to engulf us, we shall have come a long way too. The suggestions made by the hon. member will certainly receive the serious attention of the department.

With that I have now dealt with most of the points raised under the National Education Vote.

However, I just want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that after his remark yesterday, I took the trouble—unfortunately I do not have it with me—of checking the resolutions passed at Lagos concerning mother-tongue instruction and education within a cultural context. I should be glad to let him have them, so that when we differ about things, he may inspect the documents I referred to yesterday and see that my facts are correct.

Just before business was suspended last night, the hon. member for Sandton said some kind words about Mr. Beyers Hoek, the Secretary for Sport and Recreation in recent years, who is unfortunately to retire in June. Just as Dr. Van Wyk and his staff have been my right hand under difficult circumstances in the Department of National Education these last few months, I cannot be grateful enough for the contribution made by Mr. Hoek, an old friend of mine, in his official capacity. I always found Mr. Hoek to be a person who understood another man’s standpoint, but who was at the same time always prepared to defend his own standpoint in an acceptable way, and in such a way that he could bring other people round to his point of view.

I think we may feel very happy about what has been achieved in the world of sport this year. There are sometimes those who praise the Minister for this. However, I want to repeat today what I have said on many public platforms: Had it not been for the sport administrators of South Africa, I do not know where we would have stood. Our sport administrators have kept on encouraging sportsmen in our country through the years, sometimes under difficult circumstances, sometimes in the face of public opinion and sometimes in the face of the majority opinion and of world opinion as well. At the head of the sport administrators were Mr. Hoek and his team of able officials, who inspired them.

As a tribute to him I want to say that I do not know whether the Lions tour and the test we are looking forward to seeing on 31 May would have been possible if it had not been for men such as Mr. Hoek and the officials in the department. I do not know whether it would have been possible to have a world title boxing match if it had not been for the perseverance of loyal officials who went on working regardless under difficult circumstances. The achievements of a Cork Ballington, a Jody Scheckter and a Sorgenfrei, and all the people who have become world champions in spite of the fact that we are to a large extent isolated from world sport, would probably not have been possible. This is the tribute I want to pay to Mr. Beyers Hoek and the officials today.

We wish him well in his future career. I hope he will also find that there will be useful suggestions from both sides of the House for the benefit of those who will have to do his work in the department.

Mr. Chairman, as I said last night shortly before the adjournment, Mr. Beyers Hoek takes leave of his sport responsibilities at a time when South African sportsmen can look to the future with perhaps justifiably a little more hope than they have had in the past.

Since we last debated this Vote in Parliament last year, three or more international commissions have visited South Africa and three of them have issued reports which have crossed my desk. I shall not dwell on the detail of the three reports because they will be dealt with in detail by one of my colleagues. I should like to say, however, that in the three reports which crossed my desk—I refer to the report of the International Cricket Conference, the report of the British Council of Sport, the so-called Jeeps Report, and the report of the study group of the French Parliament, known as the Bernard Marie Report—there shines through a welcome element of comprehension of the real changes which have occurred on the sport fields of South Africa in recent years. The criticism which is contained in the reports is honest, but never malicious. There appears to be a growing desire, a growing understanding and a growing wish, at least among our traditional friends, to find a way to reopen and maintain contact with South African sportsmen. The Jeeps Report, in particular, has been followed by a courageous call by the British Council of Sport to British sportsmen to reassess their position vis-à-vis their South African contacts and also to take note of the changes that have happened in South Africa. They have called upon British sportsmen in particular to come to South Africa to see for themselves what has occurred.

Another happy light in the history of South African sport is the fact that now for the first time in six years we have the opportunity of entertaining not one, but two international rugby teams in South Africa. I refer to the South American Jaguars and the British Lions. Here I think it would be fitting if coming from this Parliament a tribute were paid to Dr. Danie Craven who is the chairman of the South African Rugby Board. During the years that have gone past, the difficult times that South African sport has undergone, I believe it was in the world of rugby that his diplomacy, his negotiating ability, his perseverance and, above all, the respect in which world sportsmen have held Dr. Danie Craven have kept the South African flag flying in the international capitals of the world. I believe South Africa owes Dr. Danie Craven a great deal. I think he should know that everyone in this House believes that with all his heart.

Another pleasing development was the recent verbal exchange which was reported in the Press and took place between the chairman of the South African Olympic and National Games Association and Mr. Hassan Howa, the chairman of Sacos. As we know, Sacos has been at odds with the establishment sports, and vice versa, for several years, and I believe that this first contact, this exchange of views, these friendly words, augurs well for South African sportsmen, because when all is said and done, no matter what politicians do, whether they do it here for or against South Africa or abroad for or against South Africa, if South African sportsmen can find themselves, if they can develop a mutual trust and understanding, then the road back to international competition will be that little less arduous. But recent developments must not instil in us a false sense of euphoria. It must not instil in us a sense of complacency, because if we look at the facts, South Africa is still barred from the Olympic Games, we are still barred from full international competition in virtually all the Olympic sports, our cricket teams are still confined to local competitions, and the Springbok team is still barred from the Davis Cup, as is the ladies Springbok team from the Federation Cup. South Africa remains expelled from the world bodies representing some 23 other sports sorts.

In 1979 alone South Africans were prevented by the Governments concerned from competing in such countries as Taiwan, whose Prime Minister was here only a month or two ago, France, Sri Lanka, Trinidad, Greece and Australia. In several other instances invitations were not extended to South Africa by the sports bodies concerned because of the known hostile attitude of the relevant Governments.

Our remaining sport ties with our traditional friends, our old friends, are the subject of constant attack by scores of nations from both the East and the West. This is confirmed by the very first words of the report issued by the department yesterday—

There we have that word again—

So says the report of the department itself.

Against this background, this background of hope and this background of increasing hostility, let us look briefly at the developments of Government policy over the years. In 1956 the then Minister of the Interior stated that it was Government policy that Whites and Blacks should organize their sporting activities separately and that there should be no interracial competitions. Eleven years later, in 1967, Mr. B. J. Vorster, the then Prime Minister, agreed in the face of pressure, and only in the face of pressure, to allow a mixed national team to compete at the Olympic Games, although no mixed trials were to be allowed in South Africa. As we all know, this concession proved to be of very little value at all, and what was of as little value was his re-affirmation of principle that every population group should exercise and administer its sports separately at club, provincial and national level.

Only after sports isolation and boycotts had bitten deeply into South African society, only after Peter Hain had instituted boycotts abroad, did changes start to happen. In 1973 these changes were given a new name. They were given the name of multi-nationalism, a system which went hand in hand with the newly initiated stratagem of allowing mixing on the sports fields by virtue of special permit. We predicted even at that early stage that the indignities inherent in the permit system would only exacerbate and would not relief the situation. It was only in 1976, after September of that year, when the various congresses of the National Party had met and discussed the growing sports crisis, and in the wake of further ostracism, of cancelled tours and expulsions, that the tightly controlled permit system began to give way to a new dispensation, a dispensation which Dr. Koornhof, who was then the Minister of Sport and Recreation, called “the normalization of sport”. So we moved to this new slogan “normalization”. Even then, as now, it was Government policy that White, Coloured, Indian and Black sportsmen belonged to their own clubs and could control, arrange and manage their own sports matters. In 1979, strangely enough, concomitant with the cancellation of the Springbok rugby tour to France, sport at that moment was deemed to be officially normal, and a new slogan was brought into the jargon of sportsmen, the slogan “the autonomy of sportsmen”. In terms of this new declaration, the Government, whose policy remained the same, nonetheless distanced its standing from what it would allow sportsmen and what it would allow to take place. While advising sportsmen it no longer focuses or forces its attitude upon them. I believe that this is a welcome change, a change which has done good things for sport, a change which has allowed a progressive development in the approach, but a change which has led to a very interesting situation. Because South Africa and the NP in particular is still … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank that hon. member. This change has led to a very interesting situation, because the 1976 policy of the NP still stands. The policy still relates to the question of separate clubs, it still espouses a system of separate managements of sports administration, it still says that sport should be arranged on a separate basis, but looking across that four-year gap, we find that in 1980 the actual practice of how sportsmen run their affairs bears very little relation to the policy as it stands on the NP book. Clubs are integrated, managements are integrated, leagues and competitions are being integrated, merit selection cuts across all colour lines and South Africa is represented by only one national team in virtually all sports. This is quite contrary to NP policy. I should like to quote from the well-known book Treurnicht aan die Woord where he states what he has to say on this subject at page 80. He says—

That reflects the actual 1976 policy of the Government. I quote it purely to show that in terms of the realities of South African life the practice of sport in South Africa bears no resemblance to the policies as espoused by the Government. Almost nothing of the policy which I have quoted here is in fact part of the Government allowing sportsmen to do their thing. The policy as such, as it existed in September 1979, has in fact been consigned to the rubbish heap. There are three elements in this. I have talked about the policy and I have talked about the practice, but there is a third element, and that element relates to the law. The law, as it relates to sport, embodies the Group Areas Act, which is still on the Statute Book. Proclamation 228, framed in terms of the Group Areas Act and which is directly aimed at sportsmen is still on the Statute Book. The Bantu (Urban Areas) Act, which prevents people from going into areas other than those of their own race group, the Liquor Act and the Separate Amenities Act, all these statutes are still on the Statute Book, unamended and in force. While it is understood that most of these laws are at the present moment being circumnavigated by administrative instruction, we must realize that while these discriminating provisions stand on the Statute Book and affect sportsmen, and while the law is unchanged, there will still be the incidents from time to time which constantly take place and bedevil our relationship with the outside world, for instance the restaurant incident, the club incidents, the incidents with regard to entertaining in clubs, etc. There will still be the isolated, and sometimes not so isolated, occasions which cause friction and misunderstanding. We shall continue to hand a weapon to the enemies of South Africa, a weapon which they will use against us.

So, to summarize, there is hope. There is a new understanding by our old friends of the South African situation. There is, nevertheless, intensified animosity in certain quarters. There still is misunderstanding between the internal sporting organizations represented by the establishment and Sacos. In view of all that, I should like to make a few positive suggestions to take South African sportsmen into the 1980s and to take a step forward towards bringing South Africa back into international competition. The first thing that should be done is that the Government should take urgent steps to get the policy of the NP, the Statute Books concerned and the practice, as far as sportsmen are concerned, into line. Only when the policy is in line with the law and which the law in turn is in line with practice, will misunderstanding be erased. Only in that way will incidents be avoided, will uncertainties be eliminated, will friction be avoided and, above all, will confusion be avoided. Only when the law corresponds to the practice and to the policy, will we have a situation in which people both in this country and outside will understand our attitudes and what we are trying to do. I want to give an example of differences with regard to international clubs and licences. Only recently, one or two days ago, the hon. the Minister, whose predecessor had promised the French that there was no law to prevent anybody from joining any club, admitted in this House that non-White clubs could not apply in the normal way for international licences. They have to apply by way of a separate system. He also said that a certain club had applied, but that it had not been agreed to because there was no provision in the Liquor Act for them to apply. I believe that those laws must be brought in line with the policy.

My second suggestion is that financial relief to underprivileged areas must be speeded up. I have said it before. Merit selection can mean nothing when people have not had the chance to gain expertise. In order to gain expertise, people have to practise. One has to have facilities to enable one to practise. There must be money to enable one to have facilities, and I believe that South Africa can afford a far greater contribution to sport than is the case at the present time. The hon. the Prime Minister would be interested to know that R1,65 per person is spent on sport in America. In Britain R1,70 is spent on every individual with regard to sport. In West Germany R21,60 is spent on each person for sport. In South Africa we spend 59c per person on sport. That is something which I believe should be looked at. This comes from the report of the S.A. Olympic Games Association.

The third thing I should like to suggest, is that the Government should think seriously about the method of Government financing of sport. If one looks at the report, one will see that we have trim park campaigns, “skip for your life” campaigns, fun runs, recreational gymnastics, etc. These are wonderful activities, and wonderful work is being done, but it is not the job of the Government. It is the job of an autonomous set of sports bodies to organize those sort of things. I believe, and the world outside believes, that South African sportsmen are closely tied to the Government by financial strings, by organizational strings and by departmental strings. I believe that it is time that the Government negotiated with the sportsmen and independent sports council, which would be representative of both the Government and sportsmen, to handle these kinds of things.

Fourthly, I believe that the hon. the Minister must now take time out to sort out the bureaucracy that governs inter-school competition across the colour line. If this is a matter of local option, it should be that such intersports competitions are prevented, as they have been in the Transvaal and other areas by the bureacracy and decisions of innumerable officials and politicians. I believe that the natural progression should be allowed of what the schools, headmasters and parents want to do, without interference of the Government.

Finally, I want to say that I believe the Government should not sponsor uniracially exclusive projects. In this regard I am talking about trim parks. In every city there are hundreds and thousands of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians as well as Whites, but 90% of the money that is being spent on trim parks is being spent in municipalities whose trim parks are not open to all races. If the Government wishes to gain credibility and if South African sportsmen are to gain credibility in the world and to have goodwill within South Africa, we should not put money into organizations and projects which are used exclusively for one race only.

