Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister for the fact that I could not be present during the discussion of his Vote yesterday. [Interjections.] We were holding a meeting, and that was why I could not be here. However, I have obtained a copy of the hon. the Minister’s speech and I have read what he said about some of the points I want to touch on this morning.

In particular, I should like to discuss the question of universities, as well as a few other aspects, but before I come to those, I want to deal with a few general political matters.

A matter which has often been discussed here is the need for a single administration for education, i.e. a single control structure for education. While a case could perhaps still be made out for separate bodies for non-tertiary education, I believe that there is no logical justification for the maintenance of separate systems of control in South Africa in the sphere of tertiary education. I cannot understand why the authorities or the Government so strongly resist the idea of a single system of control for tertiary education. I get the impression that we are faced here with a hang-up, to use a colloquial term, which is indeed not based on rational grounds. After all, the existence of a single body of control over education is not necessarily going to mean that there will be large-scale mixing in the educational sphere. There is confusion in this field, therefore, and there is an error of reasoning which causes people to believe that a single control structure of control is bound to lead to total integration in education, at the tertiary and other levels.

We on this side of the House have no objection to mixed universities and schools. However, this is not the point I want to make. I just want to say that it seems illogical to say that a single control structure of control is bound to lead to large-scale integration in education. It is illogical and incomprehensible. We have seen in the field of mother-tongue instruction, for example, that entirely separate schools have been established in which English and Afrikaans, respectively, are used as the medium of instruction, and that those schools nevertheless fall under one single administration.

It seems to me that one of the basic flaws in the Government’s thinking is that symbolism is more important than reality. Therefore they cling to the symbolism of apartheid instead of facing up to reality. We find this in other fields as well, in respect of mixed marriages, for example. We all know perfectly well that if the relevant legislation were repealed, there would not be a sudden rush of people who wanted to enter into mixed marriages. However, it seems to me that the symbolism of this is more important to the NP than reality and the perception of reality in South Africa. What the Government forgets is that as long as we cling to the symbolism of apartheid, that symbolism will project the image, firstly, of discrimination and racial discrimination, because there is no other basis on which this apartheid can be maintained, secondly, of inequality and, thirdly, of subservience.

That is not correct.

I am saying that it projects the image …

And I am saying that it is not correct.

… because there is no logical reason why there should not be a single control structure.

I know the hon. the Minister will say that this is Government policy and that he has to expound Government policy in this House, but I do want to tell him that I do not want him, as a thinking person, to find himself in the same position in four or five years’ time that we have been witnessing here with the NP and the CP of late, where he will have to say: “That was what we believed at that stage, but now we see the matter differently.”

Do not worry about that.

I just want to say that the hon. the Minister should adopt a less dogmatic attitude on this particular point. I am not saying that the hon. the Minister should advocate mixed schools. I am just saying that he should be careful not to adopt a dogmatic and unyielding attitude towards the need for a single instrument of control.

When it comes to the Government’s new policy in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, it is a logical extension of that policy that at least the University of the Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville should no longer fall under separate administrations, because that would be directly in conflict with the Government’s declared policy regarding these three population groups. In this connection I want to warn again that if we believe that we can advocate a particular dispensation in respect of the Coloured people and the Indians without having to make it applicable to the Black universities as well, we are going to be faced with the same basic problems as we are faced with in politics generally with regard to the place and the rights of Black people in our structure.

What are we advocating in regard to this whole matter? We are not saying that this Government should throw open all universities. We are asking the Government to give the universities the autonomy to decide for themselves whom they wish to admit as students. That is what we are asking for. If we have any confidence in the universities as responsible organizations, it seems obvious to me that the universities should be given that primary right and should not have to go cap in hand to the Minister concerned for his permission every time they want to admit a certain person to a university. I honestly want to say that I cannot see any logical and sensible reason why this right cannot be granted to universities, because hon. members on that side of the House know just as well as I do that their fear that a university would be swamped by people of colour or by people belonging to different cultural groups is absurd.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he believes that if exemption were granted, universities would admit many more people of colour than they have at the moment.

I do not think that would happen. [Interjections.] That is precisely my point. Why keep a regulation which is absurd in the light of reality? [Interjections.] Surely it is absurd.

My time is very limited, so I want to come now to what the hon. the Minister said about the subsidy formula for the universities. I am glad he said that attention was being given to the question of whether a new subsidy basis should be created which was not related to student numbers. He said it was hoped that a report on this matter would be available by the end of the year. I just want to tell him that I foresee major problems if we want to eliminate student numbers entirely as an element in the subsidy formula. I do not know whether that would be practicable. Nevertheless, I look forward with great interest to the proposals for a new formula in this connection.

It will only be less dependent on figures and not totally independent of them.

I suggest that the hon. the Minister should make all particulars known as soon as possible so that the universities may also know how to plan for the future.

A further point I wish to raise here today—and this is something which perturbs me—is that the amount allocated to the Human Sciences Research Council is not considerably higher. I understand that there are financial problems. I must say I have my reservations about whether there still remains any justification at this stage for the HSRC to own its own building and for R1 million to be provided by way of additional operating capital in order to pay the interest on this building. I have serious reservations about this. What I really want to advocate here is that the amount allocated to the HSRC for research purposes should be much higher. I am aware—I have the figures with me—of the increase there has been over the past five or six years, and I am grateful for that. I also know that the hon. the Minister has said that this is all done on the basis of the advice received from the Office of the Prime Minister. What I want to say is that I regard research, especially research in this field, as being of such overriding importance to South Africa that I wish to urge the hon. the Minister to increase considerably, even at this late stage, the amount made available to the HSRC for research. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. member Prof. Olivier and other PFP members, it is very clear to me that this hon. member and his party are headed for a merry mix-up in education in our country. I want to tell the hon. member that this Government will now allow that. We shall ensure that education is organized in an orderly manner, in the interests of all the groups in this country.

However, I am not going to react to the hon. member’s speech any further. I have a different subject I want to talk about. Before I come to that, however, I want to thank the hon. the Minister, in my capacity as a former teacher who still has the interests of this profession at heart, for the very effective way in which he has created an atmosphere of calm in this profession during a very short period. He was able to do this because he took the bull by the horns. We owe the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude for this, because it is important that we should have peace and quiet in education in our country.

It is pleasant to be able to participate in a peaceful and constructive debate such as this one. I want to raise a matter today about which there can be consensus in this Committee. I want to ask for greater recognition for the sports writers of South Africa, especially for the groups of people that can be regarded as veterans in this field. I believe that hon. members will share my enthusiasm in this regard because we are all interested in sport and because we enjoy and appreciate good objective sport reporting. The South African sport merit award was introduced in order to give credit for outstanding achievements by South African sportsmen and sportswomen, coaches, sport administrators and sport officials. The rules governing this award have just been changed in order to include, among those who qualifies, South African citizens who, by their public conduct and their international prestige, have promoted or publicized sport in the Republic without being directly involved in sport themselves. Persons in this category will be nominated for the award by the Department of National Education from time to time on the grounds of outstanding services to sport.

My request to the hon. the Minister is that sport writers should also qualify for this award. There are sports writers in South Africa who have devoted a lifetime to sport and who have made a major contribution towards promoting a particular sport or sport in general. By their sport reporting and articles and by their contact with people abroad, some of these sports writers have enhanced South Africa’s prestige in the world of sport, even at the international level. We all know how extremely valuable sport is in strengthening the ties between nations, in opening doors for one’s country and in promoting good relations between nations. It is true that sport has become a worldwide bond between nations. Sport is one of the most prominent phenomena of our time, and the increasing recognition and popularity of sport are largely responsible for the fact that it is indeed developing into a world force.

Sport is practised in almost every civilized country in the world today, the participants numbering more than 500 million. Indeed, sport has become so important in some countries that an unpopular decision by a Government concerning sport could cause the downfall of that Government. I am just mentioning this to indicate to hon. members how important the role of sports writers is. Sports writers can do much to promote good relations between countries, and that is exactly what they did when our enemies were working night and day to isolate us in the field of sport. The fact that we were able to escape sport isolation is also due to our sports writers, who paved the way for us internationally and who literally showed that the pen is more powerful than the sword.

It is true that sportsmen and sportswomen are built up into international heroes by sports writers. In this way, many of South Africa’s sportsmen and women have become internationally known and loved. In addition, and this is important, they have brought South Africa to the attention, not only of the world of sport, but of the world as a whole. Therefore the role of sports writers must not be underestimated. They certainly deserve recognition. When one sees the way in which the merit awards for sport are sometimes given to little-known participants, coaches and officials, one wonders whether there are not a few sports writers as well who merit consideration for such an award. I am thinking of sports writers such as Arrie Joubert, Louis Duffet, Herman le Roux, Rex Sweet, A. C. Parker, Chris Greyvenstein and Jimmy Hattie. These are men who have done pioneering work in the world of sport reporting over the years. I am thinking, too, of radio commentators, such as Charles Fortune and Gerhard Viviers, who have also made their mark. Who does not know them and who does not enjoy their comment? There are others as well. Some of them have devoted an entire lifetime to sport reporting. We all know what excellent work has been done by men such as Arrie Joubert, Charles Fortune, Herman le Roux, Gerhard Vivier, A. C. Parker and others in promoting sport. These men have become internationally known, just like our sportsmen, and have made sporting friends all over the world, people who, through this sport friendship, have become good friends of South Africa as well. Therefore I think it is no more than right that they should also qualify for the State President’s sport merit awards. Not only do they deserve it; it could also be a great incentive to them to do even more than they have done up to now. What they do they actually do for South Africa. If these merit awards could also be given to our sports writers, it could only be of benefit to South Africa. Therefore I want to urge the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter to see whether it would not be possible to do justice to our sports writers in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein North that sports writers in South Africa are doing much to encourage people to take an interest in and to practise sport in South Africa. I gladly support the hon. member in his plea, i.e. that consideration should be given to including sports writers among those who qualify for sport merit awards.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier made a plea for a single control body for tertiary education in South Africa. While I did not hear a single protest against this from the Government benches, we in the CP do not agree with the hon. member’s plea at all. We believe that there is a diversity of peoples in South Africa and that education is the heritage of every person that lives here and that the educational heritage should also remain under the control of the ethnic group concerned.

That has been and still is NP policy.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in this connection. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated—the hon. member Prof. Olivier also referred to this—that the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are now regarded as being part of the South African nation and that in a future Government dispensation there will be only one country, one Government and one legislative authority for the Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

Was there more than one country in the past, then?

Is the hon. the Minister considering a single controlling body for White, Coloured and Asian education?

Have you read the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister last night?

Yes, I have read it.

What did the hon. the Prime Minister say in that speech?

The hon. the Prime Minister was speaking about education at school level. However, we are now talking about education at the tertiary level, and that is what my question to the hon. the Minister is concerned with. We want to know whether there will be one Department of Education in such a dispensation.

The same principles apply there, and you know it.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a reply to that. However, I do not wish to dwell on it any further at this stage.

I should very much like to pay tribute, during the discussion of this Vote, to the teacher in the rural areas, who, in addition to performing his task as an educator, is also very closely involved with the activities of the community of which he forms part. Where I come from, in the Kalahari, there are a few small schools, such as those at Vanzylsrus and Severn, where two or three teachers are engaged in a very important educational task; where they gather together, up to std. 5, our children who live far from the schools in the towns; and where they keep the children as close to their homes as possible and instruct them there.

I want to pay tribute to these people who, as I have said, are very closely involved with the community of which they form part. They are people who suffer with the farmers in times of drought, people who rejoice with the family on a great day in their lives, and who weep with them in adversity. They are the people who know exactly what goes on in every family, who know the child and his parents. We should like to pay tribute to this teacher, the man who makes his contribution on the sports grounds every afternoon as coach, selector and administrator of school sport, the man who makes his contribution in the cultural sphere at night, but who also makes his contribution in church on Sundays. Each one of us who comes from a small town could probably mention many examples of these people whom we have in our communities. I want to refer specifically on this occasion to these people who live in remote areas, without may facilities, and who nevertheless perform this important educational task.

At the same time, I want to say that these people also deserve the very best facilities where they are performing this important task. We all know that this is the task of the provincial administrations, because they are responsible for White education in the provinces, but a lack of funds is hampering the provision of the necessary facilities, not only in the rural areas, but, I believe, in the cities as well. However, my impression is that the rural areas in particular are suffering as a result of this situation, and I should like to quote specific examples.

I request the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Finance so that he may make more money available to give the rural schools in particular the best and the right facilities they need.

By way of illustration, I want to refer to a town such as Kuruman, which had approximately 2 000 White inhabitants in 1970, but approximately 6 000 in 1982. Thirteen years ago, I helped, as the local MPC, to transfer a site from the Municipality to the Province as a site on which the new Kuruman Primary School could be built. The Kuruman Primary School is situated in the business district of that town, immediately adjoining busy streets used by heavy vehicles, and near a bus terminus where an average number of 10 000 Black people from Bophuthatswana get off every day to come and work in the town or to do business there. This school is bursting at the seams. The children have almost no playground left because of the prefabricated classrooms that have been put up in every available space.

But that is a provincial matter.

The teachers there have to work under very unfavourable circumstances.

The Kalahari High School, which is one of the high schools in the Cape with a rich tradition, is making use of an enormous number of prefabricated classrooms. Of course, we are grateful for the fact that these prefabricated classrooms have been erected there to enable the school to keep functioning. One solution that has been proposed is the amalgamation of the Seodien Primary School and the Kalahari High School in order to provide enough accommodation for the high school. It has also been proposed that a new primary school should then be built for Seodien. These people would like to provide sport facilities, but the delay in the building of the school …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to talk at some length about school buildings, etc., but he will realize that they do not fall under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking for more funds, however, and I am indicating that this delay is the result of a lack of funds for the creation of these facilities.

The Kuruman community has been waiting for 13 years for the building of schools and the creation of facilities, and the people are getting impatient. The planning has already been finalized, but because of a lack of funds, the building of the school is continually being put off. Therefore I want to ask today whether the Minister of Finance could not make more funds available for educational facilities in the rural areas, especially in those areas where we would like people to settle.

Another matter which is very close to my heart and which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the decentralizing of higher educational institutions to rural areas. When new universities, colleges and technikons are being considered, I would like us not only to concentrate on the cities, but also to take rural towns into consideration in that connection. The educational planners took important decisions when they established teachers’ training colleges and universities at Wellington, Paarl, Stellenbosch, Oudtshoorn and Graaff-Reinet. At that stage all these places were small rural towns, some of them situated in remote areas, but because of the farsightedness of the people who took those decisions, they have colleges or universities today which have completely changed the nature of the towns concerned. Students often have to travel long distances to get to a college or university if they do not have one in their own area, and therefore I want to ask whether consideration could not be given to establishing these institutions in the rural areas as well so that students from those areas could then attend those institutions and would not have to go to the cities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman will forgive me if I do not reply to him. Most of the statements he made at the beginning of his speech were NP policy in any case. Definitely!

Used to be!

It was reported that at the recent Afrikaner Teachers’ Congress at Bloemfontein, a vehement attack was made on parallel medium schools, that is to say, the schools where Afrikaan- and English-speaking pupils are accommodated together in one school, but are taught separately in their own mother tongues. At that congress, I believe, the value of parallel medium schools was called into question. Before discussing a few of the statements made there, I want to say a few words about parallel medium schools, and here I want to convey my thanks to the department, and especially to Dirk Meiring, for the statistics and the information they gave me.

Paragraph 5 of Government Notice R.809 of 16 May 1969 provides as follows—

Furthermore, paragraph 1.1 of the same Government Gazette provides as follows—

Section 2(c) of the National Education Policy Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, reads as follows—

In practice, this means that all schools are essentially parallel medium schools, except in cases where the education department concerned declares a particular school to be exclusively an Afrikaans medium school or exclusively an English medium school, in accordance with declared policy and as the need may arise.

The present position in our country is as follows: Under the control of the Natal Department of Education there are 96 declared parallel medium schools, 39 declared Afrikaans medium schools and 133 declared English medium schools. In the Free State, there are 173 parallel medium schools, 30 Afrikaans medium schools and 13 English medium schools. In the Cape Province, there are 691 declared parallel medium schools, 67 declared Afrikaans medium and 82 declared English medium schools. Under the control of the Department of National Education there are 46 parallel medium schools and 3 declared English medium schools. In the Transvaal there are 146 parallel medium, 561 Afrikaans medium and 258 declared English medium schools.

The overall situation, therefore, is as follows: There are, in all, 1 152 declared parallel medium schools, 697 declared Afrikaans medium schools and 489 declared English medium schools in the country.

Now there is one mistake we must not make, however. The fact that a school has been declared a parallel medium school does not necessarily mean that both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking pupils are present in those schools at all times and in all cases. It depends on whether there is a need for this, and if a school is a declared parallel medium school, the pupils attending that school must continue to be taught in their mother tongue. The position is, therefore, that approximately half of all our schools are parallel medium schools, which means that theoretically, instruction can be given at those schools in Afrikaans as well as English.

Now I should like to come to certain statements that were made, according to newspaper reports.

It seems that these statements are not applicable to all declared parallel medium schools, but only to those which are attended by both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking pupils.

The first statement that was made there was that children from parallel medium schools speak a mixed language. I think that everyone will agree with me—everyone who knows anything about linguistics—that a language can only be learnt by hearing it, reading it and speaking it. We have two official languages in our country, after all—English and Afrikaans. Furthermore, the Government strongly encourages bilinguilism.

Children who hear the other official language spoken during school intervals and at sports meetings and who try to become fluent in that language can only benefit by this, as far as I am concerned. In any event, most of the child’s time at school is devoted to formal instruction, when he naturally hears and speaks only his own language.