None of the suggestions I have made are radical. They are nothing more than a natural “ontplooiing” of the method in which sportsmen have practised their sport over the years. If these few suggestions are implemented, they will constitute yet another step towards, I hope, creating understanding of our situation abroad which, in turn, will assist in creating understanding in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the course of his speech the hon. member for Sandton made only one statement that I am able to agree with and that was that South Africa should not entertain the false hope that the doors of international sport that have been opened to us are going to remain open in the future. We shall have to work hard in the future. Our sports administrators will have to act responsibly, and so will our politicians. The hon. member for Sandton said that we in South Africa cannot hope to make progress in the international sporting sphere unless we bring our policy and our laws into line with one another. I want to ask the hon. member what we must bring our policy and our laws into line with. Does the hon. member want us to bring them into line with the demands made by the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa? Does the hon. member want them to be brought into line with the demands made by the UN? Does he want us to bring them into line with the demands that Sacos and Sanroc are making of South Africa?

No, into line with practice.

The hon. member for Sandton tried to make a caricature of the NP’s sports policy, of the alteration and development thereof. The NP’s policy is a policy that has been accepted by the congresses of the NP, not only because the NP has seen that it is in the best interests of sport in South Africa, but also because it is in the best interests of race relations in South Africa. In spite of the fact that we are criticized by the other side of the House, we have made break-throughs in the past year, not on grounds of the policies of the other side of the House, but on the honest statements and standpoints of this side of the House as expressed by the hon. the Minister who is dealing with the department at the moment.

I should like to associate myself with the tribute that was paid to Mr. Beyers Hoek, who is now going to retire. We grew to know Oom Beyers as an excellent administrator. On a deeper level, we learned to know him as a noble person who served the cause of sport unselfishly. He never asked what the reward would be or calculated what the cost would be. Those of us who learned to know him better, feel enriched as a result of the commendable example that he set us. We want to say thank you very much to Oom Beyers for what he has done for South African sport. We also say thank you very much for what he has done for the children of South Africa. We have heard that Mr. Hoek is now going to devote himself to farming and that he is going to specialize in Afrikaner cattle. From what I know of him, I would not be surprised if one of his Afrikaner oxen were to come running onto the field in a Springbok jersey within the next ten years. In my mind’s eye I can already imagine the jealousy of the “Blou Bul” of Loftus Versfeld when he sees that red Afrikaner ox running onto the field at Loftus Versfeld.

In a striped jersey.

If it was within my power to bestow Springbok colours or merit awards, I do not think there would be a more worthy recipient of such an award than Mr. Beyers Hoek. Once again I want to express our gratitude towards him and pay tribute to him.

I cannot remember a decade that was ushered in by so much talk and so many articles on sport as the eighties have been. In South Africa the talk was about the South American team, the Jaguars, who visited South Africa. It was about the British Lions who were to visit us and who are here at the moment, about the Springbok team which would probably tour South America and the possible physical contact that we would once again have with the French Tricolors. There is more than enough to talk about for our boxing enthusiasts. We received Sport in South Africa—Report of the Sports Council’s Fact Finding Delegation from Britain and the report of the French fact finding delegation.

This talk about sport in the international sphere in 1980 is not limited to South Africa alone. The talk about the Olympic Games in Moscow this year caused an international interest in sport the like of which has seldom been seen. Even though there is uncertainty about the Olympic Games in Moscow, there is nevertheless an involuntary spark of excitement at the mere idea of the unforgettable spectacle which these games can present.

I do not want to venture an opinion about the attitude that South Africa would have adopted if we had still been a member of the International Olympic Committee today and had been invited to the Olympic Games. However, I think that the Olympic Games and the discussion about them, have made one point very clear and this is that the sportsmen and sports administrators throughout the world now have an opportunity to discuss the question of whether politics should be allowed to victimize sport in the future. I believe that if a new image, a new organization, and a new will can develop from this discord regarding the Olympic Games in Moscow, for playing sport for sport’s sake, then sport can triumph in this case too.

In the interest of sports in South Africa, we now need responsible sportsmen and -women, responsible administrators, responsible spectators and responsible political discussions now in 1980, perhaps more so than ever before in the past. I can testify that there have been responsible political discussions in recent times.

If one looks at the report of the French fact finding delegation, one sees that the hon. the Minister and Dr. Barrière, one of the members of the French fact finding delegation, had a serious disagreement with one another during one of their discussions. A heated exchange took place between these two people. An argument arose which, even when one reads the report, causes one to wonder whether the discussions were not in danger of being terminated. In spite of those serious differences, which, however, were motivated in a responsible manner, this report testifies to the fact that the integrity of the hon. the Minister of National Education in South Africa has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is this very integrity which is inherent in the policy of the NP, a policy that we put to this fact-finding delegation in exactly the same way as we put it to our people in South Africa, which meant that a report which is not exclusively in our favour and which also contains negative elements, was published and that it was objective enough to cause various sports administrators to decide to make contact with South Africa once again.

If one also reads the report of the Jeeps Commission, one sees that the integrity of Ministers Chris Heunis and Piet Koornhof is also recognized. They too differed with the officials of these delegations, but they continued to state the policy of the NP in an honest manner, as we know it and understand it in South Africa.

I also said that we need responsible political administrators in the country.

Where is Andries this afternoon?

During the course of my speech I may touch on matters which would cause people to think that, although I am now asking for responsible political discussions, I myself am becoming irresponsible, but I am prepared to cause them to doubt, if in doing so I can succeed in putting an end to irresponsible discussions.

I now want to talk about the organizations that have not made it easier, but more difficult for South Africa’s sportsmen and -women to compete in the international sporting sphere over the past years. The hon. member for Sandton referred to certain organizations here, but in more flattering language than I am going to do so. I want to refer to the organizations Sacos and Sanroc. One can trace the history of Sacos—this is the South African Council of Sport. Sanroc —the South African Non-racial Olympic Committee—was established in 1961 in order to cause South Africa’s participation in the Olympic Games to miscarry unless it was to take place on a multi-racial basis. From then on Sanroc proceeded to enter the political sphere too, with the aid of socialist and communist agents. As a result of the course that the officials of those organizations were pursuing, they went ahead with aggressive activities. We know the history of the bomb explosion at the station which was caused by John Harris who was the chairman of Sanroc at that stage. John Harris’ co-workers fled the country and one of his disciples, Brutus, followed him and so Sanroc came to an end here in South Africa. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my sincere gratitude towards the hon. Whip for the opportunity that he is affording me as well as for the spirit in which he is doing so. I really do appreciate it very much.

In 1973 Sacos was then established, ostensibly with the aim of promoting sport amongst the non-Whites, strengthening ties between non-White sporting bodies, strengthening the Republic’s sporting ties with countries abroad and also to gain recognition for our sportsmen on a non-racial basis. When one looks at the objectives of this organization per se, one must admit although one may disagree with them, there is not much fault to be with the original viewpoint of the organization.

However, as they progressed, it became clear that it had become their objective to overthrow the Government and not to promote sport in South Africa. Mr. Chatriere, the president of the International Tennis Federation, put it clearly that Mr. Pather, the secretary of Sacos and the representative of the South African National Tennis Union too at the moment, told Mr. Chatriere during his visit to South Africa in 1979 that he—that is Pather—was not interested in the promotion of South African Tennis, but that he merely wanted to use tennis in order to fulfil political objectives.

At the moment, Sacos and Sanroc are working together abroad in order to cause South Africa’s foreign sports relations and our participation in sport to miscarry. Sanroc is in very close co-operation with the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa amongst others, and this body has access to the UN. We have proof of this, because in a letter of 10 May 1978—this letter was referred to last year too—Mr. Abraham Ordia, the president of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa, put it to this ad hoc committee of the UN that Sanroc was the foreign wing of Sacos. Mr. Hassan Howa adopted the same standpoint before the British Fact-finding Delegation this year. The chairman of Sanroc, Mr. Sam Ramsamey, is manning an office at the UN at the moment and Sacos provides this office with distorted information. On one occasion in 1978 Mr. Ramsamey said the following—

It is clear that Sacos is working against South Africa. It is clear that it is trying, in co-operation with Sanroc, to persuade foreign sports administrators who are favourably disposed towards South Africa, to support them. The clearest proof of this is that Mr. Ramsamey tried to convince Mr. Daume, one of the West German sports administrators, to write a message of good wishes and prosperity for a paper by Sacos. He was unable to succeed in taking in a well disposed friend of South Africa.

Mr. Hassan Howa, the president of Sacos, indicated to the late Sir Ludwig Gudman that he was prepared to present a letter on behalf of Sacos in which he would indicate that Sacos would withdraw its opposition to the S.A. Sports Association for Paraplegics and other Physically Disabled. At that stage that letter was very important to us. What happened then? Instead of that letter, Sacos sent a telegramme to the international body requesting the prohibition of South Africa’s participation in the Olympic Games for paraplegics in Holland in 1980.

This organization is not active on the international level alone. We find that they are entering local spheres to an increasing extent, and they should not be entering these in the interest of the people concerned. Recently some newspapers speculated that there was a possibility of Sacos also being responsible or partially responsible for some of the unrest in schools here in the Cape Peninsula. One cannot but wonder whether those newspaper reports might have been correct. Recently I had access to a document, in which Mr. Pather, the secretary of Sacos, testified maliciously before the special committee on apartheid at the UN during March 1980 on the cosmetic changes in South African sport, as he called them; once again he requested that South Africa should be totally excluded from world sport.

I wonder whether the time has not come for an in-depth, decisive investigation to be made into the behaviour and the victimizing activities of Sacos in South Africa. The liberation slogan of Sacos is very clearly only applicable when Sacos alone is at issue. We are under the impression that the leader of Sacos, Mr. Hassan Howa—and he can play a responsible role in both international and South African sport—is so clearly under the thumb of the radicals that he simply goes along with them. We know, and I think he knows too, that he is no longer controlling Sacos, but that Sacos is being controlled by the radicals to whose tune he has to dance.

Who are the radicals?

You are.

Of course, this is due to people like Ramsamey and De Broglio amongst others. He is most probably afraid to break away from this group. However, we want to ask them, if they want to act in the interest of sport in South Africa, to forget about these doubtful political ideologies of theirs and act in the interest of sport and sportsmen in South Africa. If it is necessary in the interest of sport in South Africa, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to launch an investigation into this organization. If necessary, a judicial commission should even be appointed. I am sure that this organization is neutralizing the good work done by many sports administrators to a large extent.

That is why it is very important that—on the level of international liaison, we in South Africa should do more to eliminate this negative work by Sacos and Sanroc. One is grateful for the international liaison committee of the S.A. Olympic Games Association, and for the work that they are already doing. However, I think one can say without fear of criticism that this organization should be receiving greater financial assistance in the interest of sport and in the interest of the sportsmen of South Africa, so that they can continue with their international liaison in order to carry out the good work that they have already started in fighting against South Africa’s isolation in sport and for our return to full participation in world sport.

I conclude with a request for something which, I know, is going to cost money again. I know that there are people who are going to hold it against me and say that we in South Africa are becoming sport-mad. We are not sport-mad. We may perhaps be spectator-mad in South Africa, but when we look at the number of sportsmen in South Africa, it appears that there is a very wide sphere of sport to which we shall still have to give attention in South Africa. I want to ask this afternoon for the department to consider proceeding to establish sports schools in South Africa. The physical achievements of the super sportsman and super sportswoman who are probably going to compete at the Olympic Games in Moscow this year, are achieved exclusively because they were able to follow a training system to perfect their physical and spiritual ability to achieve. It is true that competition at the highest level makes high demands of sportsmen and women. In South Africa we have specialized schools in other spheres, for instance the Drakensberg Boys School for pupils with good singing voices. There is even a specialized school for jockeys at Summerveld. Has the time not come for us to offer our sportsmen and women the opportunity of developing fully too, without sacrificing academic achievements or responsibilities? When we think of the fact that the time is ripe for creating such facilities with a view to the world power of sport today, I say once again that the establishment of a South African sports school for pupils who excel in sport, is something that could contribute towards South African athletics being developed and broadened for White and Non-white athletes, so that they can compete in the company of the best in the world, without neglecting their academic training. One of the countries that has the best example of this so-called “sport schule” is West Germany. There there are sports schools for practically every sphere of sport. I know that we will not be able to do so on the same scale as West Germany. However, we want to ask for attention to be given to this, in the interest of those athletes with potential, those boys and girls who can be identified at an early age.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethlehem dealt with a variety of matters. He ended with the suggestion of a special sport school. Obviously the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to that suggestion. I do think that our ordinary high schools and their teachers provide a tremendous number of sporting activities as extra-mural activities at our schools. I asked a friend of mine the other day how his son was getting on at high school and he replied that he was doing extremely well. He had got two A’s in the last quarter, an A for rugby and an A for athletics. The hon. member also dealt with Sacos and Sanroc, which are undoubtedly hindering the readmission of South Africa to international sport. However, before commenting further on that, I would like to say that we on these benches associate ourselves with the remarks concerning Mr. Beyers Hoek, who is due to retire. He is held in very high regard by not only members of this House, but also by sportsmen, sportswomen and sports administrators generally throughout the country. His contribution to the sporting activities in this country will certainly prove to be a milestone in the advance of sport and recreation. We wish him well in his retirement.

As far as other aspects dealing with the promotion of sport are concerned, we know that during last year opposition against South African sportsmen increased. The Secretary for Sport again tabled a realistic and factual report, which also dealt with the number of South African world champions and the isolation of South Africa in sport. It does bring to mind the tragedy of this isolation when one considers for instance that South Africa is the present holder of the world bowls titles. We made a clean sweep in the last World Bowls Championship. Yet we are denied the opportunity of defending those titles at the next World Bowls Championship in Australia. It will be a hollow victory for whoever wins those titles without South Africa participating, without them having the opportunity of defending their world titles. This is one of the tragedies that, where our sportsmen have reached great heights, they are denied further opportunities of showing their ability. There are many other sports in which we have reached a standard equal to that of the highest in the world, but where our sportsmen are denied the opportunity of competing internationally. It is therefore our desire to see that every effort is made to reinstate South Africa in international sport. To say that this is a difficult task is an understatement, because if one considers the furore concerning the Moscow Olympics one can see that the world is suffering from what one might call “boycottitis”. Everyone wants to boycott something. Certainly in this country we also have the situation that there are various boycotts taking place. The development in sport whereby sport is used to further political aims and to bring pressure to bear is something that should be deplored. I know that, certainly, most genuine sportsmen do deplore such tactics. Indeed, I think most sportsmen are against sportsmen and sportswomen being used as agents for political change. Therein lies one of our great difficulties because, although our sporting bodies and our sports administrators are doing a great deal to bring about change where they can, they are restricted in certain spheres. The hon. the Minister recently announced that there was to be a probe into sports problems by the National Research Co-ordinating Committee and the Human Sciences Research Council. Eighteen members are to be appointed to investigate various matters covering almost the entire field of sport in South Africa. I do hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give the Committee some further information in regard to this investigation and on when a report might be forthcoming so that action can be taken, provided the report comes forward with suggestions which will be beneficial in obtaining better recognition for South Africa internationally as far as sport is concerned.

The sports administrators and others who are trying to bring about change deserve our congratulations for the efforts they have made. Indeed, fact-finding commissions that have visited this country have reported favourably, sometimes however without being able to get any real results. As far as cricket is concerned, we even find that some of our leading cricketers are now having to contemplate acquiring some other citizenship in order to be able to participate in test cricket. It is hoped that the efforts that are made by these sports administrators will not at times be hindered by actions taken internally which are to the detriment of achieving the objectives of these sports administrators.

We know about the question of Craven Week. I do not want to delve into that. Certainly, there again the question of a boycott arises. Certain schools have indicated that they wish to boycott the trials. After a comment by the Minister of Public Works, there was an immediate reaction on the part of leading sportsmen like Gary Player who is perhaps one of our greatest ambassadors as far as South African sport is concerned. The reaction was that every encouragement must be given to our sports administrators to achieve the objective of improving the situation in South Africa.

One of the main purposes of bringing about an improved situation relates to the creation of national bodies which will be on a non-racial basis and which will be true umbrella bodies and national bodies. In this regard there have been some difficulties. Certain professional jealousies exist in rival organizations. We know of the efforts that have been made by Sacos in the past, but I think that we have now reached the stage where we have to try to bring about a situation where there will be a reconciliation as far as this is concerned. I cannot see how it will serve any useful purpose for us to launch an attack on Sacos, although I also condemn the actions they take from time to time where those actions are harmful not only to sport but also to the country as a whole. There have recently been signs that perhaps the head of Sacos, Mr. Howa, and the head of the Olympic Committee, Mr. Opperman, after discussions they had in Port Elizabeth, will arrive at a situation where it might be possible to create a new, autonomous non-racial sports council to replace both Sacos and the South African Olympic Committee. This is something that should be encouraged, because obviously it will place South Africa in a far stronger position than it is in at the present time where one organization is unfortunately hindering efforts that are being made to have South Africa once again accepted internationally as far as sport is concerned.

The pressure that is brought to bear on sportsmen by organizations such as Sacos is tremendous. The hon. member for Bethlehem pointed to certain aspects of this. I know that steps have been taken that were, indeed, extremely unfortunate in that sportsmen were being penalized and punished because they dared to stand up and defy some of the directives that have been issued by Sacos, directives which the sportsmen themselves believed were not in the interests of sport. I refer in particular to the S.A. Soccer Federation’s decision to implement Sacos’s double-standards resolution, members serving on Government-credit bodies being asked to resign within 30 days, failing which they would be expelled. It is interesting to note that some of the sportsmen and some of those organizations affiliated to Sacos decided to refuse to abide by that decision. Indeed, the Chatsworth Football Association was the first to reject the resolution and enumerated certain reasons for doing so, which I shall quote from the 14 March 1980 issue of the Graphic, an Indian newspaper in Natal—

That is the view of people interested in continuing to play football or soccer. Let us face it, under the present situation soccer is the one type of sport that is going through an extremely difficult period. So I do hope that the hon. the Minister, or responsible people in his department dealing with certain aspects of sport, will perhaps act as intermediaries to try to resolve some of those problems involving the Soccer Administration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton made a few suggestions for promoting sport in South Africa. I do not want to react to them now. We are on the eve of a very important test series against the Lions in South Africa, and I want to suggest this afternoon that we can win that test series. I should like to suggest that we put Robbie Blair at fly-half. [Interjections.] Then, in my opinion, we will be able to win the test series against the Lions very easily. [Interjections.] I hear all sorts of noises breaking out around me. It is simply the Blou Bulle reacting.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that every attempt must be made so that we can compete internationally once again. We all agree with that. This afternoon I want to express my appreciation for what is already being done, by our sports administrators, to bring about our return to international competition. However, I do not want to express my appreciation of the sports administrators alone. I particularly appreciate our sports men and women who continue to achieve under very difficult circumstances. I believe it will be the achievements of our sports men and women that will put us back into the international arena, including the achievements of our athletes and our cricketers who will have to convince the rest of the world that there are men and women here who must be competed against.

The hon. member for Umbilo also condemned the boycott technique that has crept into sport, techniques of boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow, amongst others. I want to agree with him on that. Sport cannot be used as a means of boycotting or as a means of achieving political objectives. We in South Africa believe that sport must be practised without regard for political considerations.

In actual fact, this afternoon I should very much like to talk about sport as a means to good human relations. We are living in a time in which human relations are continually being placed under the search light. “Human relations” has also become an international slogan which is often used for personal gain. From an objective viewpoint, however, it is the duty of all of us to strive for sound human relations, and therefore good ethnic relations too. South Africa is faced with a total onslaught, an onslaught which is also being made in the sphere of sport in particular. Therefore, we must do our best to convince the rest of the world that our intentions are good and that we are sincere in our striving. South Africa has achieved great successes in various spheres in order to convince the world to the contrary.

This afternoon, during the discussion of this vote, I should like to allege that sport plays an important role in influencing interstate relations. The hon. member for Bethlehem referred to the fact that we in South Africa are often sport-mad, but I would rather put it more positively this afternoon and say that South Africans are not only fond of sport; they have also realized over the years that sport has become an important agent in cultivating good human relations. Therefore I want to say this afternoon that if we are considered sport mad for this reason, then I should be glad to include myself amongst these so-called sport-mad people.

Without exception, we find that over the past decades, the preconceived negative opinions of visiting sportsmen have changed to positive attitudes after they have been here in South Africa, practised sport here and become acquainted with South African sportsmen and women and with this country’s friendliness and hospitality. Although South Africa is always in the dock in the forum of world politics today, it is remarkable that it is those very Western countries who critisize us the most, whose sportsmen visit South Africa regularly and who wish to visit South Africa. Last year I held a long conversation with a Welsh rugby player at the Port Elizabeth airport one morning. On that occasion the Lions tour had not yet become a reality. He told me that he had already visited Australia and New Zealand, but he also told me: “Those are dull countries; I want to come to South Africa. I want to play against the Springboks.” Fortunately he is a member of the Lions team today, and if I am correct, he is also going to play in the test. This is how these Western sportsmen see South Africa. They are keen to compete against us.

One simply has to look at the annual report of the former Department of Sport and Recreation in order to ascertain the facts. In the year under review, from 1 October 1978 to 30 September 1979, we can look up how many sportsmen visited South Africa from Western countries and practised their sport here. Sport is a wonderful catalyst which brings people of various international convictions together and makes them forget their differences in the challenge of the sport. We must not relegate sport to an insignificant component of our international counter-offensive, but South Africa should rather use the platform that sport offers in order to build bridges between nations.

I also want to say this afternoon that here in South Africa, the former Department of Sport and Recreation, with its officials, achieved immeasurable success in establishing good human relations between all the people of South Africa, regardless of colour or creed. This department was in the front lines when it came to building good human relations, and they were able to be there because the officials of this department and South Africa’s sporting people have sporting goods to trade with. These sporting goods have no financial value because good human relations have no price. One cannot buy them; one cannot pay for good human relations, but success have been achieved through the department and the efforts of its officials in making Whites and non-Whites able to see the value of sport and through this, to re-evaluate one another.

Now I realize—the hon. member for Bethlehem referred to this too—that there are people in South Africa who are still abusing sport and seizing it as a weapon to fulfil their political objectives. However, if we take a straightforward look at South African sporting people, we shall see that there are sportsmen and women in South Africa who want to practice their sport for the sake of sport and for the sake of their recreation, but also for the sake of good human relations. That contact can be made through sport, and from that very sporting challenge, a new harmony can develop which will result in mutual respect. Surely it is the experience of all of us, those of us who participated in sport when we were younger, that a blow may fall in the heat of the moment or a word may be said, but when the final whistle blows and one leaves the field, one is good friends with one’s opponent, and when one thinks back to one’s sporting years today, one also thinks back to those against whom one competed or with whom one played, and very good relations still exist today. This reminds me of the telegramme which the hon. member for Newton Park received on the morning of the election in 1977. He will probably allow me to mention it. His old Springbok friend, the lock Jaap Bekker, sent this telegramme to him—

The hon. member for Newton Park told me that that telegramme caused tears to come to his eyes. These are good, fine, sound human relations which have been built up over the years when they played together in the Springbok front line. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Oudtshoorn heartily on this fine, positive contribution of his on the role that sport plays in creating good human relations.

I do not think anyone would argue that sports facilities really form an integral part of community facilities. Since this is the case, it may be important for us to take note of a few matters in this regard. In the first place I want to say that community development will never be able to make progress if the community lacks community facilities. I also want to say that the happiness, satisfactor and prosperity of a community, particularly in South Africa, depends on whether it participates in the ordinary, decent sports facilities. If a community does not have the necessary sports facilities at its disposal, it is going to practise sport in the community where such sports facilities do in fact exist. Finally, in this regard I want to say that even the Whites who are the oldest organized group participating in sport in South Africa, do not have enough and sometimes have only just enough sports facilities. By way of exception, their sports facilities are sometimes sufficient to provide for the needs of others in that regard too.

These are the realities that we must face, and since this is the case, there are a few questions that arise. The first one is how great is the need for sports facilities for our people in South Africa. It is true that during 1974 the Department of Community Development undertook an in-depth investigation into this whole matter. Their findings which are of interest for today’s debate, are of a dual nature. Firstly, as far as community facilities are concerned, it differs from community to community. As far as sports facilities are concerned, they established first of all that there are four well-known spheres in regard to which a very great need exists. These spheres are the need for sportsfields, ordinary recreation areas, swimming pools and tennis courts. Since these four groups of facilities are actually inadequate in most communities, it is essential, if we want to make progress in this regard, at least to get our priorities right in the first place. If we want to list them in order of priority, it means that first of all we will have to provide soccer fields, because it is true that there are no less than approximately 300 000 young people in our large urban complexes like Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London who are already participating in or want to participate in soccer activities. That is why it is probably very essential for them to be provided with the soccer fields that are lacking.

The second priority would be rugby fields, and here it is our Coloured population in particular that are lacking the necessary facilities. The third priority is tennis courts, and this is essential because there is a lack of this facility amongst most of our population groups. Fourthly there is also a tremendous shortage of swimming pools and finally, a need for a national sports complex where important national or international sports meetings can take place.

Having said this, I come to the second question and this concerns the real urgency of the need for these sports facilities. Here, by way of a summary, I can say that South Africa with its blue skies, its sunshine and open spaces means that our people are interested in sport and the practise thereof. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn pointed out the necessity of creating peaceful coexistence and good human relations. I know of no other matter which can gain the same acceptance as a way of spending one’s leisure time than sport, and which can have such a large, lasting influence on creating sound communities. It is true that I can say with a great deal of pride today that I do not know a single decent sportsman, White or non-White, who has ever stooped to crime. Since we in South Africa are dealing with the development of many nations, I think the creation of such sports facilities can be speeded up in order to fulfil great ideals.

The last question that I want to ask, concerns the obligation of creating sports facilities. In this free country of ours, I think we must move away from the idea of always wanting to put the obligation on the State alone. It is not the obligation of the State alone to provide these facilities. The State does have obligations, but I think we must distribute these obligations amongst the following groups: Firstly, the State; secondly, local government; thirdly, the employers; fourthly, organized sporting bodies and finally, individuals in the community itself. With regard to the State, I think it is important to note that the State will obviously have to make an important, large contribution with regard to essential national sports complexes that must be built. However, on this occasion I think I can really ask the employers to make a contribution too. There are a few exceptions that I want to mention here. In this regard I am thinking of Government departments like the Defence Force, the Railways, the Prison Service, the Police and here and there the Post Office too. All these departments make a real contribution towards providing sports facilities for their employees. One also thinks of the large mining companies, assembly plants in the Eastern Cape and others who also make their contribution, but at the same time, there are thousands of employers who still refuse to put their hands into their own pockets. I think it is important for our employers to realize that these days it is not only essential for a trader or businessman to put office space and telephones at the disposal of his employees and to pay their wages and salaries. These go without saying. In the times in which we are living, the provision of housing and the creation of sports facilities have probably become just as essential for the employer to provide as these things.