The second statement that was made at the congress—in any case, I still support that congress wholeheartedly—was that parallel medium schools were not conducive to the preservation of culture. From this I infer that reference was being made to the child’s cultural heritage, his “kultuureiendomlike”—to use a word which is often used by our colleagues in the CP—specifically as regards his history, his church, his language and the population group to which he belongs. I certainly did not know that language instruction, the Voortrekkers, literature or singing lessons, etc., at parallel medium schools were based on a different syllabus from that used at purely English or Afrikaans-language schools. What is more, there is after all no obligation on all pupils at such parallel medium schools to join English-language or Afrikaans-language cultural organizations.

Instead of worrying about whether or not parallel medium schools serve to strengthen a child’s cultural heritage, I would much rather concern myself with the question of why so few children are supporting the Voortrekker movement at our Afrikaans medium schools. I am speaking now as a parent who has his own little “Voortrekkertjie” at a declared Afrikaans medium school.

The third statement that was made was that proper religious instruction was not possible. Of course, this statement is beyond me. In any event, religious instruction at school is supplementary to the task of the parent, the Sunday school and the church. However, we must not underestimate its importance—the school has a very important task in this respect. Once again, however, this instruction is given in his own mother tongue for the greater part of the child’s career, and according to specifications that are laid down. Therefore I simply cannot accept the allegation that religion as a subject cannot be taught effectively.

A further statement that was made was that a spirit of neutrality was created and that pupils were hesitant to adopt a standpoint of their own—in other words, everyone had to remain colourless and neutral. One of the biggest problems in our country today is precisely that we as Whites cannot afford to be divided. Therefore I want to say without any hesitation today: At such schools a spirit of solidarity is created among children, just as at other schools, except for a small bonus that is added, in my opinion, in the sense that our two language groups come into closer contact with each other and gain a better understanding of each others’ problems and cultures. Make no mistake, there are indeed differences between the groups at such a school. Healthy competition develops spontaneously within those schools, but when it comes to acting in concert, there is a tremendous team spirit at such schools.

A further statement was that parallel medium schools did not get through to or satisfy anyone. I do not want to say much about this statement, except that if it was in fact made, it was ill-conceived and indeed regrettable. It implies that a very large percentage of our people did not experience any satisfaction during their school careers. What is more, if they attended such a parallel medium school, the school and the teachers did not really get through to them. I wonder what former pupils of schools such as Grey College in Bloemfontein or my own school, Pearson High School in Port Elizabeth, would have to say about such a statement.

The question may be asked why, in that case, we do not convert all schools into parallel medium schools. If I am right, why are we moving in the direction of single medium schools? However, there are practical considerations which we must take into account, especially where there are sufficient numbers of children for separate schools.

I should like to refer to some positive qualities of single medium schools, and I am mentioning only a few. Announcements have to be made only once or only in one language. Circulars, administrative matters, examination papers, etc., need not be translated and duplicated. Instead of having one small English class at two different English medium schools, and one small Afrikaans class at two different Afrikaans schools, with 15 children in each class, for example, we could then have only two separate classes, one Afrikaans class of 30 pupils at the Afrikaans school and one class of 30 children at the English medium school. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Stilfontein that although I cannot follow up directly on his arguments here today, I can indeed say that we fully support the principles he propounded. He can therefore rely on our support for the furtherance of those principles involved in parallel medium schools.

The issue I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister today is that of television and education. I am fully aware, of course, of the fact that this hon. Minister is no longer responsible for television as such. It used to be his responsibility, but it is now the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I do want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that unless he takes the initiative in utilizing the medium of television for education, nothing is going to happen in this country. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with the fact that television is the most powerful medium for education of all the media available to any population. It is therefore an absolute tragedy that in the whole of the national education budget vote—I refer the hon. the Minister to the White Book—there is only R100 under programme 8 to be made available for the manufacturing of films of an educational nature. Obviously it is the hon. the Minister’s intention to develop that particular programme, or that section of it, but we would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what it is that he has in mind.

As a background to all this, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the most recent annual report of the SABC, that of 1981, giving percentages in regard to programme content, but that virtually none of the programmes issued by SABC TV1, TV2 or TV3 really have any educational importance. Certainly, the particular programmes that have coincided with educational needs were not specifically intended to be educational programmes.

Our problem in South Africa is twofold. Firstly, we are not utilizing the educational function of television to the maximum extent. In South Africa in particular we have a tremendous shortage of mathematics and science teachers, science consisting of physics and chemistry. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with that as well. If we look at the cost-effectiveness of training a science teacher, when he is available, and we divide the cost of the training by the number of pupils who receive tuition from that teacher face to face, we find that the cost is extremely high. If we then compare that cost with the cost of manufacturing a television programme, for instance on mathematics for the Junior Certificate or for the Matriculation Certificate, and we divide the cost of the programme by the number of pupils who will benefit from that programme—here we go right across the colour spectrum, including Coloured, Indian, Black and White pupils in South Africa—we find that the cost per pupil of producing one programme on, for example, the square on the hypotenuse is minimal compared with the direct cost of interface tuition.

That is far too complicated.

Well for some hon. members in the House it is complicated, but I think that with a little bit of education other hon. members will cope a little better.

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a newsletter of the HSRC with the heading “TV and the school-going youth”. That is a publication drawn up by Dr. Van Vuuren and Mr. J. J. de Beer of the Institute for Communications Research of the HSRC. They indicate there that in a survey it was found that Std. 8 pupils spend approximately 17 hours per week watching television programmes and that pupils in matric spend 15 hours per week watching television programmes as compared with 30 hours’ attendance at school. In other words, matriculants spend 50% as much time watching television and Std. 8 pupils spend an even higher percentage of that time watching television. This shows the attraction children have for the medium of television.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that now is the time for us to think seriously about making finance available for the production of programmes for the tuition of chemistry, mathematics and physics to be broadcast on television. Such a programme, manufactured under ideal conditions with all the implements and instruments one requires, will be most effective. One can demonstrate things in a television studio. One can take the camera to a chemical company where there will be no shortage of equipment to photograph and utilize for the production of, for instance, a programme on chemistry. One could go to a company like AECI for one. They would probably voluntarily have one produce a programme on chemistry in their laboratories. In that case one would not even have to buy sophisticated equipment for this type of production. Once one has produced such a programme lasting 20 minutes or half an hour on a specific subject which is relevant to the syllabus at the schools, that programme can then easily and at very low cost be dubbed into other languages. Think of the advantage of that. The programme can be made available not only in English and Afrikaans, but also in Tswana, Sotho and German. I want to say that this will be a magnificent, cost-effective programme for educating children in scientific and mathematical formulae.

One also, of course, has to look at the cultural aspects of education. Here I believe that the production of plays, particularly on the Afrikaans programmes, has been of outstanding quality. Recently we saw a very topical programme on Jopie Fourie. Jopie Fourie’s relevance has probably escaped most history teachers in South Africa. I did history for eight years at school, but never did I come across the importance and significance of the events surrounding Jopie Fourie. The Battle of Majuba, too, was for me merely a statistic. It was not alive, it was not dynamic, when I read about it in history books and it probably occupied no more than one paragraph in our history books. Yet, we celebrated the centenary of the battle of Majuba, celebrations in which I was fortunate to participate, it suddenly became alive and meaningful to me. History was then of tremendous interest to me. We can do our society and our culture a tremendous service and enrich the lives of people with live productions which can simultaneously satisfy the need for entertainment, drama production and education.

Did you perform the role of Pomeroy Colley?

Sir, we have tremendous flexibility in this party. I believe there are a number of roles we can fulfil of which that party would be envious.

I again want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to fall back on the pat and slick answer that television is not his responsibility and that the money is not available. Under the present circumstances and because of the needs of society, the money must be found, because the best investment we can make in South Africa is in the education of our youth. The whole of society will benefit from that. The excuse that there is no money, or not sufficient money, is therefore a poor excuse indeed. For the hon. the Minister perhaps to say in reply to this that he is not in charge of television, begs the question. He is in charge of education and he must become a customer of the television company, if I may call the SABC that, in order to maximize the potential for education in South Africa for all race groups through the media of television.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North touched on aspects which other speakers on this side of the House will also deal with. I shall not, therefore, elaborate on them further. I just want to say that the standpoint he adopted at the end of his speech, namely, that an investment in the education of the children of our nation is the best investment one can make, is of course absolutely true. However, it is only someone who does not bear the responsibility of the governing of the country who could say that the need for education is overwhelming and that we cannot argue that the money is not available. I leave the matter at that.

I should like to refer very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman. I want to tell him that what he said to the teachers in a flush of pride and gratitude, is something that the NP has been saying since 1948. I know the hon. member for Kuruman well. In the years that I have been here, he has always concentrated on sport in the debate on this Vote, although he is entitled to discuss what he wants to. However, I find it interesting that another speaker on that side of the House also made a speech that was effusively in favour of and in support of our teachers. I want it placed on record that I find it strange that this support and gratitude is now being expressed by hon. members who did not do so previously and moved on another level. Since 1948 the NP has been expressing its thanks for the work done by teachers, and shall continue to do so in the future. I leave the matter at that.

I should like to react to the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s statement with regard to a single central educational control or education department. The argument in favour of a single education department actually implies that one must strive to ensure education affording equal opportunities and an equal standard of all the various population groups. The hon. member said that the image reflected by the NP’s standpoint was one of discrimination, but I want to tell him that the standpoint he adopted gives the impression that he and his party only want to introduce politics into education. [Interjections.] Do not try to shout me down now. Just as that hon. member said that the NP reflected a specific image, I am saying that this is the image reflected by that party.

The concept of “equal education” is far more complex than the words would suggest. In the case of a single education department one would have to take into consideration that one is dealing with different population groups, each with its own needs. The standpoint of this side of the House is that a level of education of an equal standard can wherever possible be achieved in practice in the field of education on the basis of separate departments concentrating on the specific needs of the separate groups. It is not only this side of the House that say so. This is a standpoint that is universally maintained and adhered to; it is not, therefore, confined to politicians of the NP.

Which standpoint?

The standpoint that it is precisely by concentrating on the cultural needs of each separate group that one can achieve the best.

Tell us about the Coloureds.

I want to refer hon. members to a report which appeared in Die Burger of 8 February 1982 in consequence of a paper read at the same congress in Grahamstown to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred. The report reads—

Surely this is true, and I can also quote from other educationalists who have adopted the same standpoint. I also want to point out that this side of the House does of course fully understand that because the products of the various education systems, namely Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks, must become part of a single joint labour force, it is indeed necessary that we develop an administratively co-ordinated system whereby we can discuss with one another matters such as standards, certificates, teacher training and conditions of service. This is not a deviation from the policy of this side of the House. It is merely a consistent development of our policy, as we see it at all levels, and it is indeed meaningful. However, it is corrupt to say we must have only one education department because one wants to bring political institutions into the picture. This simply cannot happen. The image projected by that side of the House is that they want to bring politics into education when they advocate a single education department.

I just want to say a few brief words about sport. We are all agreed on the importance of sport. There is no doubt about it. Unfortunately we in South Africa have many enemies in the field of sport. Many of these enemies are politically inspired. I shall come back to this briefly later. When the hon. member for Sandton made certain remarks about a year ago, I had no option but to classify him in that group of people who want to derive political benefit from sport.

He was proved absolutely right.

We on this side of the House believe that sport is not only important in our schools, because it is a very important factor with regard to the development of the personality and so forth, but that it is also a very important part of society, specifically as regards the improvement of race relations, and that is why the necessary liaison must take place. And it is indeed taking place. If one looks at the policy formulations of 1976 and 1979 of this side of the House, when the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs referred to this and also introduced the principle of autonomy, one will see that that standpoint of liaison, if necessary, at specific levels—I do not have sufficient time to discuss this policy in detail—proves that we also recognize the importance of liaison between peoples at the national level. However, we have bodies like Sacos which force politics on sport. It is frequently said that we must not mix politics and sport. Today I want to say that sport must not be brought into politics either, and Sacos is in fact bringing sport into politics. They are only interested in isolating South African sport, and through the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and the special committee on apartheid of the UN they have the ear of the outside world, that chorus of voices in opposition to the political policy of this side of the House. This organization, which is supposed to be encouraging sport, is acting to the disadvantage of its own people, because it refuses to participate in the HSRC investigation into sport. They were invited to participate in this extremely important scientific investigation by the HSRC, but they refused. This sort of behaviour reminds me of a certain political party, which also refuses to participate when things have to be done in the country. [Interjections.] Sacos also refuses to speak to fact-finding missions into well-known sports or to hold discussions with them. They are only out to victimize and prevent their own sportsmen and school children from taking part in sport. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if the time has not come for everything possible to be done to support our non-White sportsmen who are trapped by a few politically-inspired leaders of Sacos. Is it not high time that we helped those non-White sportsmen to participate in healthy sport? I think it is time we considered this. [Time expired.]

You will have to spend a lot of money.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the reply given by the hon. member for Virginia to the arguments advanced from the other side of the House, especially by the hon. member for Pine-lands, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The hon. members advanced arguments in respect of the hardy annual which is always raised by the PFP in debates about education. One sometimes gets the impression that hon. members opposite are much more interested in using education as an instrument for achieving certain political and social objectives which are written into their political programme of action than in devoting their attention to education as such and in really creating fair educational opportunities for all where these do not yet exist.

When one looks at the demographic reality of the educational situation in our country, one realizes how absurd, how naive really, this insistence is on open education, on mixed schools and on a totally integrated department of education. What is being advocated, I believe, is that what the Whites have at the moment should be opened to all the others. However, when one considers the present educational situation in its entirety, and especially the future situation, it is clear that in actual fact, the Whites constitute almost an island in the great diversity of population groups in this part of the world. When one evaluates matters in this broad context, one sees why the Whites are the more determined, in the face of the great numerical superiority of the other population groups in the country, to promote their own identity and the solidarity of their own group in their own schools, and one also sees how little effect it would have on the education of other population groups if White facilities were to be opened. It would be no more than a drop on a hot plate and it would not make any material contribution towards finding a solution. The solution to our educational problems lies in the increasing provision of educational facilities of equal standard among those population groups in which there are large numbers who do not yet share in these facilities and whose numbers, educationally speaking, will continue to grow in the future.

In this connection I want to quote a few figures to hon. members which are of very great significance to us and which also constitute one of the fundamental reasons why the Government found it necessary to instruct the HSRC to investigate and make recommendations on the provision of education in the coming decade. I recently received some statistics from my department concerning the present numbers of pupils as against the projected numbers of pupils in the year 2000. As far as the Whites are concerned, the number of pupils in our schools is expected to decline from approximately 960 000 to 750 000. These figures make one realize the drastic reorientation that will be required in the educational system, firstly because the demand for teachers among Whites is going to decline, and, on the other hand, because this situation is going to have a major effect on the labour market. This drop in the number of Whites in the school system means that in the year 2000, there will not be enough Whites to go on doing even the work which is presently being done by Whites. This is a drastic fact which has to be taken into account in our manpower policy as well as in our educational planning. In the Coloured population group, on the other hand, the situation will be reversed, and the number of pupils will increase by almost the same figures, from 750 000 to 960 000. At that stage, in the year 2000, their growth rate will begin to level off considerably, as has happened in the case of the Whites. In the case of the Indian pupils, as in the case of the Whites, a saturation point will be reached, and there will be a decline from 220 000 to 210 000. However, as far as the Blacks are concerned—and this is where the great challenge of the future lies—if we include the independent States in order to examine the total pool of pupils and potential labour in Southern Africa, there will be an increase from 4,8 million to 12,3 million. At the secondary school level during this period of 20 years there will be a fourfold increase from 1,1 million to 4,6 million. I believe that on the one hand, this emphasizes in many respects the difficult demands made on us by the reality of the educational situation, but it should also cause us to realize how futile it is to believe that we are really going to make a material contribution to the improvement of educational opportunities for all population groups by clamouring for the opening of educational facilities. Even if educational facilities were to be thrown open, this would only benefit a small group which happened to share those open facilities, without having any significant effect on the great masses of people who are entitled to education.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South both argued the need for a single education department whether in general for all population groups or at least as between the Coloureds and the Whites. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister that the Coloureds and the Whites in a relative sense form one nation. However, it is quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister was not referring to nation in a cultural sense. He was referring to these population groups as forming part of the same body politic—“nation” in the sense therefore of a collectivity of citizens sharing in the constitutional system and especially in the sense that they have a joint responsibility in the constitutional system—or should be given joint responsibility in the constitutional system—in order to deal with matters of common interest; in this sense, therefore, that they should share in determining their common destiny in these matters of joint interest. However, the hon. the Prime Minister quite unambiguously also qualified his statement by underlining the concept of self-determination in respect of those matters which do not form joint or common interests but which are identifiably the distinct interests of each of these specific population groups.

Like education.

Like education. Therefore, in exercising self-determination in respect of these matters each of these population groups should be able to determine its own destiny as a group in respect of these matters.

The policy of the NP is quite clear in respect of vital and fundamental concepts that have been spelt out all along, namely the need for separate residential areas and the need for separate schools and distinct education departments for these three population groups, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites. This remains so in spite of the fact that we are working towards a reformed political dispensation in which they will have political co-responsibility and therefore share responsibility in matters of common interest.

Do you think they will accept that?

I am quite sure that they will accept meaningful proposals moving along the road towards achieving this ideal. I want once again to reiterate—I think this is the fourth time I am doing so in this Committee or this House—the main reasons why the Government remains convinced of its good case for separate schools and separate education departments. These reasons are practical reasons and they are educational reasons.

In the first instance, as is implied by what I have just said, separate schools and especially education departments are an essential instrument, an essential basis for enabling these population groups to acquire and exercise effectively self-determination in respect of their education. It is inconceivable that there could be meaningful self-determination by each of these groups in respect of their education if that education is organizationally bound up in an undifferentiated single central education department.