In conclusion, I think that the individual and the community have a joint and separate responsibility to contribute towards creating sound, good sports facilities for every community, because it remains our highest ideal that every community should develop successfully and that every community should be able to develop its own sport to the highest degree.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park has stressed the importance of sport facilities in South Africa and said that without the necessary facilities sport is going to suffer. I know that the hon. member was a hooker for the Springbok team many years ago, but despite that I think he will agree that with the passage of time the quality of sportsmen tends to improve. Certainly in sports like athletics the competition becomes harder and the times get better and better. Good sports facilities and good sports equipment are therefore essential.

I also agree with him on the question of soccer fields in the Transvaal, where soccer has become particularly popular. It is nice to know that there is an hon. member from the Cape who realizes that Transvaal does exist, because I was getting a little worried with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who showed a very clear bias against fly-halfs who come from the Transvaal.

Do not forget De Wet Ras.

No, I will not forget about him.

†What I should like to speak on today are the reports that have been published by the various fact-finding groups which have visited South Africa. I have had the pleasure of reading three of these reports, namely the Report of the International Cricket Conference, the report of the French Parliamentary Study Group on Apartheid in Sport in South Africa under the chairmanship of Monsieur Bernard Marie, and then of course the report which is very prominent in our minds at the moment, the report by the British Sports Council Fact-finding Delegation under the leadership of Mr. Dickie Jeeps.

I believe that if one reads these reports, one cannot help but be impressed by their objectivity, their maturity and indeed their sympathy and understanding towards South African sportsmen, sportswomen and sports administrators. Moreover, they show an understanding of the problems that many of our sportsmen and sportswomen face in trying to eliminate race discrimination in sport. If one reads these reports, one sees that there were a number of features which clearly impressed the members of those groups. The French group, for example, commented on some of these features. They were impressed—

I would submit that such a statement, made by an overseas group, is of tremendous importance to South Africa. In fact, the French group summed it up by saying—

These positive steps towards eliminating race discrimination in our sport were also favourably commented upon by the International Cricket Conference group. During their travels they found, for example, that there was ample evidence that entirely integrated cricket does exist and is played on a regular basis.

What is particularly significant is that in the evidence that was submitted to them people commented on the fact that each year, when this mixed sport was taking place, relations between the sportsmen were improving as a result of that contact. Indeed, they argued that in the realm of sport in South Africa cricket had been at the forefront in attempting to achieve conditions wherein games can be played on a basis of equality between races. They pointed out that considerable difficulties had been overcome in achieving a situation in which legal and other barriers have been by-passed to the extent that they have. They found that multiracial cricket is played at club and provincial level. They noted that in cricket, selection for representative teams is based on merit. They felt that there is likely to be further progress in respect of the quantity and the quality of non-White cricketers capable of taking their place at the highest level in South African cricket. They were of the view that there is a governing body of South African cricket which is capable of representing the views of the majority of cricketers and that the S.A. Cricket Union is non-racial, both in its form, its composition and its aims. Likewise the British Sports Council Committee also made a number of positive comments, indicating for example that a number of sports, including cricket, boxing, athletics and soccer were already fully integrated. I personally hope that our sportsmen in those four sports and in our other sports also, will soon be able to participate in international sport. To me personally it is a matter of great regret that at a period when South Africa has had some of the finest cricketers in its history, these people have not been able to participate internationally. It is also with some regret that I look at one of the major reasons why they were not able to do so. I think many hon. members will recall the tremendous fuss that was made about Mr. Basil D’Oliveira visiting South Africa as a member of the MCC. Today such a visit would not cause many raised eyebrows at all. The tragedy is that we changed only after the damage had been done.

All of these groups that visited South Africa called for a new look by the international community at what was happening in South Africa in the sphere of sport. The British Sports Council Report recommended that every major international sports body in the world, including the International Olympic Committee, should take note of the changes in South African sport. The International Cricket Conference Group, while it would not recommend that South African Cricket Union membership to the ICC should be promoted, thought that everything possible that could be done to lend encouragement to the South African Cricket Union and to cricketers in South Africa, should be done. Indeed, they suggested that a strong team representative of as many countries as possible from the ICC be sent to play in South Africa.

For me it is regrettable that they did not recommend that the South African Cricket Union be readmitted as a full member of the ICC, because I believe there is no legitimate reason why it should not be done.

The French group also came out in favour of the re-establishment of international sporting links with those South African sports that were run on non-racial lines. It felt that—this is important—contact with non-racial sports should be established rather than that those sports should continue to be ostracized. It considered that the playing of sport was a crucible in which not only social classes but also races were fused, and that this constituted a decisive factor in the struggle against apartheid.

Consequently, it felt almost unanimously that it could recommend that the resumption of international relations with non-integrated disciplines be deferred and that relations with integrated associations be resumed after verification on the spot, by competent national and international sporting bodies, that segregation measures in sport no longer existed in these associations. As regards sporting associations on the way to integration it said that it would be up to the international bodies to judge what action they should take, and that exchanges should be arranged on an interim basis.

If one reads the reports of these committees one cannot help but believe that they are keen to have a non-racial South African sporting community readmitted to the arena of international sport. Indeed, even negative facets were given a positive slant. For example, comment has been made about problems in the case where a non-White cricketer was denied restaurant facilities. Commenting on this they came out in favour of the decision of the White team mates of that member to stand by him and to leave the establishment immediately to go and eat elsewhere.

I believe these groups have done South African sportsmen a favour by making people overseas aware of the real situation in many areas of South African sport. If we are readmitted to international competition—and I hope we are and that it will be soon—I believe they will have played a major role in that readmission.

Mr. Chairman, in keeping with what we learned about him during the past session, the hon. member for Edenvale made a very moderate, and to my mind, a balanced contribution towards the debate; not that I agree with him in all respects. What I found very interesting was his statement: “I see no legitimate reason why South Africa has not been re-admitted to the International Cricket Association.”

In contrast to this the hon. member for Sandton told us how out of step we are and how our sports policy, as it stand at the moment, and our sports activities, as they are practised in South Africa at the moment, must change. In that regard the hon. member for Bethlehem asked him how he wanted them to be changed. According to which alternative does he want us to change it? One must take note of the fact that the hon. members for Sandton and Edenvale are members of the same party, but now we find the one launching an attack and the other a panegyric on the fact that a certain international commission discovered that the Government of South Africa does not intervene in sport and that sport in South Africa is in the process of developing along evolutionary fines. I cannot understand this, unless the hon. member for Sandton belongs to the fifth group in his party, because after we saw this morning that his party is divided into four groups, it would not surprise me at all if he formed the fifth group.

I should like to use the few minutes at my disposal to give attention to two aspects. Firstly, I want to point out that a few of my hon. colleagues and myself had the doubtful honour last year of watching the world championship boxing match between Gerrie Coetzee and John Tate whilst we were in America. I must say that this was also a privilege in one respect, because it was a wonderful opportunity. At the same time we saw how America, who together with the rest of the world accuses us of mixing sport and politics, mixes sport and politics itself.

We saw how the national television network was used to make propaganda against the RSA between each round, whilst waiting for the next one. It was an unpleasant experience. Whilst we were watching the television broadcast, Prof. Kerina was sitting with us. We then asked him if this is what is happening in the USA, whilst we are being criticized for the way in which we are ostensibly using sport as a means of indoctrination. I want to express the hope and trust today that we in this country will never sink to such a level.

Whilst we were sitting there, the prediction of the former Prime Minister came to mind. A year or two ago he said that he foresaw that the Olympic Games, as we know them, would take place in 1980 for the last time and never again after that date. This also reminded one of the origin of the Olympic Games between Sparta and Athens. This too was brought to an end indirectly by wars and politics later on, and that is why one can imagine that the end of the Olympic Games will be sooner than was expected a year or two ago. Which of us would have dreamt that 1980 would become the boycott year?

I should like to mention another matter. I am asking for the further support of the Surf Lifesaving Association of South Africa, or SLASA, as it is generally known. Here we have an organization of people who try to save the lives of others on a voluntary basis. The people whose lives are saved by them, come from all levels of the population, from all population groups and from all income groups.

Practically every Monday one sees factual reports appearing in newspapers on the lives that have been lost during the preceding weekend due to drowning or whatever. In such reports, other than is the case with other reports, only a few facts are stated and no attention is given to the heroic deeds of people who tried to save the lives of others. I think the reason for the silence is due, in the first place, to the fact that this service is undertaken on a voluntary basis, in the second place it is provided by individuals and in the third place because it is not as dramatic when helicopters or boats are used.

It is interesting to note that since this organization was established in 1933—by the way, it is not run on a racial basis— wonderful progress has been made. Of the 34 clubs which existed in 1979, three were Asiatic clubs, two Coloured clubs, two Black clubs and the remaining 27 were White clubs. During the period before 1979, their numbers have increased to 2 493, of whom 2 304 were men and unfortunately only 189 ladies. I therefore ask ladies to play a greater part in lifesaving. On the other hand it is pleasing to see that there were 606 junior lifesavers, or “nippers” as they are called. 508 of them were boys and 98 girls.

Then I want to refer to the extent of their work. Between 1933 and 1979, 43 655 lives have been saved, and in 1978-’79 alone, 984 lives were saved. I want to compare this to the figures of the NSRI. In 1978-79, the NSRI saved 595 lives. However, I do not want to play off the importance of one against the other, because they are equally important. What is even more important, is that two out of every three persons whose lives were saved, were holidaymakers from the Free State and Transvaal. I want to emphasize this, because unfortunately it is only the Cape and Natal who make financial contributions towards these clubs. I think that the hon. the Minister should now request the Free State and the Transvaal to grant financial aid to these clubs.

At the moment, the economy of the country loses an average of R30 000 due to every death by drowning. This is true because most of the people who drown, are young people. Over the entire period under review, we lost R29,5 million as a result of deaths by drowning. However, in contrast, the unit cost for every person who is saved is only R514. Therefore, we realize that the clubs saved the country more than R29 million last year by their activities. That is why I believe that we in South Africa should support these clubs very enthusiastically and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not see his way through to make a request for funds for these organizations. In the first place, we must ask the provinces, and in the second place, the Department of Transport that already supports the NSRI to the tune of R80 000 per annum. We must also ask the private sector, and of course schools and universities too, because scholars and students form a large percentage of the people who drown annually.

Mr. Chairman, first I should like to thank the hon. member for Vasco for his kind words about me. I am therefore a little sorry to disappoint him by pointing out that there is, in fact, no difference between the hon. member for Sandton and myself, and to disappoint him even further by pointing out that, unfortunately for him, there are not four groups in the PFP. [Interjections.] Let me, however, give him some consolation by pointing out that I certainly agree with him about the need to promote life-saving in South Africa. I think that those who have lived on the coast know that life-savers provide a very useful service indeed.

In my previous speech I pointed out that I believed that the groups that had been to South Africa were clearly friends of South African sportsmen, and I think that we should take note of those factors that they felt were negative in sport in South Africa. I want to put this very clearly, because I am not suggesting at all that we adapt our policies in order to satisfy overseas sporting bodies. I believe that if we make changes in South Africa we should not be guided by what people overseas say, but that we should make those changes because we believe that it is the just, right and honourable thing to do. I believe such changes would, moreover, have the useful side-effect of getting South Africa readmitted to the international sports arena and, as we all know, nothing motivates a South African sportsman to greater heights than the opportunity to represent his country in international competition against a representative of another country. Nothing gives spectators more pleasure than to see their team competing in an international competition. One need only think of the boost the Lions’ rugby tour has given to South African rugby.

There is also the point made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who pointed out that sport—if I understood him correctly—is a promoter of good human relations, particularly at an international level. In South Africa, at the present time, we need every international friend we can get. We are one of the world’s major trading countries, and an essential part of trade is that one has relations with international bodies. If sport can be a vehicle for maintaining overseas links, I think we should use sport in such a way. Moreover, if we can give our overseas sporting friends ammunition with which to get us back into international sport, I think we should seriously consider making those changes that would help them to help us to get back into international sport.

It is important to realize, when considering the views of these groups, what they meant by the absence of apartheid in sport. If one looks at the report of the British Council, one sees that they pointed out that there were two views. The one view was represented by those sporting bodies that are prepared to work within the system in order to achieve change. These groups believe that one can change, not by confrontation or isolation, but by influence and evolution, through the agencies that control sport, and that each small advance made towards multiracial sport is a step in the right direction. They contrasted this with the second view of the S.A. Council on Sport which has adopted the slogan of “No normal sport in an abnormal society”. I think it is very clear that these groups took the first view.

The French group, for example, said that for them the disappearance of apartheid consisted essentially in its being possible for all athletes, no matter what their race, to practise their preferred sport in the same teams, in the same clubs and with the same rights for them and their families, whether White, Black or Coloured. As I have already said, I am particularly keen that South Africa should be readmitted to international sport, and after reading the reports I believe that we should take note of certain points. Firstly—and the point has already been raised by the hon. member for Sandton— while we have legislation that prevents sportsmen, as a matter of course, from playing with or against whom they wish, our critics overseas will have a field day, especially against our overseas friends.

For example, the committee of the International Cricket Conference felt that—

I know that the Government has adopted a policy of making it easier for people to play or to attend multiracial sports functions, but the point is that in many cases the very issuing of such permits highlights the legislation which prevents people from playing non-racial sport as a right and not as a privilege. It is interesting to note the comments of the French group in this regard. They said—

They pointed out that this could in fact be easier than many anticipated—

Secondly, the Government should give a lead in fostering non-racial sport. It is no good arguing that sporting bodies are autonomous while the Government continues to have an official sports policy. In this regard the ICC delegation made the point—

The French report noted that the attitude of the Government for political reasons remained deliberately woolly. If the Government cannot or will not give a lead, it must get out of the sporting arena altogether, except as a provider of funds.

Thirdly, national sports associations should be representative of all South Africans who participate in the sport concerned. In many cases this has already happened, and this is to be welcomed.

Fourthly, clubs should be able to participate at national, provincial and league level without distinction of race or colour. Moreover, clubs, being voluntary associations, should not be dictated to as to whom they should admit as members or who can use their facilities.

Fifthly, we are going to have to spend money on improving sports facilities in South Africa for all people, but particularly for the non-White groups who are hampered in achieving their sports potential because of the lack of suitable facilities. This is an area in which many can help. I think particularly—and the hon. member for Newton Park made this point—that private enterprise can play an important part in this regard.

In conclusion, I note that the French commission noted favourably that the Minister in charge of sport is—

If this is true, I hope he will continue with that struggle so that those who have tried to de-racialize sport in South Africa can take their rightful place in international sports competitions.

Mr. Chairman, before coming to the theme of my speech, I want to point out that there are many people who contend that the sporting activities of the department are so important that it was a pity to have omitted the word “sport” from the name of the department. I leave that thought with the hon. the Minister. Perhaps it could be reconsidered.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about a slightly controversial matter which affects Cape Town and that is the matter of Granger Bay and the small craft harbour that is proposed to be built at Granger Bay. I believe that the controversy such as has existed has been unnecessary and I believe also that the arguments against the building of the small craft harbour at Granger Bay have in fact been unfounded. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his wisdom in promising to provide Cape Town with such a spectacular, if I may say so, recreational facility for which a need has been shown to exist as has been underlined by the Reinecke Commission on Small Boats, which recently reported.

The development of Granger Bay will provide a functional small craft harbour both of national and international appeal and will create a unique opportunity, not only for waterside recreational facilities, but also for physical access to the sea. This access is something which was removed from the people of Cape Town. The older members of this House may remember the old pier, when Cape Town had access to the sea, but with the building of the Duncan dock, the Ben Schoeman dock and later the container depot, Cape Town has been physically robbed of its access to the sea. This scheme also has enormous value in respect of tourism, both local and international, to which I shall come back later. The property development potential of this very favourable site at Granger Bay also promises to offset the capital cost requirement of the scheme and consequently makes the whole proposition much more interesting or viable. Then one has not even included the value to the harbour authorities of the old yacht basin being freed for their activities.

Cape Town is increasingly playing host to numerous international cruise yachts and becoming a port of call in national and international ocean races. However, the existing facilities are inadequate. They are hindered by the inevitable, but we understand necessary, customs security control that is necessary in any large harbour. This does affect the appeal of Cape Town as a national or international venue for sporting events. At the moment the Cape Town yacht basin can only accommodate 215 boats at moorings, while there is already a current demand for 420 moorings in Cape Town alone and there is an additional demand for launching facilities for some 400 trailer-driven craft to begin with. I therefore think that it is necessary that this region be exploited for the recreational needs of this city, not only for small boating, yachting, etc. as a recreational activity, but also for Cape Town to regain access to the sea. Then, of course, there is also the need to create a functional harbour for the training of merchant navy officers who are trained at the “General Botha” next door.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think a very positive approach has been adopted in this matter. The now defunct Department of Sport and Recreation established a multi-disciplinary investigating team with many specialists on it, e.g. Fishcor, the CSIR, the Cape Town City Council and the Cape Metropolitan Planning Committee. Their work included oceanographic studies, hydraulic studies, engineering design, planning and economic feasibility studies. They Raised with all sorts of people such as the S.A. Railways and Harbours, the Cape Town City Council, the Provincial Administration, the Merchant Navy Academy and many other bodies. In investigating Granger Bay they also looked at the potential of other possible locations, but they found that Granger Bay was in fact the best situated from the point of view of the metropolitan region as a whole, and I must say that my own view of the situation is that they were entirely correct.

We have recently seen—and there has been some controversy about it—that a proposal published for the development of a yacht harbour in the Victoria Basin. I must say at once, knowing Mr. Gawie Fagan as I do, as a charming and talented person, that the idea does have some charm, but I am afraid that the S.A. Railways and Harbours have considerable long-term commitments in the area and the Victoria Basin is still required by the fishing fleet. Therefore there would be considerable costs and delays if that fleet had to be relocated. Furthermore, there is little point in relocating the yacht harbour from one unsuitable location to another location which is equally unsuitable, and the S.A. Railways and Harbours have in fact clearly indicated that they will not allow the development of a pleasure-craft harbour within the harbour complex. I would like to add that it is generally agreed, and I would support it, that the lovely old buildings such as the Port Captain’s office, the old clock tower, etc., can be improved and restored. That would be a great benefit to Cape Town in addition to what is proposed at Granger Bay. The proposed small craft harbour will have numerous benefits to the city of Cape Town. I should like to list them. The first benefit will be that it will provide a functional pleasure craft harbour, with international appeal, and meet the growing boating needs of the metropolitan area and of the region. Secondly, it will restore to Cape Town some of its former connection with the sea—we are cut off from the sea as a harbour city—and the association that that brings of a colourful waterside life. Thirdly, it will provide an exciting venue for tourists and boating enthusiasts close to the city. Despite its maritime setting, Cape Town provides few opportunities for people to enjoy an urban waterfront which is alive with boating activities. Fourthly, it will provide opportunities for waterfront residential development close to the city. Fifthly, it will provide a source of revenue for the city by way of rates on buildings and land developments. The unattractive, almost derelict, character of the Granger Bay complex at the moment will be replaced by interesting activities, which will improve the amenity value of the city and of that waterfront site at Granger Bay. Sixthly, the recreation harbour will form part of the regional recreation amenities which already exist at Green Point, including the golf-course. These facilities are already served by public transport. Lastly, the main value of the Granger Bay scheme will be recreational. It also has a positive economic value in terms of the national and international tourist industry, which is probably the field with the greatest potential in this part of the Western Cape.

People are already spending approximately R60 million per year in the metropolitan area of Cape Town, and this is of enormous importance to this region. Furthermore, there are 150 firms, in the Western Cape alone, which are dependent on boating. The exports in connection with boating, for 1979 alone, amounted to some R500 000. The growth of these firms is being stunted by the fact that their activities are curtailed because of the fact that there is insufficient mooring space for newly built yachts in the region. Because of the physical constraints of the coastline, it is accepted that the provision of any harbour facilities is costly. For this reason it is necessary to build into this kind of facility some residential and commercial activity in order to create real estate which would off-set, not perhaps the total cost, but to a large degree the capital costs involved in such a project. The combined value of creating a unique environment in a situation of good accessibility, close to the centre of the city and linked with the region as a whole, must therefore be given a high rating when the benefits of this scheme proposed at Granger Bay is considered.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that we in Cape Town, as a Tavern of the Seas, would like to see again, along our shore, a forest of masts, and we would like to hear the rigging clattering in the wind. We would like to have easy access to that in this mother-city of South Africa wherefrom this nation was born; the sea. We miss that connection with the sea. The promotion of a small-boat fleet also has security advantages, as is the case with small aircraft which form part of our security network in South Africa. These boats can also play a role in that regard. We know that the boating industry as such produces craft which can also be used for defence purposes. With those few words, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I welcome this scheme. I think that it is imaginative and that it will have a far-reaching, beneficial effect on the city. I hope that the scheme will proceed as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has been conducted in a pleasant atmosphere. Thinking of it gives me hope for the future— as a sport enthusiast, not only in my official capacity. I think that if we made mistakes in the past—and we did—one of the greatest was perhaps the fact that we blew up small incidents until they almost assumed the proportions of international crises. Perhaps we should admit to ourselves that we put ourselves in the dock in the eyes of the world by talking too much about things we could have kept quiet about. This does not only apply on a party political basis either. I think all parties have been guilty of this. In the delicate situation in which South Africa finds itself, and especially since this is a very sensitive matter, which, as the hon. member for Edenvale rightly pointed out, may have international consequences, we should perhaps be more mindful of the Jewish saying: “Man is master of the unspoken word, but the spoken word is master of man.” I think we have perhaps discussed matters far too much and sometimes unnecessarily. There may be a difference of opinion concerning the way in which things should be approached. In this way, for example, one person may feel himself threatened every time he talks to a Black man, while another may feel that his future is being threatened if he cannot talk to a Black man on every occasion, even if there is no reason for doing so. For the person who tries to behave in a calm and reasoned manner, it is often difficult to convince friends—and we have friends all over the world—of our good intentions when a great fuss is made about smaller incidents which are valuable to our enemies. I want to say in all seriousness on behalf of the Government as a whole— especially after the hon. the Prime Minister has said that sport should be kept out of the political arena as far as possible and that the Government should not be blamed for every little incident as if it were a matter of Government policy or as if sport were the be-all and end-all on which our survival depended—that people who cause incidents merely because of a feeling of antipathy towards a person of a different colour, or in an attempt to make political capital out of it, are doing irreparable harm to our country.

In this connection I think of an incident where a civilized and respectable Non-white person had been chosen on merit to participate in a tournament. He had been chosen on merit and not merely as a gesture. He was the kind of person to whom one could chat in one’s own house. But suddenly an official decided that that non-White person could compete on the sports field and could share the changing-rooms, but he was not allowed to ride on the bus on the way to the tournament. This was a silly and petty-minded incident, and I can only deplore it when this kind of thing happens. On the other hand, I must also warn that there are people who deliberately create incidents. I said earlier that one does not want to be ruled by the spoken word, but often one is not in a position to disclose the identity of such people and to call them to account. If a person walks into a club and asks for a drink when he knows it to be illegal, he is simply looking for trouble, or he is doing it in an attempt to demonstrate the great love he professes to have for all people. A person is sometimes taken to a club against all the rules simply in order to get the owner of the club into trouble and to create difficulties about the liquor licence. This is done only as a gesture of defiance against the laws of the land. I sincerely hope that people on both sides who are extremist in their opinions will be careful in their handling of the various situations. For this particular reason I shall not reply in detail to a number of matters this afternoon.

I wish to thank the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition for his responsible approach towards the Department of Sport and Recreation. I do not think I have fully replied to his letter yet. He was faced with a problem situation, and if he had wanted to, he could have gone to the Press with it to raise a hue and cry about it. However, he took the other course and wrote a letter to me to give me an opportunity to have the matter investigated. Nor is he the only one who has done so; there are many other hon. members here who also do it. I am thinking in particular of many hon. members on this side of the House who have helped us in handling delicate situations which could otherwise simply have been exploited by mischievous Pressmen.

I now wish to refer to a second facet, namely the role of our Press. I have repeatedly said that I think the Press is often attacked without good reason. In any event, the Press has always played a positive role in many respects. But in every Press group, unfortunately, one finds a few mischievous Pressmen as well, and one should not generalize and refer to the Press as a whole when one is talking about these individuals. However, there are a few people who are always attracting attention with their mischievous reporting and who always wrest a small thing out of context in order to do enormous harm. I want to associate myself with the many people who have made appeals in this connection and who have asked newspaper editors to identify and curb the activities of these people who are always using small things to stir up strife.

There have been splendid developments in recent months as a result of the hard work done over the years. Reference has been made—and I should like to associate myself with those hon. members who spoke about this—to the visits of the fact-finding missions to South Africa. Let us regard this matter in perspective. What reactions have there been from various quarters to the visits of these fact-finding missions? In the first place, there have been those who sent telegrammes to me, asking me what right these people had to come poking their noses into our affairs. I have also been accused of having humiliated the country by giving my consent as Minister for those people to come here. I even received such letters from church people. Letters about this were published in the newspapers. These people came to South Africa as friends in order to help us, and it was not necessary for us to bow and scrape to them, something we did not do in any case. In spite of this, we were reviled for allowing it. We forget that teams came here from England even before the Lions came. There were people who slated Dr. Craven and others for having received club teams here. However, the members of those club teams were ambassadors for South Africa. They came, they saw and their hearts were conquered by South Africa. There are many things in the country which we still have to put right, but there is nothing in South Africa which we as Whites need be ashamed of or which we have to hide from the world. I think we have reason to hold our heads high before the rest of Africa and before the rest of the world and to say that we have achieved things which have not been achieved in the rest of Africa.

In this connection, however, people do not have to listen to me only. I should like to quote from an official document of the United Nations General Assembly International Convention against Apartheid in Sport on 10 May 1978. I quote what was said by Mr. Ordia, the chairman of this anti-apartheid movement—

He went on to mention a number of sports. On behalf of the African countries which accuse us he then said—

†It is so obvious that it is not sport with which they are concerned. They know that these sports are not practised anywhere else in Africa, or only in a few places elsewhere in Africa. Yet they have the audacity of claiming that they can speak on behalf of the sportsmen and sportswomen of this continent.

*I think we should bear this in mind when we think about sport matters. We do not have to quarrel about it all the time. It is unnecessary to reply at all times. However, we must be able to tell one another in all sincerity that this situation has to be countered by all of us as South Africans.