Secondly, in spite of the fact that one has to admit the common cultural elements existing among these population groups, there are also clearly differentiated elements in the experience and in the culture of these groups with which education has to deal and of which it has to take notice and which it has to take as its point of departure in building up an education system. Education cannot deal with people out of the context of their cultural background.

Thirdly, one has to realize the fact, the hard and in some respects unpleasant fact, that the levels of development in respect of the educational services of these population groups are not equal at this stage. There are therefore not only in terms of the actual present situation of the education system but also in terms of the actual development of these communities, which is a fact of history …

And when they are?

When they are, one could look at the matter again. These policy principles which we lay down are not for all times and do not of necessity have to apply indefinitely into the future, but principles of policy are determined by the NP in accordance with reality, and so long as these realities remain, we must base our policy on an educationally sound interpretation of reality.

The CP is a reality.

The different levels of development in these different population groups pose different problems, in respect of education progress, of adjustment to the school system, of development through progress, and these differences require the focus of expert attention which can best be provided within the context of different education departments.

There are two concrete illustrations of this fact. First of all there was a time when provincial education departments were responsible for the education of Whites, Blacks and Coloureds and I believe Indians as well. There is no gainsaying that a careful analysis of the way in which these comprehensively responsible education departments dealt with the education of the different population groups indicates that it led to an underprovision for an under-emphasis of the education needs and the particular education requirements of the less developed groups. It was a system in which White education received the main thrust of attention. It was only after the introduction of differentiated departments that there came about a real, meaningful progress, a progress of which we can be proud, criticized, in the educational growth of these groups.

I should like to refer again to a statement which Dr. Van der Ross, the Principal of the University of the Western Cape, made when he addressed the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in Cape Town last year. Although he was not in favour of a system in terms of which universities were not allowed to control the admission of students according to their own wishes, he also emphasized that unless a university had been provided specifically for the needs of the Coloured community—in other words, unless we had a university system here providing specifically for the communities that were lagging behind in terms of university education—they would have made not noticeable progress because of the fact that their young students would then have continued to be tolerated visitors to or guests of universities which were primarily geared to the needs of different communities. I think he made a very convincing point, a point which was also made by the late Prof. Kgware, Rector of the University of the North, when he once addressed the University of the Witwatersrand, and experienced, to his bitter disappointment, a very unfriendly reception because the liberal attitude there was not very appreciative of different opinions in this regard.

There is, however, a fourth argument which, as I stated in the past, is against the concept of a single, all-embracing administration, namely that it simply would become too unwieldy, unmanageable and depersonalized. Take for example the Transvaal Education Department for Whites, the department responsible for Coloured education and the Department of Education and Training. These are in themselves already very large departments, and if one was to stir them all together into the same pot, into an operationally centralized single department, it would really become a monster, and in view of the problems that teachers already experience in terms of feeling depersonalized or of becoming a mere file or computer number in a process, this would be an entirely unacceptable situation.

Having again emphasized the basic reasons why this Government stands by separate schools for each population group and separate education departments, and will continue to stand by this concept, I should like also to emphasize again that the Government also accepts the need—and this has been clearly brought out in the De Lange report—for establishing an effective co-ordinating structure to act as an umbrella over the perhaps over-fragmented education system such as we have it at present. In the preliminary memorandum following the publication of the De Lange report the Government made it quite clear that it is in favour of co-operative and co-ordinating structures, but it also emphasized that such structures should take into account the basic assumption that education departments responsible for the operational, the executive delivery of the educational service in the classroom will be structured according to the different population groups.

Such an umbrella structure should not and could not be a mere consultative body, as the hon. member for Germiston District suggested without in any way infringing on the self-determination and the autonomy of the different population groups in respect of their own education in their own education departments. One would have to accept that, in setting up a co-ordinating structure, such a structure should give meaningful participation to representatives of all the population groups involved in the educational process in South Africa. Secondly, the advice of such a structure should lead to authoritative and binding decisions, at least in respect of minimum standards. It is inconceivable that the different departments could employ teachers for whom there is now parity in respect of salaries on the ground of equal qualifications, if in fact those qualifications are not equal and do not conform with norms that are laid down and are binding on all the departments in respect of the minimum qualifications for appointing teachers in order to qualify for salary parity. There would also have to be minimum norms in terms of syllabuses, courses of study, examinations and certification, so that whatever achievement is certificated bears a central hallmark, ensuring compliance with the overall minimum standards of performance.

Another important point raised in the De Lange report is that such a co-ordinating authority should also assist in monitoring the progress made in the different departments towards achieving goals to be defined in terms of programmes for bringing about parity of opportunities and of standards in all the education departments. A sort of monitoring mechanism would have to be built into such a co-ordinating system.

I also believe that one would have to study with great care and sympathy the point made in the De Lange report in regard to certain costly educational services, such as services relating to educational technology, scientific curriculum planning and specialist advice for education for the handicapped to which the hon. member for Parktown referred. Such services could be provided on a co-operative basis, with the assistance of such a co-ordinating body and for the benefit of all education departments. I should like to make it very clear once again that while the Government stands by its policy of differentiating education departments in the operational and executive fields, it is nevertheless not insensitive to the suggestions made by the De Lange report and other individuals in connection with acceptable and workable co-ordinating structures. These structures could obviously not be defined until we have greater clarity on likely changes in the constitutional field. Such structures however, will have to be introduced and I am sure everybody accepts that.

*In this connection I should also like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier about the question of a single control system in tertiary education, as well as to the reaction of the hon. member for Kuruman to these remarks. In my opinion, this is a valid aspect which is dealt with by the De Lange Committee, i.e. the fact that there are shortcomings in the co-ordination in tertiary education, especially at the university level, between the systems applicable to the universities of the various population groups. Without detracting in any way from the principle of differentiation of departments responsible for the various universities, my colleagues and I have already discussed the possibility, bearing in mind the advisory bodies that have been established to advise the authorities in control of White university education—such as the Universities Advisory Council and the Committee of University Principals—of creating opportunities for the universities of the other population groups to share in the advantage of being able to make use of the advice and co-operation of similar bodies. This must be done, of course, without disturbing the basic structure of education.

I believe that problems have arisen which are known to university experts and which have resulted from insufficient co-ordination in the planning of universities for the various population groups. I believe that these could be resolved if the same expert advisory body—the Universities Advisory Council—and the same collective consultative body—Committee of University Principals—were re-organized in such a way as to enable them to advise the Ministers concerned on behalf of all the universities. This would also mean, of course, that the Ministers concerned would have to consider that advice as a team, as it were, so as to ensure that the matter did not end there.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether this means that the representatives of all the universities would in fact be accepted as full members of these bodies?

That could indeed be considered. I do not think there is any objection to it in principle. After all, the universities are autonomous bodies, and in so far as they are autonomous bodies, they could deliberate together. At the moment this is happening in practice in any case. The only difference is that it has not received any statutory recognition. The Committee of University Principals meets every year with the principals of the universities that are not formally members of that committee. This is a practice which has been followed for the past five or six years already. So far it has not caused any problems, and I do not foresee that it will create any problems in principle. In that respect, but without the departmental structures being effected, the Government believes that the De Lange recommendations in connection with joint advisory bodies for the various universities should be viewed in a sympathetic light. However, I want to emphasize once again that I am certainly not suggesting that this would lead to a movement away from separate departments for the separate population groups, not even as far as universities are concerned. The same applies to technikons.

†In passing I should just like to refer briefly to the hon. member for Parktown, who, I believe, referred to the inconsistency which exists in that, for instance in optometry, diplomas are awarded at technikons to White students while degrees are awarded to students at certain Black universities. There are similar examples also in other fields of study. Mouth hygienists, for example, have the opportunity of obtaining diplomas at one university, while degrees are awarded at other universities. This is a type of thing one should also wish to eliminate, because it seems to create an impression of disparity, of difference in status and in standards between the various training institutions. The kind of co-operation I suggested could only contribute towards ensuring the credibility or legitimacy of the educational training at all universities.

I should also like to repeat what I said before about open universities. This side of the House remains convinced of the need to maintain the specific community character of the different universities which are primarily designed to serve a specific population group. This is our policy and we believe it should remain our policy. I think that in this we also have the support of many responsible educational leaders from the different population groups.

Not the De Lange Committee.

The De Lange Committee does not reject it. At the same time, however, we also accept that at university level, as distinct from school level, a greater flexibility for the admission of people from other population groups is acceptable. There are many reasons for this, and this has in fact been implemented in practice from as far back as 1959. This flexibility is, for instance, applicable in the case of courses which are difficult to set up at diverse universities and can therefore only be centralized at one or two and are consequently not available at the universities of each particular population group. There is also the generally recognized need for free movement across national and university barriers when it comes to postgraduate study. There is also, at university level, the basic need for the stimulus of what I would call the cross cultural experience, as I also said in my reply to the debate on my Vote last year. Therefore the Government is engaged in studying ways and means of meeting the basic recommendations of the Manpower Commission and the Government White Paper on the Manpower Commission, the Retief Committee and the De Lange Report which do not say that we should give up the community character of these universities, but rather that we should grant more autonomy to the universities themselves in deciding about the admission of individual students. We shall try to approach this requirement in such a way that it can still be met within the frame-work of the basic policy that the community orientated character of the universities should not be impaired or abandoned. So we are trying to establish whether it is possible to maintain the original goal of having universities focusing mainly on the needs of a specific community, whilst at the same time simplifying the method of admission to grant, as far as possible, within agreeable guidelines, the authority for selecting students for admission to the universities concerned. We hope that we shall be able to make progress, with the co-operation of these universities, though I am not over-optimistic that we will indeed get their full co-operation, because it is well-known that most of them are in favour of the total abandonment of any restriction on entrance, and that the Government will not accept.

I have had some very good contributions, in this debate, on university affairs.

*I listened with special appreciation to the contribution of the hon. member for Durban North about rationalization and regionalization. I also have very great appreciation for the hon. member for Pretoria East, who mentioned a very fundamental matter. I want to convey my very sincere thanks to him for doing so. The hon. member for Pretoria East rightly pleaded that the pressure of specific local as well as professional interest groups should not be allowed to obscure the general national interest when decisions are taken about university expansion, and I should say probably about the expansion of technikons as well. This was actually what the hon. member for Durban North also was implying when he said that we should move from regionalization to rationalization.

†If I understood the hon. member correctly, in mentioning regionalization he was referring to a university that tries to provide virtually everything that can be offered to a specific region. I think he meant that instead of that we should diversify universities and expect students to move to a university where the subject they would like to take is offered rather than to the university closest to them or on their doorstep.

*In referring to the hon. member for Pretoria East, I just want to draw attention to the fact that although various figures have been quoted, the amount allocated to universities during this financial year amounts to approximately R4 372 per student at a residential university and R834 per student at the University of South Africa. There can be no doubt about the fact that, as I have said before, the universities are prospering financially under the present Government. This indicates that the Government realizes that the products of universities are indispensable to South Africa in many spheres, and that it is simply the responsible thing to do to use the taxpayers’ funds to keep expanding our university training qualitatively and quantitively. When one takes cognizance of the present policy of the British Government, of certain other government on the continent of Europe and of several states in the USA, i.e. of rationalizing universities and reducing their activities by means of financial restrictions in the current recession, and also as a result of the sharp decline in population growth—it is alleged that more than 100 universities and bigger colleges will have to close down in America during this decade because of this process—then our universities are actually very well off, in the international context. The Government trusts that its policy of a beneficial financing dispensation together with a substantial degree of university autonomy will be utilized by the universities in the interests of all those who study there and eventually, therefore, of the country as a whole.

I want to emphasize that the Government is not responsible for the day-to-day administration of universities. The departments responsible for universities only draw up a general framework within which the universities operate, but they do not run the universities. However, the Government does have the function of overall planning with regard to universities so that there may be a framework within which the universities can do their own planning and can perform their own task. The shortcomings in the overall planning of the authorities with regard to universities were clearly identified by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission in 1974. Arising from the recommendations of that report, as the hon. member for Pretoria East indicated, the Universities Advisory Committee which existed at that time was converted in 1976 into the Universities Advisory Council, which is served by its own professional staff who are accommodated within the Directorate of University Development in the Department of National Education.

I should like to refer with very great appreciation to one of the most youthful Nestors in our public life. I am referring to Prof. H. B. Thom, who was Chairman of the Universities Advisory Council for a number of years and who retired at the end of last year. It is astonishing to see how youthful this man still is and what an interest he still takes in the future, in spite of his long, demanding and distinguished career. I should like to pay tribute to him for the contribution he made as Chairman of the Universities Advisory Council. He has now been succeeded by Dr. H. S. Steyn, who was the chief professional officer of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission and who also became the department’s first Director of University Affairs. He is a professional man in his own right and a statistician of international stature, by virtue of the research he has done. I sincerely hope that under his guidance, the Universities Advisory Council will attain new heights.

Since its inception in 1976, this council has been working, mostly with the very useful co-operation of the Committee of University Principals, to create the planning infrastructure for the universities which has been lacking. The most important part of this infrastructure was the provision of the comprehensive integrated information system to which the hon. member for Pretoria East also referred, an information system for uniform, co-ordinated reporting by the universities. This is known as the Sapse system—the South African Post-Secondary Education System—or the “Sanso” system in Afrikaans, the “Suid-Afrikaanse Na-Sekondêre Onder-wysstelsel”. On 30 April this year, all the universities represented on the Committee of University Principals will for the first time report in full in terms of this system on their activities during 1981. From analyses of the information which has already been submitted by the universities in respect of 1979 and 1980 in terms of this system, by way of a trial run, it is clear that this is an instrument which not only gives the authorities, the co-ordinating level, extremely valuable insights, but which is also very useful to the university administrations in their daily running of the universities.

Many man-years have been devoted to the preparation of this project by public servants, university members of staff and the Committee of University Principals, and I am grateful to all who gave their voluntary co-operation. I am sure that we now have a machine which is functioning very smoothly so as to quantify clearly the activities of the university and to formulate policy on that basis. I also want to refer with appreciation to two studies, based on the latest information, which have already been released by Prof. Bunting of Rhodes University. These studies provide very interesting information regarding the whole question raised by the hon. member for Durban North, i.e. the composition of the student bodies at the various universities in terms of the areas they come from and the population groups they belong to. It is interesting that 78% or more of the new students at the residential White universities belong to one specific language group. Mr. Chairman, this shows that the spontaneous and natural choice of the people of this country is to go to a university where they feel culturally at home.

Correct.

I find it very interesting that the percentage of non-English-speaking students at the English medium universities is much lower than the percentage of non-Afrikaans-speaking students at the Afrikaansmedium universities. In spite of everything that is said about the Afrikaans medium universities, therefore, they are much more open culturally than the English-medium universities. [Interjections.]

What is also interesting is that the residential universities, with the exception of Rhodes University, draw their students mainly from their particular areas. 60% to 77% of the students attending classes at these universities, with the exception of Rhodes, come from the immediate vicintiy. This proves that our universities actually have a strong regional character, and one must bear this in mind. However, I also sympathize with the hon. member for Durban North as regards his standpoint that this should not force us to provide uneconomic duplication of scarce and specialized courses at all the universities merely in order to have those courses in every region. I can assure the hon. member that this sensible view is also held by the Universities Advisory Council.

Mr. Chairman, I have already said—I do not want to repeat it—that it will be much easier for us, on the basis of this new Sapse information system, to complete the revision of the subsidy formula for universities. The formula will not be divorced from numbers, but as I have already said, it will be less dependent on numbers.

A second important task in the overall planning of the State, which has also been referred to, was completed two years ago. It was approved by the Treasury and implemented by the Universities Advisory Council. It is a Sapse system of area norms and cost norms for university buildings and physical facilities. Here, too, the Van Wyk De Vries Commission pointed out that the State acted quite haphazardly in approving capital allocations for new buildings and new physical facilities for universities. On the other hand, the State must refrain from saying to the universities: “This is the way you must build.” Therefore the better alternative was chosen in terms of which basic area norms—so many square metres per student for specific purposes—and a particular cost norm—so many rands per square metre for the various purposes—were approved. Then it is left to the discretion of the universities to design their buildings with variation and originality and according to their own tastes, as long as they adhere to those norms. This also obviates the need for detailed control on the part of the State, and it encourages the university and its consultants to economize and to adhere to the norms, because they are entitled to funds in terms of the norms, so if they economize, it is to their advantage.

In the programme of overall university planning there are two further important investigations, which have also been mentioned in the debate, which I want to discuss here. The first is the manpower study by means of which an attempt is being made to ascertain the numbers of high-level workers, i.e. workers trained at the tertiary level, that will have to be produced by the post-secondary education system over the next 30 years in 105 different professional fields in order to meet the needs of South Africa in this sphere. Although this investigation is being conducted on a comprehensive, global basis, I nevertheless believe that its results will also help every individual institution, i.e. every university and technikon, to ascertain what physical facilities have to be provided at post-secondary educational institutions in order to meet this need. I believe that this manpower study is of very great importance to the further planning of higher education, from the viewpoint of the authorities as well as of the institutions.

There is another investigation which I entrusted fairly recently to the Universities Advisory Council, and especially to the University Development Branch of the department. This was occasioned by the Minister’s responsibility of exercizing control over the expansion of the academic activities of the universities, i.e. the granting of approval for new degrees, new diplomas, new departments and new faculties, as well as the approval of structures for co-operation among the universities themselves and also between universities and other institutions. It has become increasingly clear to me that there is a great diversity of standards at the various universities concerning, for example, when they introduce an undergraduate diploma, or when they distinguish between a post-graduate diploma and an honours degree. The impression may be created that a particular training course is inferior to that of another university merely because of its designation, because of the label it is given. Quite a number of these thorny problems have landed on my desk, and therefore I have asked the department to investigate and report on the structure and the functioning of the whole post-secondary educational system. I hope that this report will enable us, on a co-ordinated basis and in co-operation with the universities, to arrive at a clearer formulation of the organizational structures and units of universities, as well as their academic functioning.