†The hon. member for Sandton referred to certain decisions not to extend invitations to South Africa. The hon. member in this regard made what I thought was a practical suggestion. That is that policy, practice and law should be brought into line. We have been trying to do just that, and we keep on trying to put this into full operation and to eliminate those things that detrimentally affect sport relations among the various peoples in South Africa and our sport relations with the rest of the world. I was very delighted to hear from hon. members opposite that we were not doing this because the outside world prescribed to us, but that we were doing it because we were convinced that it was in the interest of all the peoples whose interests are entrusted to us.

*I should like to associate myself with hon. members who paid tribute to Dr. Danie Craven and other sport administrators. There are many of them who deserve praise. I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Justice Franklin, Mr. Opperman and many others, including Mr. Varachia and others in the cricket world, who have achieved a great deal. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they have done for us in the world of sport.

‡A few matters that do cause trouble have been mentioned by several hon. members on both sides of the House. First and foremost among these is the pressing question of finance.

*Over the years, since the days when I was Deputy Minister of another department, I have been hearing that we should provide sports facilities for people in their own areas. What I want to say now I am saying on the basis of practical considerations and not on the basis of colour. One practises one’s sport at the club nearest one. This is only practical. If one fives in Rondebosch one is not going to play tennis in Green Point. One prefers to play in Rondebosch, if there are courts available there. If there are courts available in Soweto, therefore, people will naturally want to practise there. When it comes to the provision of facilities, unfortunately, we are not getting any further. I think it was the hon. member for Newton Park who pointed out that the excuse is made every time that it is the Government’s duty to provide these things. I am glad that this note was sounded, by other hon. members as well, who pointed out that it is the duty of several parties—employers, private individuals and others—to ensure that our other population groups are able to practise their sport in their own areas.

A question was put to me about Sacos. I am not going to reply to this at great length. I am glad, though, that the hon. member for Bethlehem and other hon. members drew attention to the activities of this body. I want to make use of this House as a platform today to ask the people of Sacos please to put a stop to their foolish activities.

The hon. member for Vasco spoke about the life-saving organization. The hon. member made a well-prepared speech on a very important matter, on lives that have to be saved. When a person is drowning, no one asks whether he is a Black man, no one asks whether he is a young man; if someone is able to help him, he does so. Nor is the rescuer told that if he is a Black man, his help will not be accepted. His help simply is accepted.

I have here a letter from the Alpha Surf Life-saving Club, a letter we received on 16 October 1979. This club was affiliated with the life-saving association to which the hon. member for Vasco referred. The secretary of this club wrote as follows to the South African Life-saving Association—

Mr. Speaker, after having already spoken twice I am now in fact coming to the end of my speech. [Interjections.] I have moved an amendment to the Second Reading expressing our attitude, which is that, although there are some good points to the Bill, the bad points outweigh the good points.

I should just like to return to one single clause before completing my speech, viz. clause 4. On rereading my unrevised Hansard I see that the hon. the Minister was very insistent that I should across the floor of the House give my approval to clause 4. Well, Sir, I have said that I did approve of it, but I immediately became suspicious when the hon. the Minister made such an issue of it. I therefore had another good look at clause 4 and I am happy to tell the hon. the Minister that I still approve of it, although I do have certain reservations, because it has to do with narrowing down the sort of people who can make complaints. One thinks, for example, of the case of City Tramways v. Mr. Rommel Roberts. The one reservation I have is that frequently publication of things like tariff increases is inadequate and people do not get to know about it until it is too late. Here we actually have the position restricted specifically to people like Mr. Roberts. The proposed section 8(1)(c) reads—

This hinges on the regulation and I would request that the hon. the Minister ensure that the regulations provide adequate time and facilities for people to make objections in cases like this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove concluded his speech three times and I am still trying to make out against whom and in favour of whom he was actually speaking. I do not know whether he is in favour of the carrier or of the user. But there is one thing I was able to ascertain, and that is that he is not a great friend of the S.A. Railways.

It was a sort of relay speech.

Transport is the lifeblood of the economic activities of any country and consequently adjustments would probably have to be made from time to time to adapt to changing circumstances. In certain respects restrictions will have to be lifted, as is being provided in the Bill, and in other cases it will be necessary to impose more restrictions. Since a sound transport policy is a prerequisite for a bouyant economy, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister announced in his Second Reading speech that a two-year course for managers of transport concerns had been instituted at the Rand Afrikaans University, in cooperation with the Federation of Road Transport Associations. Although the amount of R6 500 initially voted for this course is a very modest sum, it is at least a start, a start which should perhaps have been made years ago, because transport is the only type of business I know of which one can begin without any training and without any capital whatsoever.

I believe one could even start such a business without a credit card. [Interjections.] One is offered a vehicle with a certificate, and one has years in which to pay it off. This is done with the hope that ultimately one will not be able to pay in any case, so that the vehicle can be repossessed. These people venture into the transport business. They have to obtain funds, and they do not care how they harm the industry in this respect. I think it is very essential that such a course should be introduced so that at some time or other we shall reach the position where a person who wishes to undertake transport work, will be properly qualified and at least be able to finance such a business undertaking. I think that is the only way in which we could ultimately have a properly organized general transport industry.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was quite correct when he said that this Bill could best be discussed during the Committee Stage, and so I just wish to refer to a few clauses in the course of my speech. Other hon. members on this side of the House will deal with the other clauses. As I have said, it is necessary from time to time, according to the dictates of economic circumstances, to lift restrictions in respect of certain forms of transport.

I should therefore like to refer, in the first place, to clause 1(c) in respect of lift clubs. It is now being made possible for a person who is not the owner of a vehicle, to join such a club. Consequently, it will be possible to utilize transport more effectively and to transport people from their homes to their work and back. It is actually disconcerting, when one drives into the City from Acacia Park in the morning, to see the strings of cars with only the drivers in them. It is unfortunately the position that most people bought their vehicles before the fuel crisis, and that many of these cars are not among the most economical one can get today. This is therefore a particularly favourable concession in the light of current conditions.

Then there is clause 1(e) which is basically the same. This is also a concession that is being made with a view to the fact that there is an economic upswing in progress, particularly in the building industry where many of these workers have to be conveyed from one site to the other. This also takes cognizance of the fact that we have a shortage of skilled workers and that it is necessary for these people to be able to transport their workers from one site to the other as quickly as possible.

In connection with clause 1(f), I wish to point out that initially major concessions were made to carriers. Carriers were obliged, under all circumstances, to be in possession of a certificate to do their work. When the Act was last amended, a concession was made in that carriers did not require any authorization within a radius of 40 km. But, as things go in life, “give people an inch and they take a mile” and consequently, in spite of the fuel crisis we are experiencing, these people have devised a method of operating far beyond the limits of this arrangement and creating fictitious points from which they then have a transit which is much farther than the 40 km which was originally intended.

One of the difficulties I have with the hon. member for Orange Grove, is that he has made a plea to the effect that the 40 km should also be extended to 80 km because, he says, these people who convey goods in the course of their business, are not really carriers. He said—

He wants specialists. Just before that, however, he said he was seeking a concession so that people could convey their employees from their homes to their places of employment and vice versa, but that is precisely what employers were unlawfully doing at one stage. Then, he said—

I do not know where he wants these specialists. Must it be the man who conveys his own employees, or must it be the carrier who undertakes transport for business undertakings?

Clause 1(g) is similar to clause 1(e), except that it concerns the conveyance of goods in the course of trade or business and where people are restricted to an area with a radius of 80 km. Here, too, a restriction is being imposed. I do think, however, that it is necessary to request large undertakings such as departmental stores to abide strictly by this restriction and to realize that a major concession has been made to them, because what happens when they transport their goods from Witbank to Johannesburg, for example—and this is within the exempted area in any event—is that they offload the goods at Carletonville and convey goods to Potchefstroom and from there to Klerksdorp, so that the ultimate transit extends from Witbank to Klerksdorp. I do not quite know how one could effectively restrict this, however, and consequently I wish to say that one should make a friendly appeal to them, because I think it is in fact conducive to unfair competition in the retail trade. A person who has only one single undertaking, is restricted to the 80 km area, whereas the large entrepreneur exceeds this restriction. It is being provided in clause 7 that bus services and taxi operators may increase their tariffs by 10% at the utmost if this is in proportion to the increased fuel prices. I think it is very essential that this concession should be made, but it is a matter that works both ways. Although one may perhaps regard it as impossible or too idealistic under the present circumstances, it may also happen that in future there may be a reduction in the fuel price.

No provision is now being made here for such bus services or taxi operators conveying people at fixed tariffs, to reduce their transport tariffs in case the circumstances in relation to the fuel prices should justify such a step. Consequently, I wish to ask whether consideration could not be given to providing that tariffs may be amended either way. Clause 11 now provides that people who transfer their employees between their homes and their places of employment, have to apply for a public transport permit. I think that is quite correct, particularly after what the hon. member for Orange Grove said here. If we have these bus services and other transport facilities, there is no reason why people should be conveyed in private vehicles, unless they are able to prove to the Road Transportation Board that they cannot make effective use of existing facilities. It is also being provided in clause 11 that people who transport goods in the course of their business for the purpose of being repaired or cleaned—goods that do not belong to them —may now apply for a private permit. Such people are of course entitled to convey goods within a radius of 40 km without any authorization by the road transportation board. As we know these undertakings, I do not think that there is a great need to go beyond an area within a 40 km radius, perhaps with the exception of tyre re-treading concerns or firms that carry out other repairs. So I do not think that an unfair restriction is being imposed here. On the other hand, I do not believe either that this new concession can be abused, particularly if one takes into account that this new amending Bill also provides that road transportation boards should devote special attention to fuel consumption in the granting of permits. Clause 14 provides that a defective vehicle may be replaced by another vehicle, for a period not exceeding 14 days. I should like to support the hon. member for Orange Grove in his plea and ask whether this period could not be extended to 28 days.

It is being provided in clause 15 that the certificate in respect of the replaced vehicle together with written permission should be kept on the relevant vehicle. Consequently there is no possibility that this concession can be abused. On the basis of my experience I have in these matters, I cannot imagine that if a vehicle has become defective, repairs could be effected within the period of 14 days, particularly if it is a large vehicle. I think it actually entails a little unnecessary work for the road transportation boards to have to make a new concession after the expiration of the period of 14 days, or to have to issue a new certificate. Consequently, I suggest that this period of 14 days should be extended.

In conclusion, I just wish to refer to a consequential amendment in respect of the increase in tariffs relating to the increase in the prices of fuel. I wish to repeat what I said about the relevant clause, namely that I am of the opinion that it should also be applicable the other way around. It is a great privilege for me to pledge my support to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we have established a record this session with regard to this Bill. First of all, this Bill has a long title that must be one of the longest that I and many other hon. members have seen. When I first saw the long title, it caused me to look upon this Bill as being quite formidable. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove completed his Second Reading speech over three sittings, and that could also be a record.

As has already been said, this is primarily a Committee Stage Bill and as the three previous speakers have gone into this Bill in great detail, clause by clause, I do not intend to do so as well. I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Losberg, who said …

He is the hon. member for Losberg and the hon. member for Orange Grove is “Loskop”.

… it is very easy for people to become involved in transport today and believes, if I heard him correctly, that the ideal would be that in future public transport operators should have to qualify for some sort of certificate before they are granted a permit. I hope that in time this will come about, because, let us face it—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree—road transport is based primarily in the private sector and it is increasing tremendously, not only because of the growth in our economy but also because of the flexibility of road transport. Those of us who sat on the Road Transport Commission know that the flexibility of road transport is such that many people would prefer to transport by road rather than by rail. Because road transport is growing, it is quite obvious that there has to be control, and this is one of the major reasons why this legislation is required.

While accepting the need for private enterprise to be involved in transport, I believe cognizance also has to be taken of the position of the S.A. Railways in the total transport scene in South Africa today. Those of us who sat on the commission went into great detail on this, and the hon. member for Orange Grove will agree with me. That is another reason why this legislation is required. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the fact that the Railways receive a certain amount of preference.

I should like to just put it to him that I think that this is required and that we should take cognizance of this in the light of the important position the S.A. Railways holds in South Africa today. However, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that to an extent I agree with what the hon. member for Orange Grove has had to say. In the commission there was a distinct plea for freer transportation. The hon. the Minister was not the Minister of Transport Affairs at the time, but if he reads the debates that took place when this Act was passed, he will see that there was this desire, on the part of all hon. members, to see a move towards freer road transport, the promotion of free enterprise and the reduction of red tape involved in the transport industry. Having said all this, however, I should like to say further that transport has to be kept under control, because otherwise it would be in a chaotic condition. We must, of course, accept that particular fact.

It is regrettable that we have to admit and accept that there will always be people who will try to find loopholes in the Act.

Lawyers.

The hon. the Minister refers to lawyers, and being a lawyer himself by profession, I think he speaks with a great deal of feeling in this particular regard.

It is a matter of confession.

People are continuously looking for loopholes and excuses with which they can get around the various provisions in the Act. I believe that this particular amending Bill tightens up and closes a large number of those loopholes. I think this is required and also desirable.

Hon. members have referred to the proposed sections 1(2)(x) and 1(2)(y) which deal with the areas with radii of 40 km and 80 km respectively within which people can operate. In this regard people could set up depots in order to evade the provisions of this particular clause. This loophole is now being closed.

In terms of the proposed section 14(1)(b)(iii) a person who wants to register a new vehicle on an old licence or permit can only do so if the carrying capacity does not differ by more than 20% from that of the original vehicle. An old trick that people used to employ was to replace, for example, an 8-ton lorry by a 9-ton lorry and, eventually, even by a 20-ton lorry on the same permit, but this particular amending legislation will make sure that this does not happen again in future.

I now want to come to clause 12. The hon. member for Orange Grove had some reservations about this clause, but I believe there is a great deal in clause 12 which is required. When we were debating this in our group my colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga, who has been much involved in transport in the past, said that he appreciated very much the need for the tightening up of such things as the time-limits within which renewal and transfer applications for permits must be made and fees must be submitted. There are many operators who will use the laxity in the present Act …

To make excuses.

… to make excuses and to cause things to go their way in a manner which is not really in the best interests of the public or of transport.

The hon. the Minister does not like technicalities.

I want to stress this matter of loopholes, technicalities and procedures. I have a serious problem with this Bill which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister at a later stage. I want to say to the hon. the Minister now, however, that I think that this tightening up of the provisions of the Act is required. Later on in my speech I am going to tell him that I would rather have him tighten up other provisions to achieve the objectives he wants to achieve, and I am now referring particularly to clause 5. There are many improvements in this Bill. In clause 1, which seeks to amend section 1 of the Road Transportation Act, 1977, a new definition is given of “decentralized industry” In this Bill provision is also made for lift clubs, as well as for employers to transport their employees to various work sites. Various other hon. members have also referred to this. In this respect I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I should therefore like to put it to the hon. the Minister that, in these times of fuel shortages, consideration should perhaps be given to allowing employers when they transport employees to a work site, to pick them up at their homes or close to their homes. I know of instances where employees travel 15 km or more to their employer’s base from where they are transported to their work site, travelling, in some cases, right past their own front door again to a point perhaps 10 km beyond their homes.

Well, you will understand that they can apply for a permit if there is no alternative way.

I understand what the hon. the Minister says. Unfortunately one also gets firms such as building contractors who are moving continuously from one job site to another. This request would make their lot and their employees’ lot much easier, especially in cases in which employees have to travel great distances to their places of employment. I am thinking now particularly of Black employees. Here one also has the time factor in addition to the cost of transport. Some of these people have to get up extremely early in the morning. Therefore, I believe that what the hon. member for Orange Grove and I are now asking for might ease their lot in life.

As I have said, there are many improvements in this Bill. Nevertheless, I am concerned about some of the clauses, for instance, clause 10, part of clause 12, and also clause 16, all of which relate to fuel saving. Other hon. members have also referred to these provisions.

Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 15 of the principal Act. In the proposed new section 15(1)(c) it says—

Before commenting on this I should also like to refer to clause 16, which seeks to amend section 25 of the principal Act. The proposed new section 25(1)(c) reads as follows—

These provisions do give me cause for concern, because, as I said right at the beginning, those of us who were on the commission agreed unanimously that there should be freer transport and that private enterprise should have greater access to road transportation, and that a bias towards the S.A. Railways should be avoided. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister now—and I sincerely hope he will make it abundantly clear to us—that these provisions are inserted in the Bill merely to ensure that there will in fact be a saving of fuel, and that I hope these provisions will not be used by those who will administer them as a means of showing a bias towards the S.A. Railways. That is one thing from which we wanted to get away. I am referring now to those of us who were on the commission. I hope the hon. the Minister will comment on this when he replies to the debate.

I also have a problem with clause 5, which seeks to insert a new section 8A in the principal Act. I also want to point out that I believe clause 4 to be a good clause because it narrows now the various categories of those who may appeal against a board’s decision to change tariffs, etc. I shall give my reasons for this later. Before doing so, however, I should like to refer again to the proposed new section 8A, which allows the tariff increases granted by the board to continue without suspension during the period of appeal. I believe this has some serious implications, but before discussing them I should like to point out that bus transportation is becoming increasingly important. I believe there are some 11 000 passenger buses on the road at the present time, of which about 7 000 are privately owned.

The hon. member should understand that clause 5, to which he refers now, does not say it cannot be suspended until

It states that the increases shall be allowed to run while the appeal against them is pending.

An appeal against a review of the proceedings.

Yes, an appeal against a review of the proceedings. Well, the hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of enlightening us on this, but I interpret it as meaning that should someone appeal after the board has reached agreement on a tariff increase, the increase is allowed to stand and to be put into operation. The passengers will thus have to pay that increase while the appeal against it is pending. That is the way I understand it.

There are some 7 000 vehicles owned by the private sector and some 4 000 by the public sector. No matter who owns those vehicles, someone has got to pay for the cost of operating them. It must be made clear to the public that with the inflation we have today increases in tariffs are inevitable and unavoidable. In an important statement in the Press recently, I think it was the Rev. Hendrickse who said that all South Africa’s bus services should be nationalized in order to keep fares low so that the public do not have to pay as much as they are paying now. If this is so, who pays? Eventually, it will be the public who will pay through their taxes. We know already that, as far as rail transport is concerned, there is something like a R400 million loss being incurred on passenger services.

It is R485 million.

That is being subsidized by the State. I asked the hon. the Minister what the subsidy was on road transport during the Transport Affairs Vote but unfortunately I had to leave the House before he replied. However, I estimate the subsidy on bus services to be something of the order of R50 million or R60 million.

It is R76 million.

Thank you. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two questions involved here. Firstly, how large can this subsidy be allowed to become? Surely there must be a limit? Secondly, can our industrial and commercial sectors and, in fact, our society afford to allow bus companies to go bankrupt? People must search their own hearts on this and answer these questions, because one cannot get something for nothing in life. If something has to be paid for, then somebody has to pay for it one way or another. However, having said that, I want to add that the hon. the Minister must realize that the problem of bus fares is a potentially explosive matter. I think recent history has shown this and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister fully understands the emotional side of it, for which there are many reasons, to which I shall refer. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, especially in connection with clause 5, to bear this in mind.

Public transportation, especially bus transportation, cannot be allowed to become a political football. There must be consensus amongst all concerned on this issue. If we make a political football out of public transport, we are asking for trouble. For this reason, we must all examine our own responsibilities in this regard. Firstly, the Government must examine and accept its responsibilities. For better or worse, the Government’s policy has placed a lot of people—regrettably in most cases they are the low-income group or Black people—far away from their places of employment. Therefore, the Government must accept its responsibility in this regard, and I believe it does by virtue of the subsidized transport to which I have already referred. I think the public should be made aware of this. Secondly, I believe the bus companies have a responsibility here. They have got to ensure that their profits are reasonable. They should not believe that they can exploit the public on public transport. Many of them more or less hold monopolies.

What do you suggest is a reasonable return?

That is a very difficult question at this time with inflation running at about 14%. With all his contacts, I think the hon. the Minister is probably in a better position than I am to answer that question. I do know, as a businessman, that if I was investing millions of rand in a bus service, I would expect a reasonable return.

If inflation is running at 14% and one is also making 14% on one’s money, one is in fact, making nothing. So I leave it to the hon. the Minister to work out what would be a reasonable return on one’s capital. Permit me to digress for a moment. We can, of course, do what the Railways is now doing in its costing. The Railways takes into account inflation accounting when it comes to assessing depreciation on assets, etc. If one were to bear that in mind, the per centage return would change. Therefore it is very difficult for me to reply to the hon. the Minister when he throws a question like that at me. It depends on accounting procedures. I think he will agree with me about that. To get back to the point, however, I do not believe that the bus companies should be allowed to make an excessively high profit, and permit holders must, I believe, realize this. They must be made to understand this when they obtain a permit from the Government. They must be told that they are obtaining it to provide a service at a reasonable profit. I believe that the commission and the boards that have been set up must ensure, when they review these tariffs, that the bus companies are not making unreasonable profits.

I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to this, because if the commission and the boards, after studying the costs involved, say that a tariff arrived at is a reasonable tariff, we must accept that it is. I do not believe that we, as politicians, or anyone else, would then have a valid case in making a political football out of this.

[Inaudible.]

I am just reviewing the question of responsibility. The third group of people who have a responsibility are, I believe, the bus users themselves. As I have said, they cannot expect to get their bus transportation for nothing. When the service is being subsidized, those with low incomes must be made to understand that they are, in fact, being subsidized. I wonder whether the public is aware of this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us just how good his departments’ publicity is in this regard. I say that the public must be made aware of the cost of transportation, because how often do we find members of the public vandalizing buses. Do they realize that they are, in fact, damaging their own interests by doing so? There is also a problem in that when the State subsidizes a bus service, it is often subsidizing those who can, in fact, afford to pay for that service. There are members of the public who can afford and there are those who cannot afford to pay.

The fourth area of responsibility involves employers, who I believe, must take into account the transport costs of their employees when considering pay or salary increases. Employers, both in commerce and industry, should realize the heavy burden that transport is placing on some of their employees.

Another area of responsibility involves the Department of Transport Affairs itself. I should like to stress the point that the board must deal with any applications for tariff increases expeditiously. I believe that one cannot allow appeals to be delayed, because this is, after all, one of the main reasons for clause 5, i.e. the loss of income to a bus owner caused by delays. I therefore believe that the legislation must ensure a speedy resolution of any problem or any other matter in this regard. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister exactly what time delays are involved in such applications, because this is an important factor in regard to clause 5. Just how long do bus owners have to wait before the appeal and final judgment have been dealt with in the case of an appeal? I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to that.

We have heard from the hon. the Minister that sometimes these delays can be considerable, because the people who are appealing or who are lodging an appeal on behalf of others often use a lot of technicalities as far as the Act is concerned, and because of that the bus company loses out. Because of this, the hon. the Minister wants the public to pay the increased tariff during the period of appeal. There is a very serious question which arises here, and that is: What happens to the money the passengers are paying during the period while the appeal is being heard should the appeal board reject the tariff increases and comes to a finding in favour of the passengers? How is the public going to react to this? It is almost like saying to a person who has been convicted of some crime and sentenced to, say, a flogging: “I know you have lodged an appeal, but we are going to flog you anyway.” What happens if the appeal then succeeds?

Then one says: “Sorry.”

I have said earlier on that this is a potentially explosive situation, and I want to stress this, because we are all aware of recent events in various parts of the country involving bus transportation. The hon. the Minister has to exercise his mind on the publics’ reaction, because there are very serious implications involved in this regard. It is because of this that I believe that the hon. the Minister has been very unwise to include clause 5. I know it has been said that there are activists and agitators who are manipulating the public for their own ends and clause 4 does assist in this regard. Here we have another area of responsibility which concerns politicians and other people who have the interests of the underprivileged at heart.

How would you solve the problem?

I am going to give the hon. the Minister a few suggestions. The point I want to make is that we should tell the public to beware of people who try to manipulate them on an issue like public transportation, to get them all worked up, to serve not the interests of the public or the bus users, but only their own interests.

I said to the hon. the Minister that I believe that there are other ways of overcoming the problem. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister, first of all, that he is treating the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. I would suggest that, first of all, he should have come to the House with amendments which would have removed many of the technicalities and the causes of delays in hearing appeals. I believe it is very important that the causes of the delays should be removed. I believe that the transportation boards themselves should act expeditiously on these issues so that the question can be resolved in a matter of days, not weeks. I am sure that the Act can be amended to achieve this objective. Another suggestion I should like to make is that the bus companies themselves can overcome this problem by making allowances for delays when planning an appeal and in their financial planning generally.

Do you know what that would mean? They would have to apply for higher tariffs than are required.

If they put in their applications a few weeks ahead of time, making allowance for whatever time is required to take care of an appeal, I think the matter would be resolved. I do not believe that the way in which the hon. the Minister is going about this is the correct way.

I believe, too, that the bus companies themselves have a responsibility to develop a better means of communication with the travelling public. I believe they must inform the passengers of exactly what is going on and that they should try to develop, as I have said, a better means of communication. I believe that the department itself should somehow or other create the means to develop far better communications so that these matters can be resolved much more expeditiously. After all, a lot of the users of buses, and especially the Coloured people, do not, as far as I can gather, at the present time have suitable people or the means generally to put their case as easily and clearly as they would possibly like. In other words, I believe that some form of user-cum-operator relationship must develop, but I leave it to the department and the bus owners themselves to think about this. I believe that it is in these areas that the hon. the Minister should have been concentrating his efforts in trying to resolve this particular problem.

There is now an amendment before the House and by moving this amendment, the hon. member for Orange Grove has elevated this clause to being one which contains a major principle of the whole Bill. I would have preferred to have seen a debate with the hon. the Minister at this stage over these issues in the hope that he would have seen the wisdom of our argument and also in the hope that he would reconsider clause 5. That is what I would have preferred, but now that we have this amendment before the House, I regret to say to the hon. the Minister that while I sympathize with him and the bus owners, I believe that clause 5 is potentially an extremely dangerous clause should it be applied in practice.

I have already said this three or four times, and I want to stress it again, because if we pass this clause, the next time an appeal succeeds—and I have made an appeal to responsible people not to make a political football out of this matter, not to manipulate the people, but we know what the circumstances are—I hesitate to guess what the consequences of that could mean, because bus users could be, and are, manipulated. There are people who only have one interest at heart, and that is to create confusion and confrontation between the department, the bus companies and the public. Therefore we shall support the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has put certain pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister. These deal with particulars of the internal functioning of the department and the way in which these matters are dealt with. As regards the other aspects relating to the clauses of the Bill, I shall try to give certain replies.