With regard to universities, and arising from the question of overall planning which has been raised here, I also want to refer to developments during the past year on the basis of which I have also approved a set of guidelines for institutionalized co-operation between technikons and universities. In particular, this revolved around the question of graduate pharmaceutical training. Hon. members will know that pharmaceutical training was initially offered in the form of a diploma course at certain technikons and in the form of a graduate course at two universities. The Pharmacy Board has decided that in the future, all pharmacists will have to be trained at universities. A predecessor of mine decided that this should not lead to the abolition of the existing courses at the technikons, and therefore methods were developed of introducing joint training by the technikons which already offered these courses and properly equipped universities situated in their vicinity. In such agreements, the guidelines have already been approved between the University of the Witwatersrand and the Witwatersrand Technikon, between the University of Pretoria and the Pretoria Technikon and between the University of Cape Town and the Cape Technikon, while a possible agreement in respect of Afrikaans-speaking students between the Cape Technikon and the University of Stellenbosch is still being studied. In this connection I want to make it clear and I want to emphasize strongly that this is in the first place graduate training in which the universities are being assisted by the technikons. These will be degrees conferred by universities. This is not a development by means of which the technikons are being given the right to confer degrees, but a method of utilizing productively the facilities, the resources and the expertise of both institutions, and eventually setting the university’s seal of approval on such training. In particular, of course, universities with medical faculties—and the hon. member for Parktown will surely confirm this—can make fruitful contributions to the training of pharmacists in this way.

Then I also want to point out that we have just approved guidelines for a form of co-operation—and this is an innovation—between universities and nursing colleges, so that the colleges may offer their nursing diploma courses under the academic tutelage of the universities. This is comparable with the present system where the training at teachers’ colleges is undertaken in co-operation with universities and the diploma is conferred by the college. However, it is indicated that the training took place in co-operation with a particular university or that the university was co-responsible for it. I believe that these steps are justified and that they will also help to raise and to standardize the quality of training in the nursing profession.

I also want to make a few remarks about the role of universities in the light of political activities on the part of staff and students. In all countries, the sensitive question of academic freedom, which is important to universities and academics, is debated from time to time. Although different views are held concerning the substance, meaning and implications of academic freedom, surely it is in essence the freedom of academics and students to pursue the truth honestly and objectively and to make it known without impediment, but with responsibility. Although the freedom of the academic is usually emphasized, it must be clearly stated that the other side of the coin, namely the academic’s concomitant responsibility to science, his responsibility to the institution with which he is associated, his responsibility to his students who are entrusted to his care as an educator, as well as his responsibility to society, cannot be emphasized strongly enough. When mention is made of academic freedom as an individual freedom, therefore, it must be accepted that this also implied academic responsibility. I want to say quite honestly that I am concerned that there are lectures and students at our universities who, under the cloak of academic freedom, are engaging in militant and even radical politics. I want to make it clear that the staff and students of universities enjoy and are entitled to the same political rights and duties as any other citizen. In fact, as leading citizens, university staff and students are entitled, and even obliged, to take a healthy interest in politics. However, when certain individuals make use of the freedom of the lecture hall to convey to the students, who have been delivered into their care, as it were, militant standpoints which are potentially harmful to the country—in a one-sided, prejudiced and unscientific way—and when they do this under the cloak of academic freedom, while a scientific approach is called for, I consider this to be an unacceptable abuse of academic freedom. There is also cause for concern about the fact that certain students, and apparently even lecturers, abuse the facilities, and even funds, made available to the universities for the performance of their academic functions, in order to further causes which have nothing to do with the academic function. Such activities are aimed at furthering militant and radical political goals which in some cases are obviously aimed at overthrowing the socio-political order in the country, or sometimes they are even directly involved in active agitation and organization intended to disturb labour relations and industrial peace. This use of university facilities and opportunities for non-academic purposes not connected with the university is unacceptable to the Government and to the country. Therefore I want to appeal to university principals to note that in their studies and academic activities, lecturers and students may also be active in spheres connected with the politics of the day, but that this should always be done with the objectivity, reserve, scientific approach and restraint which are characteristic of a genuine and concerned academic when he is dealing with a matter of topical public importance.

I am convinced that the red light is flashing for science and for academic freedom when universities, or specific centres at universities, are changed into centres of political pressure and of irresponsible agitation. It is the duty of universities, through their academic freedom and their autonomy as institutions, to make an invaluable contribution to our democratic way of life and to our Western values. However, if this academic freedom is not exercised with great responsibility, or if it is abused for non-academic purposes, especially for obvious purposes of agitation, then the danger signs are there for the universities and for the State as well.

I want to say that I find it ironic that at some universities, people who have a great deal to say about academic freedom deprive their fellow citizens, who are also members of that university, of certain basic civil rights and freedoms. There have been incidents at a particular university, for example, where a member of the student representative council was suspended, where his membership was cancelled, because he had engaged in so-called racist politics—i.e. the politics of the NP—on the campus and because he had stated that he had given advice to the Security Police. I believe that these are two rights which should be enjoyed by any citizen, whether on or off a university campus, and it is not enough for the Vice-Chancellor to say that he finds it deplorable and nevertheless to allow it. I believe that this is an abuse of academic freedom. In fact, it is not even academic freedom; it is ordinary liberalistic abuse of power for the purpose of restricting other people’s freedom on the campus. I also want to say that the danger exists that the political forces which threaten academic freedom—and let us admit that throughout history, academic freedom has always been subject to a certain friction, a certain threat from political quarters, because the academic often says things which the politician does not like—do not come from outside the university only. They also come from inside the university. Universities will have to ask themselves whether the excesses of political militants who are tolerated in certain lecturers’ and certain students’ organizations on their campuses can still be reconciled with the degree of tolerance and objectivity required by academic freedom and academic quality of performance at the universities. I have not quoted any specific examples in this connection, because that might have made the debate somewhat less pleasant. However, there are unpleasant examples I could quote, so I hope that the spirit in which I have discussed this matter will elicit an understanding response. I do not wish to say any more about universities now. I shall reply later to the contributions of individual members.

Arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Pinelands I now want to say something about the history of the De Lange report, although the hon. member for Virginia dealt very effectively with him.

†I think it is quite unfair to say that the Government is stalling and dragging its feet. It would seem that the Opposition has already made up its mind so definitely in this regard that it is not interested in any further reactions or comment from specialist or interested parties in respect of recommendations contained in the De Lange report. I want to say that the Government is not stalling. The Government is only affording all the many interested parties an opportunity to comment in respect of a matter which affects the very lifeblood of every one of us in our different communities. I should also like to say that even while the reactions of the public and interested bodies were being awaited, there has been some further progress. For example, my former colleague, the then Minister of Education and Training, announced earlier on that as from this year the intake in respect of new trainees at the Black teacher training colleges would be based on a school-leaving certificate with a view to a three-year diploma which is the same as the minimum standard for Whites and for Indians in education. I should also like to mention the fact that my department with the co-operation of all the other education departments has been putting in some hard work in trying to rationalize the norms for the provision of space and physical facilities at the schools for all the different population groups. It has also gone into another matter that has been raised by the De Lange report and which we feel could and should be dealt with on a short-term basis and that is that in respect of post-school education where the training is provided by different departments but where the testing of qualifications is done by the Department of National Education, a uniform basis of certification should be provided for these people doing post-school training and submitting themselves to examinations.

I should also like to refer to a very important matter raised by the hon. member for Durban North. He referred to educational television programmes, and I fully agree with everything that he had said, except his suggestion that the Government is unwilling to provide funds for such programmes. I myself and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, in conjunction with our officials and SABC personnel, discussed this matter in depth, and the educational task group dealing with the De Lange Committee’s recommendations has, as a very high priority, been requested to recommend a method for finalizing as soon as possible a broad policy in regard to both educational television programmes and educational technology, for example the use of computers in education in order to obviate difficulties of incompatibility of different systems if they are being introduced in a haphazard way. I do, however, fully agree that this matter is of such importance that during this year we should make meaningful progress with it.

We also have an interdepartmental committee under the aegis of the Committee of Heads of Education known as the National Committee for Educational Technology—NKOT in Afrikaans. This has led to the involvement of all other education departments. This committee was rather dormant, but we applied the turpentine brush to activate them to a certain extent, and we hope that there will be a speedy response.

I want to object very strongly to the hon. member for Pineland’s derogatory reference to the volkskongres held at Bloemfontein. He described this congress as being antediluvian and prehistoric, and in this regard I should like to endorse the response to that from hon. members on this side of the House. At that congress some rather right-wing individual opinions may have been expressed.

You are telling me!

The overall attitude at that congress was, however, a very responsible one. It basically subscribed to the Government’s acceptance of the 11 main principles of the De Lange report, and also to the five basic points according to which the Government will judge these matters. These five points are, of course, not accepted by the hon. members on that side of the House. I should, however, like to emphasize my appreciation of the importance of the preparatory work done in all sections of the population and which has for example led to this volkskongres in Bloemfontein. Thousands of people in South Africa were involved, and this has increased awareness of the importance of education in our community. This also applies to the congress held in Grahamstown. At this congress some very wild statements were also made. Indeed, a type of conclave was formed of people who would not even participate in the discussions, as they were intent on first bringing about a political change or political upheaval in this country. However, many of the recommendations eventually formulated by the congress in Grahamstown, also endorsed the valuable findings made by the De Lange report.

I believe it is important that the Government should be aware of extreme militant attitudes among the left wing groups and also of strong reservations on the conservative right wing side. After all, education affects the welfare of the whole population, and we should therefore try to deal with this matter in the most responsible and balanced way humanly possible.

*As far as the De Lange report is concerned, I also want to say that as I have already reported—the hon. member actually mentioned it—comment has been received from more than 200 interested parties. The aid of the HSRC has called in again to process and systematize that comment and to submit it to the Government together with the recommendations and the findings in the report itself. This interim educational task group which has to advise the Cabinet has already met.

I also want to point out that the composition of the interim educational task group was initially criticized. Initially it consisted of the heads of all eight different education departments as well as other educationists who are the chairman of the different education boards, and people representing the universities. Since then, as has been announced, the Government has, in response to representations, enlarged that group by the addition of Mr. Taunyane, a leader of the Black teaching profession, especially in the Transvaal, Prof. Van Loggenberg, chairman of the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites, Mr. Koos Steyn, the General Secretary of the Federal Teachers’ Council, Mr. Pittendrigh, one of our foremost experts on technikons, and Dr. Errol Drummond, a former director of Seifsa, who can make an authoritative input on the part of the private sector, especially in the technological sphere. The Government has also decided that Prof. De Lange, who is a member of the task group in his capacity as chairman of the National Education Council, will be chairman of the task group. We hope, although I cannot make any promises, that the Government may announce before the end of the year its first decisions about which aspects of the report it will accept and implement, in a first White Paper if necessary, because I believe that it will not be possible to convey the reaction of the Government in one final document.

However, I want to give the assurance, because concern has been expressed about this, that the Government will phase in any innovations in education with circumspection, and that it will not act hastily and without due consideration by abolishing well tried and successful systems or structures in favour of untried novelties. At the same time, I appreciate what the hon. member for Pinelands said, namely that the urgency of certain critical aspects which led the Government to order the inquiry has not diminished. Therefore it will be a matter of urgency to rectify as soon as possible the deficiencies and shortcoming in the various education systems which have come to light in the report, and to take further visible and meaningful steps towards equality. [Interjections.]

In this connection, I should like to refer hon. members once again to the exact words of the first principle for the provision of education contained in the report, which has been accepted by the Government, i.e. that equal opportunities for education and equal standards in education for all population groups without any distinction should be the purposeful endeavour of the State.

The report does not speak of equal quality. In fact, the report says that equal quality can only be built up by a concerned community which devotes itself to its education, on the basis, of the previously received equal standards and equal opportunities. Quality is not something which one can be given; it is something one can only build up from within one’s own community. One cannot build up quality education with hired assistance from another population group; one has to motivate the best people in one’s own community to make use of those standards and opportunities in order to build up quality education for one’s community.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal in what the hon. the Minister has referred to in his reply to the debate so far to which we can respond. I believe, however, that it may be better to wait until after lunch before I start that.

In so far as academic freedom is concerned and political involvement at certain or all universities—I am quite sure it is everywhere and not only at some—I want to say immediately that if certain students abuse academic freedom by becoming informists to the Special Branch, one must not be surprised if the universities react adversely to that. I believe that, too, is an abuse. We agree with the hon. the Minister that when it is abused and if the right of reply has been denied and there is violence used, it is wrong. We would join with the hon. the Minister in saying that it is unacceptable. To go beyond that, I believe, is to underline again the restrictive character of our universities because so often while there may be development on an academic terrain or on a political terrain, we must not expect young people not to be involved, not to be concerned, not to be caring about the future of their country. Of course, they are going to ask questions and of course they are going to say much more stridently than the hon. the Minister or I would, or has the hon. the Minister forgotten that he was young 20, 30 years ago as I was …

It will take a lot to beat you!

We too asked those burning questions, and it is their future which is at stake. Of course they may do it not quite the way we are doing it.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended I was saying that the hon. the Minister in his reply, had obviously left many questions unanswered. There are also many questions now that have arisen from his comments. Earlier I said to the hon. the Minister by way of interjection, that the De Lange Committee had actually recommended that there should be only the Minister of Education, one Department of Education. There seems though to be some doubt in the hon. the Minister’s mind about whether that is indeed so. In order to put it on record I read now from the report on education by the Human Sciences Research Council. I read from the section “Questions and Answers”. Question No. 2 reads as follows—

That is a very limited number of facets!

Mr. Chairman, this hon. Minister is really remarkable. One actually pins him down on one thing, and then he jumps around and comes up with something completely different. [Interjections.] I want to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees with me when I say that this recommendation asks for one Minister and one department of National Education?

It certainly asks for it.

That is quite correct. Is the hon. the Minister not going to agree with me that this is a very good report, brought out by many top educational experts, including Prof. De Lange, whom the hon. the Minister knows very well? It is not a political thing. The hon. the Minister accuses us of bringing politics into education every year in this debate. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister accusing the De Lange Committee of bringing politics into education?

They said themselves that they could not consider the constitutional implications of their recommendations. They also admit that they did not know what the constitutional future of the country was going to be.

So, the hon. the Minister is the one who is bringing politics into it now! [Interjections.]

I am sure the hon. the Minister will concede that it is possible to make that recommendation not from merely a political point of view.

Yes.

That is right. That is exactly what we are doing.

The hon. the Minister tells me—now he shifts the ground of his argument again, and very cleverly too, if I may say so; it is not going to hold water, however—that he actually has to concede that the Coloureds and the Whites, for example, have a great deal in common. He cannot therefore argue that separate departments are necessary because of the cultural grounding alone. There are indeed a number of factors which the Coloureds and the Whites hold in common. So, what does he say? He says there is another reason; he says there are different levels of development. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree with me that within the Coloured community itself there are different levels of development? Does that mean that we must have separate departments of education for every group of Coloureds?

Clever boy!

Now you are really being silly, Alex! [Interjections.]

No, it is not a matter of “clever boy”. I am just being logical. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister went to great lengths to defend the fact that we must have a separate department for every race group. He spent about 20 or 30 minutes doing that, and I appreciate his full response. I must put it to the hon. the Minister, however, that if he thinks now that he has handled the case satisfactorily, that he has settled everything and that we will not be asking for the same thing next year or the year after, there is bad news in store for him.

I am sure you know already what the answer is going to be then.

It does not matter; we will do it at every opportunity and in the same way as we have talked about getting rid of discrimination in sport. I must say that in that respect we have actually progressed a long way. The same happened in the case of Black trade unions. We pleaded for that year after year until finally the Government saw the light. We will now go on and do exactly the same thing in respect of this matter because I am quite convinced that there is an inevitability attached to it. I want to forecast something. I do not often forecast anything here in this House because I know it is very dangerous to do so. I do, however, want to venture one forecast. [Interjections.] It is quite clear to me that what is going to happen is that the Government is going to accept an umbrella organization. What we are going to have will possibly be one senior Minister in charge of education in South Africa, while there may also be other Ministers or Deputy Ministers even, of one colour or another—I do not know yet; nobody seems to know—under that senior Minister. The hon. the Minister and the Government are actually moving in the right direction. For that we commend them. They do not have to convince us. The hon. the Minister is going to have a hard job convincing all the hardliners on his side—I know that—particularly the hon. member for Virginia. [Interjections.] I guarantee nevertheless that the majority of South Africa’s people believe it is the right decision to move in that direction.

Now I want to go on to an entirely different matter, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give me his attention. This is a completely new issue and I would really like the hon. the Minister to listen to what I have to say. I believe that there is an urgent need for a totally new look at the film industry in South Africa. At the present time it is virtually impossible, because of the lack of financial backing, for bright and budding film-makers in South Africa to produce prestigious films. I know that there is a payment of a subsidy, but I also think we know what the formula is that is used to determine that subsidy. The subsidy is not payable until the film’s net box-office income, i.e. gross receipts less cinematographic film tax and entertainment tax, has reached an amount of R100 000. There are so many people in South Africa who are unhappy about this.

What is happening in South Africa is in strong contrast to what has been taking place in Australia. Out of a budding, Government-subsidized film industry in that country, has sprung a group of talented young film-makers whose ideas are almost totally within the Australian context, yet relevant almost everywhere in the world. Two examples, of course, are the films “Breaker Morant” and “Gallipoli”, both instances of films that are Australian to the core, yet with universal appeal. As a direct result of the films coming out of that country, Australia is well known, in many parts of the world, whereas formerly it was just known as a place somewhere down under. Their initiative, as I see it, was not so much in technical innovation—that belongs to the Americas and to Europe—but rather in the classical elegance of image, of plot and of character. It is true to say that they have brought even to their own people—a spectacular view of Australia which has instilled new pride in them, and it all started as a result of the new attitude on the part of the Government of that country which decided that it was prepared to back the film industry, even if it meant substantial losses in the first instance. Today it is hardly remembered that in the ’sixties Australian film productions were few and far between, but then there began a wave of lobbying for government aid to the film industry. It reached its peak in 1968 with liberal John Corton’s tenure as Prime Minister. He did not know much about film-making, but the leader of the opposition at that time—the Labour Party—was actually a film addict. They both believed that Australia could make films which would be much better at promoting the nation than ever travel brochures and posters would.

You are talking under the wrong Vote.

They believed that government backing would build an Australian film industry out of virtually nothing. [Interjections.]

Deal with that on Monday.

No, this has to do with this hon. Minister of National Education. In the early ’seventies the government created the Australian Film and Television School with an annual budget of $4 million. Film-making could freely be funded by way of outright grants, loans or investments against future profits, and it was this commitment that sparked off the new wave. It is not often remembered, however, that in the first seven years 65 films were made, each costing in the region of $800 000. Many of those films were poor from a technical and artistic point of view, only one third of them making any money at all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that I am not going to react to the last part of the hon. member for Pinelands’ speech, and I think he will forgive me for not doing so.

However, I should like to raise a few points in connection with the first part of his speech. I do not think it has been proved that education of equal quality necessarily depends on the fact that one must have a central department of education.

Speak louder, we cannot hear what you are saying.

Those hon. members must just pay more attention. I said that I do not think it has been proved educationally that education of equal quality necessarily depends on the fact that there is one department of education. Nor do I believe that it has been proved that the quality of education is dependent on one central Minister of Education. The point I am trying to make in reply to the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands is that it was most certainly not the primary aim of the De Lange Committee to focus on this point as a prerequisite for equal education. I want to say that it is not dependent on one department or one Minister of education. That is the crux of the matter. In other words, in this debate we must not get stuck on this subject. We must rather consider the methods that are primarily essential to bring about education of equal quality. After all, that is what this is all about.

We know that you are battling on that side with people who do not … [Interjections.]

I cannot quite hear what the hon. member is saying.

He says you are battling with your own people.

In its interim memorandum on the De Lange Report the Government also said that there were obviously philosophical aspects of importance as regards the approach to education itself. This, too, is a fact, whether the hon. member wants to agree with it or not. It is not only this side of the House that says so, because there are also people of colour who say so. There are very important Coloured and Black leaders in education who also say so too. That is why I feel it is essential that we adopt a sober approach in these matters and not try to terminate the debate in advance before we even know what the constitutional course of events will be with regard to this specific matter. When the President’s Council makes its proposals we can debate this matter further at length. After all, we shall then have more clarity on this within the constitutional pattern. I think it is untimely to try to dispose of the debate on this subject at this juncture.

I wish to dwell briefly on two other matters. The first matter concerns teachers’ training colleges. I am reasonably directly involved with the Goudstad Teachers’ Training College in Johannesburg and, if I remember correctly, in the discussion of this vote last year I also touched on the subject of the position relating to the salary of senior staff and particularly heads of departments at teacher’s training colleges, in comparison with the salary structure in education and particularly the provincial salary structure in the Transvaal. Unfortunately, at this stage the position is—and I say this on the basis of first-hand evidence specifically with regard to this college—that we have the problem that we are not able to draw senior staff from schools to our teachers’ training colleges. As far as salaries is concerned the situation is simply that it is better for the staff to remain at the school than to go to a teachers’ training college. This is a problem. The Minister is aware of this, but I think it is essential that we raise this point again, because at this stage the position is critical as regards the supply of senior training staff at our teachers’ training colleges, particularly in the Transvaal.

Then, too, I wish to make a few remarks about universities in general. The hon. the Minister has already dealt with university matters and I am sorry that I am raising this matter again at this stage of the debate, after he has already dealt with it. However, I should like to make a few remarks on the subsidizing system, in other words, the position with regard to the funding of our universities. In the first place we are at present experiencing the results of subsidization based on numbers. I think we must be honest and admit frankly that students are being recruited for universities for the sake of numbers, students who could have studied more successfully at other tertiary educational institutions. This is an unfortunate result of this specific system. However, we have also experienced other problems, particularly in recent times, with regard to this specific system. Because the universities have become larger and the number of students is no longer rising so sharply, and as a result the subsidy is not rising either, this has led to the universities being forced to raise their class and residential fees. This has had a specific side effect, because to a certain extent only the well-off students can still afford to go to university. As far as I am concerned this is a deplorable concept. This is something we cannot allow in the South African set-up. I think we must give serious attention to this to ensure that it is not only wealthy people who can afford to send their children to universities. For this reason I want to make the appeal that we give serious attention to this matter. After all, academic education is not intended for a certain group only. At issue here is the specific developmental value of academic training. That is why I feel it is important that we take very careful cognizance of this matter with respect to other economic groups in our society.

I should now like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with the question of bursaries and loans available to university students. Does the hon. the Minister feel that adequate facilities are available in this respect at the present time with regard to the State’s responsibility? I should like to have his opinion on this.

In conclusion I want to refer to the funding position. The universities also have a responsibility to consider their own internal rationalization, search for possible over-expenditure in faculties or departments and determine whether or not it is justified. Of course, there is sometimes a shift of students from one faculty to another in the course of a few years. At the Rand Afrikaans University we have the interesting situation that this year the B.Com. faculty, with few exceptions, is the largest faculty at the university. This is the first time in the history of universities in South Africa that we have had this state of affairs at a residential university, viz. that a non-human science faculty has come close to exceeding the B.A. field of study. This requires that every university must undertake constant investigations to ensure that its internal needs tally with its financial needs, and vice versa. In this connection one can read what was written recently by two academics of the Rand Afrikaans University in a publication of that university. They said—

I should like to agree with this by saying that I feel that those academics of the Rand Afrikaans University are expressing this timely idea to insure that universities rationalize internally, not only to keep pace with the demand for funds, but also to keep pace with the manpower needs of the country. This is a matter which has been raised frequently during the past few years. However, it is important that a university should ensure that the people it trains will be able to meet the manpower needs of the country, in conjunction of course, with the value norms to be found in academic training. Accordingly it is a very important function. It is also a very important responsibility, and the universities must recognize this and ensure that they remain internally well-balanced in terms of the need for funds and the manpower needs they have to meet. After all, this is one of their functions, although it is not their primary function. In this respect I feel it is our responsibility to appeal to our universities constantly to investigate this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West raised two very deserving matters. They are matters which teaching staff have discussed with me, too, and I therefore agree with him completely.

I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who paid tribute yesterday to the new head of the department, Dr. Meyer. Dr. Meyer will not know this, but years ago, when he was still a young school principal at Molteno in the Eastern Cape I had already heard of his excellence and the great things that were already expected of him, It therefore comes as no surprise to me that with his great ability he has come up to these expectations.

I also wish to express our thanks and appreciation and pay tribute to his predecessor, Dr. Van Wyk, who was a deeply religious and dignified man in this position. When I say this of these two doctors, I also say it of the people who work with them. Gen. De Wet had occasion to say: “As dit nie vir my burgers is wat my dra nie, sal ek nie die Christiaan De Wet kon wees wat ek wel is nie.” We therefore convey our best wishes to those people.

Just as the bride and groom are the two main characters at a wedding, in my opinion the main characters in the discussion of this Vote are the child and the teacher. I should like to pay tribute to the teachers of yesterday and today for what they have done for our country and all its people over the years. We are all a product of education, and we are grateful for this. As an example of the formative effect a teacher can have on the growing development of the humanity of the child, I want to mention an episode from our history. It is a pity the hon. member for Durban North is not present in the House at the moment. During the Anglo-Boer War of 1899 to 1902, a group of Englishmen captured a young Boer scout. They knew the scout had very good information on the movement of the Boer commandos in the vicinity and they tried to force him to give them the information, but he refused to speak. They then decided to lead the scout to believe that they would shoot him if he did not speak. They did not really intend to do so, but pretended that they would. They blindfolded the young scout and told him that they would shoot him if he did not speak. However, he steadfastly refused to speak and was eventually released. After the Peace of Vereeniging, someone asked this young man what one is really conscious of in the last moments of one’s life. The young man’s answer was concise and to the point—and I feel that this, Mr. Chairman is the descriptive effect of the teacher: “I was blindfolded but in my mind’s eye I saw the image of my teacher. I knew that the man who had moulded me, who had taught me to be true to what was my own, would not have spoken if he had been in my position.” Coming from my part of the world, Heidelberg, it is a pleasure for me to be able to say today—this is factual history—that that teacher was the late Senator Theo Dönges of Heidelberg, an uncle of the late Minister Dönges. He was the teacher of that young citizen.

There is a great deal that one can say about education. We as parents can also say a great deal about education. I appear here today in another capacity. Previous speakers have virtually without exception been former teachers, but I am speaking as a farmer and a parent. I am the father of four sons, two of whom are still at university, and for me and other parents it is reassuring to know that the moment one’s children leave home they are entrusted to the good, healthy influences of our teachers and university staff. We are grateful for this. There are many praiseworthy professions in our country. The doctor and the nurse look after the health of our people, the social worker takes care of the social and socio-economic welfare, the farmer provides the food and clothing, the soldier and policeman ensure our safety, the minister takes care of our souls, but the teacher cares for the entire person.

Whereas thus far I have been flattering, I must now, unfortunately, be a little less flattering. I want to refer to my highly respected friend and colleague, the hon. member for Virginia, who earlier in this debate referred somewhat critically to my colleague, the hon. member for Kuruman, because my colleague had ventured into this debate on education. The hon. member for Virginia took it amiss of my colleague, the hon. member for Kuruman, that he discussed education.

No, we did not do that.

If I remember correctly, the hon. member said that he had always discussed sport and not education.

He has every right to discuss it.

Yes, he has the right to discuss it now. [Interjections.] As I understood it, the hon. member for Virginia held it against the hon. member for Kuruman. [Interjections.] I want to give the hon. member for Virginia his due. When we were on that side of the House the hon. member for Virginia was our spokesman. That hon. member and his committee were our spokesmen on education. However, now we are on this side and now we shall discuss education, parents and children as frequently and as often as we see fit. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Minister, with all due respect, that yesterday he said something here which I found regrettable. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that he hoped teachers would not allow themselves to be lobbied in hidden corners with regard to their political affiliations. I just want to say I think this is a pity, because I think it assails the honour and the integrity of our teachers. Our teachers will not lend themselves to anything of this nature. I also want to ask: What are these hidden corners? I want to tell those hon. members that a few weeks ago a member of their party sent a circular to clergymen to invite them to a closed meeting in Pretoria. I do not consider that to be a closed corner. I do not know if those hon. members regard it as such. Those people have the right to participate in politics and they have had this right for years now. However, now all of a sudden, ever since this Government gained a full-fledged Opposition, these things are being discussed as regards the Afrikaans teacher and the Afrikaans minister. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister that about three years ago the hon. the Prime Minister made a veiled attack on the teachers of South Africa at Robertson, and I want to say that that speech caused tremendous unrest and tremendous dissatisfaction among teachers, to such an extent that some of my former colleagues on that side and I, after we had discussed the matter, had to pour oil on troubled waters. [Interjections.] That is why I want to ask: Leave teachers in peace to participate in politics, as every right-minded citizen is entitled to do, in a democratic way.

I also feel that these hidden corners do not refer to the meetings our leader addresses, because he addresses thousands of people. Without exception he addresses audiences of not fewer than 1 000 people at a time. I therefore say that this cannot be considered a hidden comer. It is a national movement which is gathering momentum and cognizance will have to be taken of it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Meyerton will forgive me if I do not follow up his argument. There is another subject which I wish to deal with. In this regard I should like to express a special word of thanks to the hon. Whip of the NP for giving me the time to finish a speech which I was unable to complete a little earlier.

I was discussing the film industry in South Africa and comparing the developments that have taken place in Australia with those in this country, and I stated the need for a completely new look at the situation in South Africa. I mentioned the fact that the initial Government subsidies were not paid on a guarantee that the films would be an immediate box office success but rather that those films should aim at excellence and meeting international standards which would, of course, take a long time to achieve. As a result of that investment Australia’s films began to cause a stir and even won prizes at film festivals in different parts of the world. More and more people came to appreciate not only the film-making but also the grandeur and the history of the Australian continent. It is no exaggeration to say that the film industry has done more positive good for the Australian image than any other medium. Today no film festival is complete without one or more Australian film. What is even more significant is that they have been able to break into the United States market on merit and Peter Wier and other directors have become household names.

What has happened in Australia can and should happen in South Africa. With the development of the television industry in South Africa we have a magnificent opportunity to use this as a launching pad. Not only do we have magnificent scenery in South Africa, but we also have a fascinating history and many giants of the past who have left their imprints on our land. We cannot go on making films only about animals and the like. This is how Mr. Van Rensburg puts it—

That is exactly as I see it, Sir. We cannot continue in this way. We have to commit ourselves to investment so that films that come out of South Africa will be able to compete on the international scene. Filmmakers must not be driven to a situation where they are so concerned about box-office receipts that they cannot give attention to standards. I am not talking about propaganda, neither am I talking about glossing over the very real and difficult problems of our land. I am talking about the true art form that allows cameras, directors and actors to reflect whatever is present in the society in a way that grips the human heart and stirs the imagination of men and women everywhere. I urge the hon. the Minister to respond positively and specifically to this appeal. I have no doubt that any financial funding will be an investment, and I trust that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism will also bear this in mind. I hope that the Cabinet will consider this because this is not something that will benefit a specific political party. I know that there is support in this regard but we need more support. We need a new approach toward subsidies so that South Africa can take the lead in an area where Australia has shown the way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. However, I want to say a few words on the mean and infamous attack by the hon. member for Meyerton on the hon. the Prime Minister in consequence of a speech the hon. the Prime Minister was supposed to have made at Robertson. I feel it is very irresponsible to make such an attack while the hon. the Prime Minister is not here, and to allege that the hon. the Prime Minister made a veiled attacked on teachers, because after all, the NP has had a long and very good relationship with the teachers corps as a whole.

However, I shall not react further to the other hon. members who participated in the debate, because I should like to discuss a certain matter with the hon. the Minister.

In my speech last year I made a plea in favour of the use of computer technology in education. Accordingly it is gratifying that since then a great deal of attention has been given to this matter. In the first place, the report of the De Lange Committee recommends that a committee be appointed to investigate the possible use of computers in education, and two notable conferences have already been held on this matter. In December last year an extremely successful conference was held on the potential use of computer-supported education to bridge the education gap among adults. A wide spectram of viewpoints were voiced at this conference by selected and influential speakers, including no fewer than four Ministers and another hon. member of this House. The overwhelming and lasting impression enacted by these conferences was that wherever individualized education is required on a large scale, the volume of managerial work is of such a magnitude as to be totally unmanageable unless computer technology is used. The education of adults, particularly Black adults, is causing headaches, particularly with regard to the provision of manpower, and the present system of provision of education, both formal and informal, is simply not equipped to deal with this problem. Training will have to be offered in a variety of subjects, and the scale on which training is to be controlled and tested requires at least the use of centralized computer systems, viz. the so-called “main frame systems”.

The second conference I want to refer to was held the following month at Stellenbosch, and it covered a more general field of computers in training. Yet again the usefulness of the computer was indicated in the case of both centralized computers systems and the microcomputers. There were also words of caution, but of a more general nature.

As we are still in our infancy with regard to the utilization of this technology in training, I want to make a few remarks regarding the initial establishment of this relatively new and revolutionary technology. I want to ask that nothing be done by the authorities to delay this process which in any event is unavoidable. Because the use of computers in education is unavoidable, delays can only mean a loss of valuable time and can also lead to the establishment of computer-supported training in practice, which does not lead to optimum cost effectiveness.

I want to make an appeal for guidelines to be laid down so soon as possible which will prevent computer technology from initially being introduced incorrectly. This is not a cheap technique, although in certain areas it is undoubtedly far more cost effective than the traditional methods.

One gains the impression that some decision-makers are under the impression that this technology has not yet been properly tested with regard to learning requirements. The contrary is true. It is already a proven method of supplementing conventional education processes and is widely used throughout the world. We are in the fortunate position that we need not undertake the expensive basic research. We need only—even this is not an easy task—adapt proven computer-supported training systems to meet our local requirements.

We are also in the fortunate position that certain bodies have already made a start with the practical implementation of this technology. The University of the Western Cape has a centralized computer system, and they are already in the process—to mention but one adjustment—of using it in an attempt to establish an effective bridge between school and university—one of our most important educational problem areas. Stellenbosch has terminals linked to the Rand and Wits is already using microcomputers in a Chemistry I course.

It is essential that these and other bodies be supported financially by the Government so that they can continue their pioneering work as speedily as possible. In this connection I want to quote what appears on page 187 of the De Lange report, as follows—

As many experts have already pointed out, the labour-intensiveness of education is one of its greatest problems. It is here in particular that computerized training offers tremendous benefits and inputs. Computer-supported training is pre-eminently the renewal which will lead to a better utilization of scarce education resources, such as teachers.

One also frequently hears that the computer cannot replace the teacher. No supporter of computerized training who is at all worth his salt sees the computer as a replacement for the teacher. It has been emphasized ad nauseam that it is only an extremely valuable aid to the teacher.