It has been stated that this Bill is, in the first place, a Committee Stage Bill and then it was added that it was actually concerned with the elimination of loopholes in the existing Act. It is true that certain aspects had to be examined more closely because certain methods and techniques were being utilized, to which the Act lent itself, to have certain processes extended and to have the commencement of certain tariff structures to be postponed as long as possible.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also discussed the clauses dealing with the consumption of fuel. In view of its strategic importance this aspect is of course something that had to be looked into. One could perhaps just state about this particular clause that if there were to be further procrastination in taking these factors into account, it may shortly be too late to solve the difficulty.

As far as certain specific clauses in the Bill are concerned, I intend dealing with them in greater detail to see whether one cannot clarify and explain them.

The first clause I should like to refer to and which has only been touched upon up to now is clause 1(a), which is concerned with the definition of “decentralized industry”. Here an improvement is being made to the definition as it now stands in the principal Act because it refers exclusively to a factory or workshop situated within an area declared to be a decentralized industrial area by section 2(c) of the principal Act. This position is being improved in more than one respect, but in my view there is one particular aspect which I am pleased about, and that is paragraph (c) in terms of which a decentralized industry may also be an industry situated in an area which has been declared to be a decentralized industrial area under any law governing road transportation in any self-governing territory as defined in section 38 of the Black States Constitution Act, 1971. Here I am referring in particular to the areas within our national States in respect of which certain decentralization benefits may be announced so that the inhabitants of those territories may also avail themselves of such benefits. If I want to be subjective about this, I could of course think of the Dimbaza industrial area which is situated in the Ciskei and in respect of which I am convinced that these benefits will also apply.

Clause 2 relates to section 3 of the principal Act, which deals with the general powers of the commission. It is interesting to note that in this regard we have obtained general agreement on a new power to be entrusted to the National Transport Commission, namely to cause an inquiry to be instituted at any time into certain financial circumstances and operating practices. This can be done in relation to certain undertakings at any time, and not only sporadically as is the case at present, for example when an application for tariff increases is made. The object of the National Transport Commission is to ensure that the most favourable and most economical transport services shall be made available to the public, and naturally it is against this background that this clause is of exceptional importance.

Clause 3, on which agreement has also been reached, is concerned with the establishment and constitution of local transportation boards. In paragraph (a) of clause 3, the provision is being inserted that the new subsection 7(A) shall be taken into account when these boards are appointed. Experience has shown that when a board is appointed to decide on road transport matters, and an appeal or review proceedings are instituted against the particular board, the position is that if the applicant were to come back to the board and request permission to reconsider his application for a tariff increase in the meantime, an immediate objection may be lodged against the possible non-impartiality of the board members concerned. The idea is of course, through the addition of subsection 7(A), to make provision for the appointment of additional members who could then function independently as a local road transportation board. If the existing road transport board makes a decision in respect of an application and an appeal is lodged against such decision, or it is taken on review, there will now be a tribunal—something which, in our time, could possibly called an ad hoc tribunal— which could, in the interim, give immediate attention to the application for a tariff increase or for other relief applied for by an organization or applicant. This appointment of special members for this particular purpose is not subject to the same strict requirements that normally have to be complied with when permanent members of the local road transportation boards are appointed. It would be unnecessary, for example, to consult the Administrator concerned or the local municipality which normally has a say in this matter. Such a matter could therefore be expeditiously disposed of.

In terms of clause 4, one of these loopholes is being eliminated. In the past, ironically, one had the situation that people appealed against decisions of the local transportation board or took them on review while they themselves were never, at any stage, involved in the process when the matter was considered on its merits. This phenomenon means that the person, simply because, for argument’s sake, he was once a bus passenger, now suddenly arrogates to himself the right, after there has been a decision on the merits of the case, and after this matter has indeed been disposed of, of having the case placed before another tribunal de novo. So, he makes a fresh start with a matter that has already been disposed of. It goes much further than that, however, for if the person had stated his case when he had the opportunity to do so in the first place when the merits of the case were in fact considered, it could possible have contributed to a different decision from the one appealed against or taken on review being taken by the local road transportation board. This clause is consequently a wonderful improvement because it is in line with all the legal processes which we have in all our other legal tribunals and also in certain administrative tribunals in the country. The important aspect is that the appeal is still being referred to the commission. So this position is not being changed at all. The objections by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Amanzimtoti are more applicable to clause 5, which seeks to insert section 8A in the principal Act. I think, in all fairness, that it is necessary to consider what is actually being provided by section 8. The marginal note to section 8 reads as follows—

Therefore section 8 contains an appeal procedure on merit from the local road transportation board to the National Transport Commission, and this appeal procedure, in as much as it concerns the merits, that is to say, the actual essence of the tariff increase, is in no way being detracted from. It will remain just as it is. This procedure has worked well in the past and it is consequently being retained for the future. In terms of the provisions of section 8 of the principal Act, any person would have a right of appeal to the National Transport Commission, provided he has submitted his problem to the local road transportation board in the first place. There he can argue the merits of the case, and tear to pieces, if he can, the basis on which the applicant has founded his application for a tariff increase. He is entitled to all forms of objection and if the local road transportation board has not given the correct decision, the National Transport Commission will attend to the matter and make a decision.

An interesting aspect of section 8 is that if a person were to appeal against a finding of a local road transportation board, the relevant tariff does not come into effect immediately. It only comes into effect after the National Transport Commission has heard the appeal. This appeal procedure is not one that is conducive to delays. It is an internal administrative appeal procedure that has been created. It is actually an internal administrative tribunal that expressed an opinion specifically on these matters. This aspect, about which a great fuss has been kicked up here, about which concern has been expressed and which is the essence of the objection to clause 5, falls away if one bears in mind that section 8 is still applicable.

Coming now to clause 5 which seeks to insert section 8A into the Act, it is interesting to note the instances where the local road transportation board has already determined a tariff which has then given rise to some legal process or another. The matter is now being changed to the extent that the new tariffs will remain effective notwithstanding the legal proceedings that have been instituted. The new tariffs will not be suspended. Only after the court has given its verdict will the tariffs on which the court has decided be the applicable tariffs. In other words, at the very moment when the Court of Law has given a final judgment that an interdict has to be upheld, any tariff that has still been in force up to that stage, falls away immediately.

Another aspect that needs to be considered in this regard is the expression “court of law”. If one considers the accepted definition of “court of law”, we find that the Supreme Court as we know it and as it is established in our legal system, and also the procedures it adopts, fall within the ambit of this definition. This court does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals. The word “appeals” has been heard here all afternoon. It does not hear appeals on the merits of the matter. That mechanism and process remain. This is concerned solely with an interdict, an application procedure, and a mandatory order that perhaps has to be obtained. It does not matter if the court order that is obtained, does not relate to the tariffs as such because this is not required by the proposed section 8A. The proposed section 8A differs radically from the rest of section 8 of the principal Act. In my view this procedure does not in any way thwart a person who feels aggrieved about a matter. It may even happen that while the interdict is being heard by the Supreme Court, the local road transportation board may simultaneously apply for condonation of a technical non-compliance with a requirement and be granted relief, perhaps even before a final order has been made on an application for an interdict. There is however, also another process that enters the picture. In terms of the provision I have just referred to, a local road transportation board may be restructured. After it has been restructured, it can hear an application for a tariff increase de novo. It may then happen that a new tariff is announced or that a previously approved tariff may be confirmed and that in this way, it could become legally enforceable even while an interdict is still pending and while a final order has not yet been made. The ultimate order would not matter, then except perhaps as far as costs are concerned.

I think one should not lose sight of the fact that what is actually involved here, is the aspect of mala fides. It is concerned with the mala fides of the applicant who petitions the Supreme Court in order to make a name for himself as a person who ostensibly intercedes for and wishes to help people who are affected by increases in the transport tariffs. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to this aspect and tried to suggest certain solutions. He said, inter alia, that what should happen, was that cases on appeal should be disposed of expeditiously. I think I replied satisfactorily to that aspect when I said that a totally different procedure had to be followed with regard to cases of appeal and that time was not of the essence here. The hon. member further said that provision should be made for a so-called period respite. I think this is something for which one automatically makes provision in providing for any waiting period with regard to an appeal that has to be heard in terms of section 8 of the principal Act, and not in terms of the proposed section 8A. The important question is, of course, for what period one has to make provision. For the hearing of normal appeals, this sort of thing sorts itself out within the stipulated period. When it comes to the Supreme Court and one deals with an interdict, an application procedure, it could indeed take months and the period could be much longer than when the normal appeal procedure is followed.

The third possible solution—and certainly one cannot find fault with this—is that there should be more effective communication, that people should be informed in advance, be made aware, as it were, that there may be tariff increases in the offing. That should be a common occurrence in view of the fuel position as one of the major inputs in the transport economy at the present stage. All of us are thoroughly aware of the fact that when fuel becomes more expensive at the private fuel pumps, one must logically expect that one is going to have increases in other costs and consequently an increase in the expenses of the permit holders involved. However, provision is being made for that here. It is being pointed out very clearly that this maximum increase of 10% could become effective automatically in order to overcome this situation, as envisaged by some of the other clauses. What happens, therefore, is that the cases with which problems may be encountered, are further minimized by these other clauses. The cases that will ultimately have to be heard in court or by the National Transport Commission are further minimized, because one’s opportunities for appeals are reduced. All that actually remains for a person, is the so-called technical objection, and that is what the proposed section 8A has been inserted for. I trust that this now brings more clarity in regard to the proposed section 8A.

Clauses 9(b) and (c) are, in my view, very, very sound improvements in that all the parties involved in applications to the Road Transport Board, are being afforded an opportunity of obtaining the necessary information—I am referring, for example, to the objector and the applicant—so that they can be acquainted with the essential aspects of the matter, so that they will know when the matter will be heard by the local road transportation board. From the point of view of procedure it would of course have the effect that the parties would be better prepared, and this is something that would effect a shortening in the duration of the proceedings. One could almost say that what has to happen here, is that a new procedure, as hon. members would concede, namely the customary rule 37—should be introduced so that people should get together in advance in order to determine what is actually in dispute, so that the case will ultimately be heard only on the matters in dispute.

As a result of the making available of all this information, as provided in these clauses, parties will have the opportunity of examining the real implications, motivation and substance in the motivation in good time so that the matter can be placed before the local road transportation board in an orderly manner. In my view, it would almost inevitably mean that the local road transportation board would be in a far more favourable position to consider these matters and come to an equitable decision. The other aspect that is involved, and which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti dealt with, was the so-called socio-emotional aspect. One will now be able to make sure that the nature of the actual need has been determined and have greater peace of mind and satisfaction about any tariff increases that may be announced.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has already indicated, we on this side of the House are opposed to clause 5. So strong is our opposition, in fact, that we are going to vote against the Bill despite the fact that we approve of most of its other provisions. This clause, as already indicated, provides that it would be impossible for a Supreme Court to suspend the implementation of increased bus tariffs by way of an interdict until a final verdict on the matter has been given by the Supreme Court. In his motivation the hon. the Minister spoke of technicalities on which interdicts are said to have been granted in recent times and said that in such interdicts there had been no question of merit. The hon. the Minister went on to say that these interdicts resulted in heavy financial losses for the bus companies in question which considerably aggravated the normal administrative delays. Now I should just like to ask this question, and I believe it is important in considering this clause: Who is in a better position to contend with the disadvantage which in this situation is caused by administrative or judicial delays? Is it the bus company, which begins to receive its increased tariff somewhat later than anticipated, or is it the passenger, the commuter who has to pay a higher bus tariff which is later found to have been improperly determined? As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt as to the answer to this question. It is that the bus operator is in the best position; it is the bus company, which can keep a check on its books and, with its economic and financial experts, determine when an increase will be necessary. They can make economic projections as well. Since they are a relatively large company, they would be in a position to make projections and to institute the procedure in sufficient time to obtain an increase in tariffs.

That is not the point.

That is the point. If need be, any losses which a bus company suffers as a result of delays, be they administrative or judicial, could be adjusted for in the new tariff so as to compensate the bus company. On the other hand, however, there is no way to compensate the passenger for the higher bus fare he pays as a result of a tariff which has been improperly determined and subsequently rejected by the court. It may not be a particularly large sum in the case of the ordinary bus passenger, but we still find ourselves in the situation that if this clause is passed, it means that a bus operator can illegally make an extra profit from an increased tariff which remains in effect until the court may reject it in its final verdict.

†The hon. the Minister speaks lightly of “technical” points of law which might constitute the bases of the interdicts, but these technical points arose out of the procedures laid down by the Government itself. Procedures laid down in this way must be followed because presumably they are there for a good reason. They cannot now merely be referred to as being of technical interest only. Procedures laid down for the approval of higher fares for a bus company which enjoys the privilege of a monopoly, should be particularly closely followed. The matter before us concerns the rights of commuters, and these rights should not be tampered with. If a commuter has to use a technical point of law to protect his own interests, why should he not be allowed to do so? If the procedures laid down by the Government for the approval of higher tariffs are not adhered to by a road transportation board or by the bus companies, why should the commuter not be able to have the new tariff nullified immediately on the evidence put before a court of law? Too often the rights of commuters are considered to be of nuisance value by Government boards, e.g. by road transportation boards and presumably by the bus companies as well.

What proof have you for that statement?

This clause itself is an indication of this kind of attitude. These procedures, however, are the only protection the commuters and the public have, and the mere fact that they are not used frequently, does not mean that they do not serve a good purpose.