I want to deal with another aspect, namely the urgent need for guidelines with regard to the initial implementation of this training in our formal training sector. These guidelines are urgently necessary, because computer technology has many facets and its implementation is complex, and can therefore easily lead to the establishment of practices which differ drastically from those which would be optimal with regard to cost effectiveness. If we were to begin by establishing this in the wrong way, this could lead to a situation which, although clearly different from what is desirable, would be too expensive to replace and rectify. In this connection I want to refer in particular to the choice of apparatus offered to provide this training. In my opinion the most important systems are the so-called centralized computer systems—the “main frames”—which are very large computers; centrally situated with various terminals. The primary training uses of this system are the supplying of study material on a wide variety of subjects, the control and management of training by means of testing, the supply of study aids, for example library facilities, data banks and word processing.

The advantages of this system are its multifunctionality, the great quantity of tested study material, the quality control of this study material and the possibility of maintaining study material in order to keep it up to date. The main disadvantages are the very high initial costs, and also the fact that teachers must be trained to use the system effectively.

Alongside this system we have the popular microcomputer. These are linked by a single terminal to an independent computer, and its primary training function is that it affords the opportunity for computer programming, carries out administrative functions, word processing and also coaching exercizes in certain lower level skills, such as arithmetic and historical data. The major advantages of this system are of course its independence, its low cost and the fact that it is a portable system. Of course it, too, has important disadvantages. In general, training programmes are here limited to training exercizes in simple concepts. The available study material is limited, nor is there uniform quality control. In addition, the development of study material does not take place on a planned basis.

However, as far as I am concerned for the general training of larger groups of students, the microcomputer is of extremely question able usefulness. As far as I am concerned it is in the injudicious purchase of microcomputers that one of the greatest dangers lies as regards the initial implementation of this technology. Certain schools have already purchased these systems for purposes for which they are not suitable. I believe it would have been better if they had rather purchased a terminal. That is why I want to ask that guidelines for the use of computer technology in education be laid down as soon as possible in order to avoid wasting time and money.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Uitenhage will excuse me if I do not follow him in his argument. I should like to talk about a subdepartment of the Department of National Education, namely the Directorate of Sport.

I should like to begin by expressing a word of gratitude to the head of that department and to his officials, who do very fine work on behalf of sportsmen, sport administrators and also of sport in South Africa. I believe their work is appreciated by all concerned, and certainly by hon. members on this side of the House.

At the very outset I should like the hon. the Minister to consider making a statement on a few matters. I shall mention them very briefly. Firstly, the Human Sciences Research Council has been sitting for some while. Many months ago it produced its interim report on sport. We are still awaiting its final report, which will involve the facts about sport in South Africa, and I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of when that report can be expected.

Secondly, I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on the Crown Mines project. As we all know, there is a great shortage in the metropolitan area of the Witwatersrand of decent stadia and of sport facilities for all races. The Department of Sport, in collaboration and in consultation with the Johannesburg City Council, the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society, and the Government, are, I believe, going ahead with this project, and I believe it would be very interesting for all of us to know what progress is being made and when we might anticipate a new sport complex to be developed in that area.

The final short matter I want to raise is a matter which I was asked to raise by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. During the discussion of the S.A. Transport Services budget the hon. member raised the matter concerning the possibility of a small-boat harbour in Port Elizabeth. He has requested me to ask whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the questions that were raised in this connection, and also whether the hon. the Minister is giving attention to the difficulties experienced by people who take part in small-boat sport in that area. I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to comment on the situation during this debate.

I now want to get to the nub of some of the issues that confront sportsmen. I think that any fair-minded person must acknowledge that sport has, in the past few years, made great strides in the elimination of discrimination. Let me just mention three recent examples. We now have only one department or subdepartment of sport which acts as the liaison or guiding department for the promotion of sport amongst all the communities in our country. That is a step forward. Last year’s amendments to the Liquor Act, which are now in operation, have excluded all sports clubs and sports gatherings from the racial provisions of that legislation. Only a few weeks ago the Group Areas Act was amended so as to exclude sports activities from the provisions of that Act. Looking back over the past few years, one realizes that at one time these advances seemed impossible, and yet today they are, in fact, realities. The question that arises is what still remains to be dealt with at legislative level? The anser to that is that there are still two further Acts that have to be considered and dealt with by this House. The first is the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the provisions of which prohibit members of racial groups other than Blacks from entering Black townships without first having obtained a permit. This does, of course, have implications for all sorts of sports meetings, coaching facilities and travel by sportsmen. This Act is at present being circumvented administratively, but as we all know this is far from satisfactory. However, reform in this connection has been pledged, and we hope that very soon, during this session of Parliament, the limiting factors of that Act will be removed. So, in a manner of speaking it is three down and one to go! In this connection, of course, I am also referring to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. It is the existence of this Act that has caused a great deal of racial ill-feeling and worldwide condemnation, still remaining as a major stumbling-block to the normalization of sport and non-racial recreational activities. It is a piece of legislation whose terms of reference directly contradict the Government’s policy of autonomy in sport. This is the Act that empowers local authorities and other public bodies to force racial segregation on parks, fields, public facilities, premises and even beaches …

Tell us about the Bez. Valley Park.

… that are controlled by those bodies. [Interjections.] It enables those bodies to enforce this racial segregation, largely to the detriment of all those in South Africa who are not White. We need look no further than the recent plight of a Black Springbok trampolinist who, in the full light of world publicity, was barred from a Johannesburg recreation centre and almost prevented from preparing for an international competition, to realize how selfishly and racially unfair this Act is. In its interim report on sport the Human Sciences Research Council had the following to say about the Act—

So the Human Sciences Research Council freely acknowledges that this Act, in its present form, is a racially discriminatory piece of legislation. It goes further by saying—

A Government-appointed technical committee is, at present, investigating the legislation, but to judge from the hon. the Minister’s answer, in this House, to a question I put to him on 16 April 1982, the report of this committee is not expected until the end of the year. So while the learned Government officials dither, racial discrimination lives on, to the detriment of sportsmen and also to the detriment of our efforts to regain entry into world sport.

Apart from the legislative front, there are two other areas I should like to identify this afternoon in which the Government could, in the interests of South African sport, play a very positive role. The first concerns finance. It is a great disappointment to me and, I know, to all sportsmen in South Africa that the programmes relating to sport and to recreation are virtually Cinderella programmes in terms of Government expenditure. This year a sum of less than R6 million is being allocated by all the departments for the promotion of sport. I want to say that that R6 million represents the lowest per capita allocation by a Government in any country in the Western world. It is by far the lowest. This state of affairs hardly affects the largely self-sufficient White community, but it contributes greatly to the retarding of the promotion of sport amongst Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Of what worth are slogans such as “merit selection” or “no discrimination in sport” when such startling, obvious gaps continue to exist in the facilities that are available and in the equipment and coaching expertise that are available to the less privileged communities of our country? Has the time not come to have a special and specific new look at sport promotion among the less affluent sections of South Africa with a view to introducing a firm financial programme to wipe out the existing backlog? Is the time not ripe to face these huge problems—because they are big problems and they cannot be overcome overnight—and to make a determined start with rectifying matters in order to give real financial substance to the policy of no discrimination in sport and to the policy of merit selection? [Time expired.]

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

I thank the hon. Whip for giving me this opportunity.

The third aspect I should like to mention relates to inter-school sport, a subject which has often featured to our shame in the international Press. I realize that this is largely a provincial matter not falling directly under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister but—and this is a very big “but”—the hon. the Minister has great influence with those concerned. The time is long overdue for the political, the bureaucratic and the administrative blockages discouraging inter-racial school sport to be removed. This does not mean that schools should be forced into competing with schools not of their choosing. It does not mean that at all. It does, however, mean that the more enlightened schools, the more modern-thinking schools should be entitled to make their own arrangements free of the shackles of overbearing officialdom.

That is local option.

I have three straightforward requests to put to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, in regard to the Separate Amenities Act I ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement of his intent—in principle only, if he fears going into the details. I ask him not to wait for public servants sitting in committee to decide the policy of the Government, but rather to tell us what his thinking is in regard to this legislation. I want to know of the hon. the Minister whether he is going to allow the discriminatory provisions in that Act to remain or whether he is committed to eliminating the gross inequities which exist. It is not good enough to say that the report is awaited. That is a weak statement. It is a vacillating statement. It is directionless, displaying a lack of leadership which does South Africa no good. My first request to the hon. the Minister, therefore, is to make a statement for all to hear on what his attitude is in regard to this last remaining piece of anti-sport legislation.

Secondly, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a promise to this Committee, a promise to investigate anew practical ways and means of eliminating in a programmed manner and within a reasonable time the vast disparities that exist in facilities, fields and coaching available to the poorer sections of our community. In other words, as was done in Britain and in France in years gone by, a start must be made with creating a climate for equal opportunity in sport and thus giving content to the policy of merit selection. Thirdly, I ask the hon. the Minister to move to end the political and bureaucratic stranglehold which prevents schools from making up their own minds as to whom they wish to compete with and when. If the hon. the Minister could react positively today to only these three points, this Committee, I believe, will have achieved a great deal for sport and for South African sportsmen during this debate.

I should like now for a few moments to address myself in a limited way to the international aspects of this subject. In June 1977 the Commonwealth Ministers met at Gleneagles and concluded an agreement which since then has had vast implications for South African sport and has played a role in isolating South Africa from the rest of the world. Perhaps the most relevant sentence of the Gleneagles Agreement reads as follows—

In October 1978 I visited the then Minister of Sport of Great Britain in a Labour Government in London. After a long conversation with Mr. Howell I managed to pin him down to specifics as regards Britain’s sporting contacts with South Africa and to get him to commit himself to reconsidering his Government’s previously hostile attitude towards our country’s sportsmen, provided certain criteria were met. I asked him finally to reduce his points to writing. Sometimes it is very difficult to get anything in writing from a politician, but in this case I did. Four years later I still have this document which he wrote to me, in my possession and I should like to read it to hon. members. It is addressed to me with compliments of the Sports Policy Division of the Department of the Environment and it says in handwriting “Attached paper as agreed at a meeting with Mr. Howell”. It reads as follows—

1. 1. The constitution of the governing body and its affiliated club must be truly non-racial.
2. 2. The development policy of sport must be non-racial.
3. 3. Quality coaching must be available at all levels without regard to race or colour.
4. 4. Facilities and opportunities in clubs affiliated to the governing body are genuinely non-racial as shown, for example, in bars, toilet facilities and team selections at all levels.
5. 5. There is a complete absence of racial discrimination in the arrangements for spectators at sporting events.

That is what the British Government required in 1978. Therefore who can deny that very few of the objections raised in the passage of the Gleneagles Agreement that I have read today and by the British Government in 1977, still exist? They have been overtaken by time and they are no longer part of the dispute in this country. These legislative restrictions which caused offence are now gone or are on their way out. This was not to satisfy world opinion, but because the demise of those restrictions was correct. The overwhelming majority of sportsmen have moved far away from ethnic sport and have done and are doing virtually all that they can do to eliminate discrimination and to normalize their affairs.

Certainly I do not underestimate the political problems, but I do believe that the time has come for fairminded governments, and particularly the British, to take another look at genuine progress in this country. Great Britain alone cannot change the world, but it can play a decisive role in breaking the stranglehold with which international politics is trying to kill sport. If the Western World continues indefinitely to allow sport to be used as a political weapon, sport and international competition will die, not only for South Africa but also for the whole of the Free World. South Africa, in the field of sport, has been and is moving away from apartheid, and faster than anyone believed it would happen. The British Government today has a duty to recognize this and should fearlessly move to break the ominous trend of subjugating their sportsmen and sportsmen of the world to the slavery of international politics, to the slavery of ideologies which are hostile to all of us who belong to the West.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make a few remarks with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton. As far as the financing of sport is concerned, I agree with the hon. member’s remarks. The HSRC points out that insufficient money is being spent on the promotion of sport, and this statement is completely correct. We are aware that our amateur athletes have to incur heavy personal expenses to achieve the excellent results they do achieve for our country, and this is a subject which ought to be discussed. Nevertheless one has the ironic or heartbreaking situation that our athletes are presented with a T-shirt or a trophy as acknowledgement for their wonderful achievements at sports meetings. It is really very sad if one thinks about it.

As far as school sport is concerned, it is the Government’s responsibility to see that order is maintained. This is a premise which one cannot merely explain away at random. It remains a starting point which we should retain. It is not merely a decision which can be made across the floor of this House.

Don’t you trust your headmasters?

The hon. member put certain questions to the hon. the Minister in a good spirit, but sometimes the arrogance shone through, almost as if the hon. member wanted to lay down the law.

The hon. member also referred to the Gleneagles Agreement. I think it was Minister Munroe who signed the agreement on behalf of Britain at the time. Did Minister Munroe consult the British Parliament in his negotiations on the agreement? Did he consult the British sporting bodies before he signed the agreement? They were not consulted. It was therefore a decision which was forced on the British Government. However, other powers are now using the Gleneagles Agreement to get at South Africa. They are incorporating the Gleneagles Agreement into their politics, while they claim that they want to depoliticize sport. I think the hon. the Minister will be able to reply very confidently to the hon. member in respect of all spheres, inter alia, in respect of the various laws which have to be amended as well. The Government is constantly giving its attention to this matter.

I wish to dwell for a few moments on another area of our special education, viz. the education of the blind. Last year was the Year for the Handicapped Child with problems. The Pioneer School celebrated its hundredth anniversary last year and I think it would be fitting to concentrate on this task for a moment. Many blind people are talented people who do not seek sympathy or pity, but opportunities to make their contribution—in the full sense of the word—to our national life. I wish to concentrate for a moment on this area of the blind.

I wish to begin by thanking the department and the principal and staff of the Pioneer School, the previous principals, the pioneers of the school, as well as the pupils who completed their studies there and who qualified in various fields. Former pupils of the Pioneer School occupy positions throughout the length and breadth of our country. For example, there are blind piano tuners. In my particular area there is a man who has a contract with the Transvaal Education Department to tune pianos at music centres and he does excellent work. We wish to thank the organizations which are helping to provide funds for that school. I shall deal with funds in a moment. I also wish to thank those institutions which made contributions so that the activities at that school—not just the training, as there are other activities as well—could be carried out. We wish to thank a body such as the Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens which has opened a new area for the blind. They have built a path along which there is a rope, and at various points there are plaques in Braille which describe the different shrubs and flowers so that the blind can read them while walking through the garden. The blind are therefore afforded the opportunity of experiencing and enjoying a part of nature. We also think of the Natal Parks Board with appreciation—I think there are various other bodies as well—which take the blind to the parks on occasion. By the way, on one such occasion, the person in charge told us how, while the blind were relaxing around the braaivleis fire, their teacher, who is not blind stumbled over the root of a tree. However, the blind themselves did not stumble over that root. They knew that the root was there, but he stumbled over it. We are also greatly indebted to people like Miss Wood who originally established the library in Grahams-town which houses books for the blind. It was fitting, therefore, that the freedom of that city was conferred on her in the ’sixties.

I now wish to deal with the financial aspects of matters concerning the blind. In this regard, we have State grants. However, the school for the blind at Worcester is also responsible for the production of Braille and large-print books which are published, and for the tapes which are made for these people. However, it makes one shudder to look at the figures. The unit cost per child at that school in 1977 was R3 261. The unit cost at the end of 1981 was R5 363. This is an expensive undertaking. In 1977 the management spent an amount of R158 000 out of their own funds. In 1981 the management spent an amount of R310 500 out of their own funds. Therefore the management’s expenditure in this regard more than doubled from 1977 to 1981. In 1981 the management spent an amount of R87 000 out of their own funds on White salaries alone. When one considers the work which these people are doing, one feels that the State and the private sector should really make a larger contribution in order to further this cause. The library for the blind in Grahamstown contains Braille books in other languages besides Afrikaans and English. We should give this cause more assistance, but we need funds for this, and as I have said, we should call on the State and the private sector to assist these people.

Here I have two copies of Braille books. This is a copy of the Biblical book of Genesis in Braille. If one were to fit one’s Braille bible into a bookshelf—Braille books such as this—one would need to have a bookshelf of 15 metres or more on which to keep one’s bible. If one were to put these books on top of one another, they would fill a space in excess of one cubic metre. More effort has gone into this book than into a newspaper. This book is an example of tremendous pains, cost and dedication. There is also the question of proof-reading and editing, etc. Do hon. members have any idea what this book costs? This book costs 10 cents. I therefore ask with an untroubled heart and a clear conscience that we should assist these people, these people who merely seek to live a normal life. We can help them to do so.

There are people with talent who retire and who then while away their time with all kinds of organizations. Please give me a few more minutes, Sir. [Interjections.] We should help those people to realize how valuable they would be if they were to assist in making transcriptions, which is an expensive business. They could be trained to do that work, so that the blind can be cared for in all our communities and so that it will become possible for them to use their wonderful talents. These books also show the blind how to live a practical life. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, naturally one should like to associate oneself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Standerton. One also supports him fully in his appeals for a sympathetic approach in every possible respect towards assistance to handicapped persons in our country. After all, in many cases it is not their own fault that they find themselves in that position. It is therefore necessary that they should receive assistance. The greatest characteristic of a culture or civilization is that it shows concern for those people of its own accord. I can therefore associate myself with what the hon. member said.

I want to come back to a number of aspects, some of which I touched upon this morning and which I shall probably refer to again towards the end of my speech, but first of all I wish to deal with a few non-political aspects.

This morning I spoke of the amount allocated to the HSRC in respect of research. I am worried about the fact that the actual amount allocated for research is so small in comparison with the working and other capital expenditure. I realize and appreciate that progress has been made, but I believe that the success that South Africa will achieve in the technological and every other field will depend essentially on the amount we make available for research in South Africa. While it is easier to find money for research in the scientific and technological fields and not so easy to find money for research in the field of human sciences, it is my opinion that the Government and the State have a particular responsibility to see to it that sufficient money is made available to the universities and to researchers in this field.

The hon. the Minister spoke of the capital expenditure at these universities. I want to associate myself with the general feeling expressed here by the hon. member for Durban North that we shall, to an increasing extent, have to face problems associated with the levelling off in the number of White students at the universities. Although I certainly want to say that one appreciates the sympathetic way in which, in the past, the Government guaged the needs of the universities as far as capital expenditure on buildings and so on was concerned, I also want to say that in future it might be essential for the Government to pay attention to the most effective utilization of university buildings, hostels and other facilities and to pay particular attention to the considerations in favour of or against satellite campuses. In view of the duplication and especially the major capital expenditure which it entails, I think we shall have to look far more critically at the extension of universities to satellite campuses.

Another matter I should like to touch upon is the impression one gets that the difference between the salaries paid to lecturers and those paid to professors has diminished over the years. I think this is an unhealthy phenomenon. I believe that that gap should remain relatively large since it is important that we should be able to keep the best teachers at our universities. This can be done only by giving proper recognition to the highest of those ranks in the form of salaries. This will also prevent those people from defecting to private employers before their retirement. I am addressing a serious request in this regard, for in the final analysis the quality of the education at universities depends on the quality of the professors. So I am making an earnest request that consideration be given to widening the salary gap between the lecturers and professors.

So that we could have fewer professors in this House?

Inter alia, yes. [Interjections.] I believe the hon. the Minister was himself a university professor and now he is a Minister. If all professors accepted such posts it would undoubtedly offer compensation. [Interjections.]

In general I have the same impression as far as the salary gap between headmasters and inspectors are concerned. To my mind that gap, too, has become too narrow, but perhaps this matter does not fall directly under the hon. the Minister’s department.

I think we are all concerned about the high failure rate, and the hon. the Minister also referred to it. A great deal has been written and said about the cause of the high failure rate, especially among first-year students. I can only request that special attention be given to this matter. I also believe that to a large extent that high failure rate may be attributed to the kind of education our children receive at school. They cannot really cope with the academic tuitions. I should have liked to say more about this, but unfortunately my time is limited.

Before I come back to the political arena, there are two other minor points I should like to raise. Firstly, I think there is a great need for the internal exchange of lecturers between the various South African universities. I have often campaigned for this, without any success, but it seems to me that if we want to enable the South African universities to learn from one another, we should start with a proper process of exchanging lecturers within the country.

A last point I should like to make, deals with the reference in the report of the Universities Advisory Council to financial assistance to married couples, one of whom is studying at a university. As far as I can establish, the hon. the Minister has not yet reacted to it, and I should like to inquire whether he is still going to do this.

In the short time at my disposal I want to come back to aspects of a more political nature. The first point concerns the misuse of students and lecturers at universities for militant radical purposes and for interfering in labour affairs. Let me say at once that, just like the hon. the Minister, I expect that everybody should behave in a responsible way. Furthermore I think the criterium should be whether or not a person breaks the law. If a person does break the law, whether he is a student, a lecturer or whoever he may be, he should be punished. However, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can make such a general accusation as the one he made here this afternoon when he spoke of the misuse of classrooms, and so on. Did the hon. the Minister pertinently broach this subject with the Committee of University Principals? Did he tell them that these people were misusing the finances of the universities? Yet this is what he was implying here today. If the finances are being misused, it can, I believe, be ascribed to the control over universities. I am really not happy about the general accusation the hon. the Minister made in this connection today.

It was not nice!

If the hon. the Minister has complaints of this nature surely he knows which channels to use.

In conclusion I should like to come back to the question of the separate control structure of the universities. I want to say at once that neither the hon. the Minister nor the hon. member for Virginia, nor the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who said that it was premature to broach this subject now, replied to this point. We did not advocate compulsory integration here; not at school level, nor at university level.

There are none so unconvincible as those who do not wish to be convinced!

No, not a single argument advanced here this afternoon rejected the case in favour of a single control body in this field. I could also take it further by pointing out that the hon. member for Stilfontein, in his argument concerning parallel-medium schools, essentially refuted every objection raised here by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier touched on a variety of matters here this afternoon. I must admit that it is always a pleasure to listen to some of his appeals, when he speaks in a positive way, of course. The first part of his speech today was very positive. That was when he spoke about the utilization of buildings, salary parity, the high failure rate, the internal exchange of lecturers, etc. However, in the last part of his speech he spoke about certain misdemeanours, and the hon. member for Parktown even intimated to the hon. the Minister by way of an interjection that that was really not nice. However, I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister said. This is quite correct. In fact, the hon. the Minister could furnish proof which would shock hon. members. Hon. members of the Opposition have probably forgotten about the flag-burning incident which took place at the University of the Witwatersrand. The freedom granted to people is not always the most important issue. However, what is of importance is the way in which they use or abuse that freedom. The methods which people sometimes use are absolutely loathsome to the Government. People cannot be permitted to abuse facilities which have been paid for with State money. This would merely be another way of debasing the country. Apart from this, practices of this nature lead to negative publicity abroad for South Africa. I am sure that hon. members would be amazed if they knew what really happened on some university campuses. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg West referred to this.

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

No, I still have a very long speech to make, and time is short. Perhaps we could deal with the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s question at a later stage.

With the budget of R631,5 million which has to be approved this year for the Department of National Education, I think the hon. the Minister probably feels like a very rich man. He is not only rich because he has to make certain essential financial allocations but he is also very rich in the human material which this department works with. After all, we are dealing here with the department which aims at the development of the mental and spiritual potential of every White citizen. Furthermore, the department is concerned with the preservation of our cultural heritage, the promotion of the spiritual welfare of all race groups by means of sport and recreation, as well as the promotion of sport relations, the care of archive buildings and the rendering of a heraldry service. That is why we thank the hon. the Minister for everything which he is doing in the interests of South Africa. We are aware that he is an efficient man, and that he accomplishes a great deal.

Of course, we extend a warm welcome to the new Director General, Dr. P. S. Meyer. We know that he will fill the position of Dr. Van Wyk very well. In fact, he has already shown what he is capable of when he recently invited us to undertake a tour with him. Furthermore, we also welcome Mr. Marx, and we address a particular word of welcome to Mr. Jood Bodenstein, who is entrusted with the Sport Promotion branch.

The hon. member for Losberg yesterday referred to the dissipation of people at motor cycle rallies. This is a distressing matter to us all. These days young people are seeking ways in which they can steer their energies into the correct channels. They are adventurous, but unfortunately they live in an uncertain world, in which they are influenced by world affairs. Of course, it is true that South Africa is one of the focal points in the world today. In view of this, like last year, I wish to say a word or two about Kyalami. The Kyalami race track is being closed down for good in 1984. At the moment, they still have a sports car club there, and the Grand Prix race still takes place there, an event which is watched by at least 100 000 television viewers throughout the world. However, I am sure that the hon. the Minister or the new Director General will eventually solve the problems with regard to Kyalami for us as well.

In my day, we had mounted commandos. The hon. member for Winburg was telling us earlier how wild some of the horses were on which they rode as children. Afterwards, we had motor cycle corps. I, too, was a member of a cycle corps in my youth. I caused the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to be escorted by a motor cycle commando, and the hon. the Minister was very interested, as he said that he himself had ridden a motor cycle at one stage. Perhaps we should encourage those who take part in motor cycle races at Kyalami, and see whether we could not get them to take part in the sport at specific venues. I, too, had a hard time with my own son, who is also very adventurous. When he was still a minor, I simply had to give him a written indemnity so that he could race his motor-car at Kyalami. He has made such progress in that field, that he gained first place in one of the races at Kyalami last Saturday.

Hear, hear!

It gives one satisfaction to see such adventurousness being steered in a particular direction. When young people visit my home, they do not talk about the blue bulls who play rugby, but rather about the blue bulls who race at Kyalami. These are the times we are living in!

That is why I wish to refer particularly to the HSRC’s investigation into sport. I hope that the needs of the young people who do not take part in ordinary sport will benefit by this and that there will be more contact between sporting bodies and the department, as well as co-ordination between sports stadiums, so that the Asians, the Coloureds and the Black people will eventually make use of the best sports stadiums in their own way. That is why I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister. What progress has been made with the planning of the site near Uncle Charlie’s, where the new sports stadium is being planned? Is the private sector also being involved with the erection of the soccer stadium, as in the case of the new Ellis Park rugby stadium? Of course, there were large scale riots at the Rand stadium, and one would like to see the 270 hectares which were bought by the Government for the new sports grounds for an amount of R13 million, being used to solve all these problems. I also hope that there will be no delay in making the Milner Park area available to the university of the Witwatersrand, and that it will be possible to move the agricultural show to this new area, so that we will eventually have an international display window for our products there. In these times it is necessary for us to have a large display window there. These three components, the soccer stadium, the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society and the University of the Witwatersrand, are interdependent on one another. Therefore we hope that progress will be made with this matter.

I should also like to refer to the National Monuments Council and I should like to praise that council for the work it is doing. I have had many dealings with that council, as I am a member of the Johannesburg Natural History Council. We succeeded in first having the Melville Koppies declared a reserve, and later a national monument. We are very gratified for the work which is being done in this regard. Today there are 1 500 declared monuments, but there are still approximately 40 000 buildings and sites which should come into consideration for proclamation. The problem is that the council does not have the necessary staff to deal with all these matters. The restoration of the historical buildings on the three farms at Daljosafat near Paarl cost R50 000. We are very pleased about the 126 buildings and areas which were proclaimed monuments last year, but there is a tremendous shortage of funds. There is a total budget of R612 000, while an annual amount of R3,5 million is needed. I wonder whether those hon. members would not like to follow our example and make donations so that eventually we could have more of these buildings declared national monuments. Many of these historic buildings are being lost to posterity these days because local authorities cannot be persuaded to do something in this regard. Historic buildings are being demolished because there are no funds available. Historic buildings are falling into disuse. However, Government departments are not bound by the National Monuments Act. Should the Government departments not advise the National Monuments Council on historical buildings? Could the council’s position in the Public Service, after the year of rationalization since 1981, as well as the allocation of more financial support, not be reconsidered? This is a cultural organization which falls under the protection of the Department of National Education. There is an urgent need for direct communication with the department, and the question is whether the municipalities, the provincial and central authorities should not co-operate more closely with the council. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Rossettenville for what he said in the latter part of his speech. I shall comment on other things he said as I go along. In any event, I want to take the opportunity of congratulating him on his son’s victory at Kyalami. I just want to tell him that I am glad I am not a member of a family in which there are racing drivers. I am afraid that I do not like that kind of sport.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the sound elucidation and thorough grounding he gave us this morning with regard to the question which the PFP has raised repeatedly in the House, namely the question of separate educational departments or structures. However, in my view there still remains one deficiency as regards the question of the co-ordinating structure which the hon. the Minister discussed and which was also mentioned in the concise report. As I see it, it deals specifically with the form this structure will take. I am of the opinion that, as regards its form, several possible matrixes for this co-ordinating structure exist. I brought an idea, which I heard about, to the attention of the hon. the Minister in private, the idea of a single ministry of education charged with a macro-educational policy which has to be formulated. Personally I am of the opinion that the Minister is disinclined to accept this type of system. He is probably also disinclined to accept the idea of one department of education. However, in an effort to make a contribution in this regard, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot give serious consideration to the possibility of a statutory council or possibly an interdepartmental committee. I also want to raise the idea of an expanded committee of heads of education. We already have the Committee of Heads of Education that is concerned with White education. This body can possibly be extended to become the co-ordinating body which would then consult with the various departments of education of the various peoples and could then go ahead with the co-ordinating task.

I want to go further by associating myself with the hon. member for Rosettenville who raised the question of museums. He referred more specifically to the conservation of buildings, but I am more interested in the detailed museum report which was made available and for which I want to thank the department. However, I still have one problem in this regard. There are advantages to every local authority trying to establish a museum, while the province as well as the central government, more specifically this department, are charged with museum affairs. However, in connection with the question of financing, museums are suffering heavy losses. It is a fact that for the most part, local authorities do not have money to erect a decent building or to appoint a curator and research personnel for example. It is also a fact that the funds that the provinces, in view of the limited funds that are made available to them, are able to earmark for museums are so minimal that they find it difficult to cope with the museum service which they themselves render, and also have very little money left over to make funds available to the affiliated local museums. Funds are being made available, but the amount is usually so minimal that not much can be done, especially in the times in which we are living.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister can now tell us about the progress made by the National Advisory Committee for Museums with the work they have been doing during the year or so this committee has been functioning. I am of the opinion that this committee can provide a very important co-ordinating service between the State, the provinces and the local authorities. I also think that this committee can help to ensure that better co-ordination is established between these three levels of Government services that render museum services. The one problem is that we are struggling to exhibit all the items we get. It is a fact that one cannot exhibit all those thousands of items, but there are very important pieces which were discovered and which are being preserved, items worth exhibiting which we would very much like to show to the public. However, space is a problem, and money to provide the space is an even greater problem. That is why I am of the opinion that the National Advisory Committee for Museums could perhaps think along the lines of trying to establish whether methods cannot be found whereby more funds for the provinces as well as for the local authorities can be made available through the Department of National Education. I know that the hon. the Minister can immediately say that it is not the function of his department to subsidize the local authorities and the provinces, but to me the matter is so important that I wonder if a way cannot be found whereby this matter can be promoted. When we can look at many of these places where those items which cannot be exhibited are being preserved it is apparent that they leave much to be desired. Some of these items are being preserved in buildings which are really so bad that we can suffer great losses through fire or something of that nature. Many of these items are absolutely irreplaceable in our time and many of those pieces cannot be bought at any price. It is a fact that antiques do have a black market price today and that prices are always being pushed up, in spite of the bit of fun which was poked at antiques and the buying of antiques on television last night. The prices paid for these antiques are absolutely extravagant and in many cases the value of this stuff is worth more than the money in any event. If these antiques in their storage places should be damaged, I am afraid that it would be an absolutely irrecoverable loss. That is why I ask whether more attention should not be given to strengthening and improving these storage places so that these items can be more safely preserved while they cannot be displayed.

It is also a fact that in the main we convert old historical buildings into museums. Perhaps it is well that in this regard one kills two birds with one stone, namely that you can save the building as an historical entity and that one therefore maintains it as a museum in this way, and at the same time one also uses it as a museum. Many of these old buildings that we use were not originally built to eventually serve as museums. They are unsatisfactory in that they cannot function as a scientific showcase for antiques. Therefore we shall gradually have to get away from the practice of rigging up old buildings as museums. We should rather erect buildings which really comply with the requirements set by the museum services and museums.

Then I think it is also very important that we should gradually develop further. Last year I just touched on it in a certain debate, but today I want to take it a little further, namely that we should to an increasing extent convert our museums from a static museum—a showcase—to an activity museum, a place where people can participate with regard to those things which are worth preserving and can learn and cultivate certain customs there. I am convinced that we can in this way engender much more interest in museums. The open-air museums are a step in this direction. We can make museums far more educational, and turn them into a much bigger tourist attraction if we move in the direction of activity museums. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I recently had the privilege of visiting a reform school. I did it for the reason that so many of us do not have the time to get acquainted with these members of society and, alternatively, a lot of us prefer not to be acquainted with these members of society.

I must at the outset say that when I left that institution I had a feeling of gratitude. I was grateful to my parents and for the environment in which I was brought up. It was only then that I realized how true the saying is: There but for the grace of God go I. It is not necessary for me to expound on the type of pupils who are in that school. They are children and young adults who have made mistakes. Hopefully, with the right type of treatment and patience and understanding they should, in most cases, become useful citizens of this country. It is of course understood that because it is the type of school it is, there has to be a 24-hour per day surveillance over this type of pupil. That being the case it is extremely important to understand that these pupils should be looked after by a special type of person. When I talk about a special type of person, I mean somebody who is understanding, sympathetic, patient and who, above all, believes that he is rendering a service to what I would call “the less privileged of our community”. In this regard I must pay great tribute to the principal who impressed me as being such a person. Not only that, but he was striving to obtain at all levels the right type of person to supervise and teach these children. It cannot be denied that if we can employ the particular type of person whom I have mentioned, the rate of success of this type of institution can only be higher with the net result that this must be a greater benefit to the inmate as well as to the community.

Having said that, I think we must look at the position as it is today and the difficulties which this type of school is working under. First of all, what is the position of the remedial reacher? Remedial teachers are in very short supply and even when they are qualified I do not believe they are getting their just financial rewards for the extra studies they have put into their careers and in the light of the difficult type of work they have to do from day to day.

I come now to the teachers at these schools. Because of the nature of the establishment they have to put in an enormous amount of work by way of extramural activities. As I said earlier, these children are supervised 24 hours a day, and if the teacher is the right type of person he takes an interst not only in the school but also in the pupils. For that reason he puts in that extra amount of after-hour work. However, what is his reward for his endeavours? I believe he is not getting a reasonable reward. I also believe he should be given preferential treatment not only as far as salaries are concerned but also as far as accommodation in the vicinity of the relevant establishment is concerned. There was a time when these teachers were given an extra notch but this, I believe, has been taken away from them.

Let us look at the position of the supervisors. The type of person required here must be a kind and patient person who must be able to exercise discipline. However, one finds that the minimum age of a supervisor is laid down as 36 years and the salary, if I am correct, is approximately R350 per month. I ask you, at that salary and without reflecting upon the present incumbents, are we attracting the type of person who can give these children the type of supervision and guidance they require?

What is the position of the hostel father? There are two hostel fathers per hostel and they receive a minimal amount—and I mean minimal—over and above their normal salaries for each additional second day of overtime duty they do. When one looks at the technikons and the rate that is paid to the teachers there in respect of overtime—I believe it is R10 per hour—and then one looks at what is happening in the reform schools I believe an injustice is being done. I say that it is an injustice because with the best will in the world one cannot compare the overtime paid to a teacher at a technikon with the pittance paid to these teachers who are so involved in the type of school I am discussing. I believe that this is a case where we need a greater sense of responsibility to the community, where there is a particular type of person who is required and for these reasons alone we should certainly pay a higher salary in respect of the posts pertaining to these institutions. I doubt whether the other teachers would object to this because, after all, taking everything into consideration, I do not see how they can object. After all, we are hopefully trying to rehabilitate these boys or girls, as the case may be, and in order to do so I believe we should try to attract the best possible staff to achieve this end. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter and to reassess the salaries paid to these people who work in these institutions. For every failure to rehabilitate we know what it costs the State in the long run. I do not have to tell hon. members about this. Can we afford not to pay an above average salary to attract and obtain better equipped personnel for these institutions?

I want to conclude with the words of Chris Bennet who said—

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon. member for South Coast, but he will forgive me for not reacting now to what he said.

I should like to say a few words regarding what the hon. member for Meyerton had to say. The hon. member for Meyerton referred here on a previous occasion to a “national movement”. As I see it, it is a movement together with the HNP and the other small groups. I had always considered the hon. member for Meyerton to be an honest fellow. As he is now referring to a national movement, I feel he should be honest enough to resign so that we can see what the result of a by-election would be.

The hon. member also made the arrogant statement that the Afrikaans teachers and Ministers were solidly behind the CP. On Monday we, too, held a meeting in Rustenburg—it was on invitation—to which we invited all the teachers in Rustenburg—there are over 500 of them. We did not select people to invite to that meeting. I understand there is another such meeting in Pretoria and I should like to know if all the heads of schools and heads of departments were invited to that meeting. The hon. the Minister addressed our meeting in Rustenburg last Monday and I want to tell the hon. member for Meyerton that the teachers prefer this direct and honest language to the distortions of the CP. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a few matters …

There are going to be court cases.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen should rather keep quiet, because his voters support this side of the House. He owes them something. [Interjections.] He had better carry on with his court cases.

In terms of the legislation in question, the Department of National Education is responsible inter alia for special education and the preservation of the cultural and historic heritage, and in this connection I want to refer briefly to two institutions.

I refer, in the first place, to the Werda School at Rustenburg, which is a Children’s Act School. Before asking for better facilities I want to start off by saying that I understand that there is an acute shortage of funds. I also understand the possibility that there may be a greater need for buildings and improvements to buildings elsewhere. When we refer to children in Children’s Act schools, we are talking about people with special needs and unique problems, and when we speak of their teachers, we are speaking of people whom we should take off our hats to. The children and the teachers sometimes have to live and work under very trying conditions, the teacher’s task here is not merely one of education, but also one of remoulding and even totally reforming people. If we want to succeed in cultivating pride in the hearts of people in whose short lives things have not gone well, then the place where they live and are taught must be such that they can be proud of it.

We dare not allow poor planning—for example, a study hall not properly separated from the dining hall or kitchen—to make education difficult. Surely it is not right that the facilities of a resident teacher do not come up to reasonable standards but fail to appear on a list of works year after year, owing to a shortage of funds. I believe a strong case can be made up for the provision of residential facilities for teachers on the premises of such schools.

I know that the hon. the Minister listens to representations concerning the needs of these specific schools, and I believe that through his department stronger representations can be addressed to the Department of Community Development, which erects these buildings and is responsible for the improvements that must be effected.

In the second place, I refer to the National Cultural History Museum in Pretoria, on the basis of information I obtained. The main building in which the museum is housed was built in 1904 and is in a very poor condition at the moment. In addition, the space is totally inadequate, so much so that only 12% of the material at the disposal of that museum can be exhibited. The rest is stored in seven storage spaces in and around Pretoria, inter alia, in sheds at Fontuinedal, in Visagie Street and in the basement of the amphitheatre of the Voortrekker Monument Museum. Not only does this cause transport and administrative problems; in addition, the storage places were not built for the purposes for which the museum is using them, and they are also impractical as regards security and the control of dust, temperature and moisture. It is definitely an unsatisfactory situation.

I want to ask that serious consideration be given to the idea of a Kruger Square. With the Kruger House in Church Street West, Pretoria, and the Kruger Church Building directly opposite it, these two cultural components lend themselves pre-eminently to the developments of the cultural square on the two premises on which these buildings stand. This is an exciting commission for the cultural historian and the architect—not only to create the space within which valuable material can be kept and exhibited, but also to develop a cultural area west of Church Square, instead of seeing that Kruger House disappear in the shadow of office blocks. We dare not allow encroachment of this nature, and after all, examples of this are by no means unheard-of. It is of interest that on the same piece of ground just east of the Kruger House, there is a very interesting building, the old Bantu Administration Building. This building is ideally suited for use as a museum for Black cultures.

There are other things besides self-determination and identity which every nation or group has the right to protect. The cultural historical heritage is an indissoluble part of this; it is part of a jigsaw puzzle we want to collect, piece together and preserve. However, we do not want to keep it in stores and cellars, but in places where people for whom a heritage already means something, can look at it, whereas to others it can serve as evidence that there are beautiful and good things in history which ought to be preserved.

In asking for better facilities for the school at Rustenburg and other schools, and also for the development of the Kruger Square, I am not making an irresponsible plea for unnecessary luxuries; I am making a plea for things which are worthwhile asking for. Inadequate facilities must not be allowed to handicap teachers who are already performing a difficult task in moulding their fellow man, and inadequate preservation and exhibition facilities must not be the reason why people are denied the opportunity of seeing and experiencing what history is.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate more than once in this discussion. I should very much like information from the hon. the Minister in connection with a few matters referred to in the annual report.

In the first place I want to ask a question regarding the possible shifting of the veterinary sciences faculty of the University of Pretoria. I want to know if a final decision has been reached in this connection and if so, what the decision is. It is general knowledge that this faculty meets a tremendous need in South Africa. There is a tremendous need not only among Whites, but also to an increasing extent among Blacks—particularly as a result of the establishment of the national States—for the training of veterinarians. I feel that this could form an important part of the service South Africa can provide to the national States, and I should like to know what the most recent developments in this connection are.

A second issue that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister concerns details of the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. Obviously this is an important fund which can make a tremendous contribution towards helping students who do not get high enough marks to gain loans and bursaries. However, I am sure it is disappointing to all of us that in spite of the concessions made in terms of the Income Tax Act, there are so few contributions from private bodies. The report reflects the balance in the fund as being only R15 805, whereas this year’s budget makes provision for an additional amount of R200 000. The fact of the matter is that 22 bodies with a total enrolment of more than 100 000 students benefit from this scheme, and since there are a number of students who cannot be considered for loans, I wonder if the voted amount of R200 000 is not totally inadequate. In addition, I should also like to know whether the department has made or intends to make a special effort to bring this matter to the attention of businessmen and enterprises in South Africa once again. I really find it rather shocking to think that according to the list given in the department’s annual report, it would seem that donations were only received from about 90 bodies. The amounts donated, too, was very small. It seems to me that a special effort will have to be made to involve private bodies to a far greater extent in this regard than has been the case thus far. After all, we all know that private bodies throughout the country are also being bombarded with requests for donations by the universities, because such donations in fact form an important part of the free income of universities. Accordingly, in view of all the other appeals to private bodies to make contributions nowadays, it is only to be expected that they are perhaps hesitant, or even find it difficult to accede to all the appeals made to them. However, I believe that this is such a deserving cause that through a proper liaison—and I do not know whether the department is properly organized to undertake this at the moment—a large number of bodies could probably be involved, and as a result a large amount could be obtained for this purpose. I believe this is a matter that is close to all our hearts and I should like to know what the hon. the Minister is planning to do in this connection.

A further matter I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister concerns the question of bursaries and loans for postgraduate study in particular. It involves the Queen Victoria stipendia and the other national stipendia. The amounts made available this year, are R8 000 for the Queen Victoria stipend and R112 000 for the national stipendia. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that, particularly as this amount can also be used for postgraduate studies overseas, it would seem to be a totally inadequate sum. I feel it is totally unrealistic to suggest that a student who is in any way needy, could get by with R4 000—as is the case with the Queen Victoria stipendia—when he must, for example, pay residence fees while studying overseas. In view of the contribution made in the past by overseas universities with regard to the training of our people it seems to me that a strong case could be made out for this amount, and the amount per student, to be increased considerably.

There is a further aspect I should like to touch on, which to a great extent fall outside the scope of the report, and, to a great extent, outside the scope of what have up to now been regarded as the normal activities of the department. I refer to the availability of an institution in the nature of the Aspen Institute in Colorado. That institute is actually a house which was converted in such a way that it could provide limited residential accommodation for a maximum of about 30 or 40 people. It has a well-stocked library and is constantly in use. There are also facilities for larger gatherings. It seems to me that there is a specific need for a permanent institution of this nature in South Africa. After all, we are constantly arranging symposia, conferences, etc., for which all manner of bodies are used, for example universities, hotels and the like. However, I am not referring to the kind of arrangement which must be made ad hoc. As the hon. the Minister probably knows, the institute in Colorado is a permanent institute, and throughout the year there are always smaller and larger groups of people meeting there and holding in-depth discussions on problems of not only national importance—involving the USA—but also international importance.

If we were to establish a similar conference centre in South Africa, a standing institution to which, in the first place, South Africans could be invited to hold rational in-depth discussions for a few weeks—or even a few days if necessary—on some of the real problems confronting us, I believe it would be of tremendous use. If we can also invite persons from abroad to discuss international matters, in my opinion we shall have created something here which could in fact make a tremendous contribution to our entire handling of the situation in South Africa, and to the role South Africa could play in foreign relations. I therefore want to suggest that the hon. the Minister consider the possibility of establishing a similar institution in South Africa. As far as my knowledge of the Aspen Institute goes—and it is not the only institute of this kind in America—a tremendous advantage of such an institute is that it also serves as a place where people from all over the world can meet and exchange their most penetrating ideas on matters affecting various people.

I feel the hon. the Minister can make a contribution in this connection and he can in fact establish something which would be a monument to him in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss the present crisis in connection with computer scientists and systems analysts. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Uitenhage said and also to a certain extent with the hon. member for Durban North who discussed the importance of television in training. We have a real crisis in this country because in many of our industries up to 50% of the posts for people trained in this field are vacant. We are too inclined to think the training of computer scientists involves university training or, more recently, technikon training. I think we have reached the stage where we must give the training of computer scientists its rightful place and allow it to be offered as a subject at our schools. At present it is being offered at certain schools. If one has enough money and can pay more, one’s child can take computer science as an additional subject. However, we still approach computer science all too frequently from a purely academic viewpoint. It is felt that if a student does not at least have Mathematics I, II and III he has no chance of making a success of computer science. However, we must realize that computer science is a language like English or Afrikaans. It is a language we are going to have to use to an increasing extent.

To a certain extent I am an admirer of the Japanese. I happened to come across a document issued by their Ministry of International Trade and Industry. In this document they spell out their plans for the ’eighties. In the ’sixties the Japanese already took cognizance of the problem we are now facing and began to give serious attention to training their young people in computer science. At present the Japanese are rapidly overtaking the Western World in all spheres of the computer industry, computer science and the use of computers in training. What is most interesting is that one of their aims for the ’eighties is described as moving “Towards a technology-based nation”. If one takes a look at what they understand by this one reads the following—

1. (a) Knowledge-intensive production systems equipped with micro-computers, and upgraded resource-saving and energy-saving technologies.
2. (b) Innovative technologies such as new materials, optical communication, VLSI (very large scale integrated circuit) and laser beam technology.

Reference is also made to “The next-generation technology”, about which, inter alia, the following is said—

It is interesting, that these are some of the main objectives of the Japanese Government for the ’eighties. They then go on to apply it in practice. They spell it out. They say they will first introduce computers in their basic industries where they are going to use them for control processes, production processes and quality control. Then they are going to use computers in the development of new materials and to supply information in service industries. It is spelt out step by step where the computer is going to take over. Sometimes we feel that the moment computerization takes place, unskilled and semiskilled workers and workers in the tertiary sector, for whom there is no other place, will be displaced. The Japanese do not see it like that. They see the computer as one of the basic instruments for employment in future

If one analyses how they began with computerization in the early sixties it is interesting to see that they also began with a series of 5-year training plans. There was one 5-year plan after another. Computer science was treated like a language and not like a natural science object. At first it was offered at technical schools, but recently it has begun to filter through to secondary schools. At present there is a campaign under way in Japan to make computer science available as a field of study to the general public (adult education). They say the man in the street must begin to understand the language of computer science.

It is very interesting that this development took place not only in Japan. Two years ago France also decided to move in this direction. In recent months the French Government has ordered more than 4 000 computers for schools. They intend to have one computer available for every five pupils.

One can see that these countries are planning for the future. Let us consider the position in South Africa. I hear there are schools which are buying computers. However, a large school buys only one computer. What then happens is that a teacher takes it home and plays with it because the children are tired of it. We must remember that this is a matter of the utmost urgency for South Africa. I want to repeat that at least 50% of the posts in this field are vacant at the moment. We also know that the Post Office is now introducing the Beltel and Telbank systems. These and similar systems involving the telephone and television bring computers into our homes. We are going to need people for this. In the De Lange report attention is given to mathematics and natural science, but computer science is not emphasized. Perhaps we should see training in computer science as part of educational technology. The first question one can ask is where we are going to find teachers to train the necessary people. There the computer is the answer. Today it is possible to train a child with the help of a computer programme in a basic computer language so that he can use that language. One does not need a teacher for that. We have programmed training for that.

Let us consider the position of educational technology in South Africa. In this connection I want to refer again to the De Lange report. One becomes worried when one sees what it says about the present position of educational technology in this country. On page 51 of the report one reads—

1. 1. At present no co-ordinated planning, control or organization of educational technology exists in the RSA …
2. 2. A further deficiency in the RSA as far as educational technology is concerned is the fact that no central clearing house exists for the dissemination of information on the hardware and software available in this field …
3. 3. Owing to the lack of an infrastructure for educational technology in the RSA, it does not play the significant role in curriculum development which it should.
4. 4. A further problem is the fact that the training of specialists in the field of educational technology and of those concerned with the planning and erection of physical facilities within which education technology should function is inadequate.

Our universities are waking up. The University of the Western Cape is at present engaged in its Plato programme which is proving to be relatively successful. We must also give them the necessary encouragement. However, it is no use starting with the computer at university level. Then we shall succeed in preparing this country for the future. I began by saying that we were too inclined to think that one needs mathematics. I know of experiments and training programmes by IBM which include people of all races and of different backgrounds. They have already been relatively successful in training people from different backgrounds—what we would call people with lack of quantitative directions. It is going to take time to implement all the recommendations of the De Lange report, but we cannot wait to start with a 5-year plan, almost a crisis plan, by firstly developing the subject of computer science correctly and then taking it back to the schools. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one thinks of the Australian film subsidy system, we shall have to concede that we certainly would not receive a terribly high subsidy on the basis of our box office takings, but I hope that on the strength of the performance here today, we shall be able to convey the image of what we are building here to the public just as well as Australia did, according to the system which the hon. member for Pinelands erroneously advocated here during the duscussion of this Vote.

First of all I want to refer to the immediately preceding speakers and convey my very great appreciation to the hon. member Dr. Marais and also the hon. member for Uitenhage for emphasizing the importance of computer science as such, of the use of the computer in an educational context, as a teaching aid, and particularly for the important point which the hon. member Dr. Marais made, viz. that we should inculcate a computer culture among our people. We must break through that “sound barrier” between the human being and the computer by making the child accustomed from a young age to the computer so that when he grows up he accepts the computer as an integral part of his environment. I think it is an important point which he emphasized from the Japanese experience. It is true that computer science is at present only being offered to selected pupils in the Cape and Transvaal as an extra, or seventh subject at school, and also in the technical colleges of my own department. However, it is gratifying to mention here that at the most recent meeting the Committee of Heads of Education, the possibility of taking computer science as one of the prescribed six subjects for the matriculation course was approved, which I think is a very good recognition of this subject. As more facilities become available, it will also be possible to offer the subject at a larger number of centres in more schools. It appears from this that there is a strong awareness among educational authorities of the importance of this matter. I also wish to emphasize again what I said with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban North on television in education, and that was that an interdepartmental committee known as NCET, the National Committee on Educational Technology, is in fact working on this matter. However, I wish to inform hon. members once again that Prof. De Lange, as chairman of the educational task group, had this task entrusted to him, a task which in my opinion is one of the most urgent priorities, and was asked to ask his task group to make urgent recommendations on the entire question of computer training, computer science, educational technology and television in the field of education. The hon. members who discussed this matter—and I do not want to go into too much detail now—correctly pointed out that there should be guidelines and indications of policy so that the phasing in of these important aids can take in an economically justified way, so that there is no irreconcileability between systems and so that we do not import hardware from abroad at great expense—or even software—which subsequently turns out to be unusable in our specific context. In this connection we have gained very valuable experience at the University of the Western Cape, where specific programmes for adult education were imported from abroad with a view of promoting basic literacy among communities that had lagged behind, but where it was also established experimentally how drastic the adaptation of that material had to be to make it usable in the South African context, against the cultural background of the people in this country. What was interesting about what they found was that a person cannot simply design one standard South African pattern in this adaptation, but that one has to keep on making an adjustment for various population groups with different cultural contexts. I want to assure hon. members that this matter will continue to receive my attention in future, and the attention of my department, and I hope to report later in concrete terms—I hope it will be in the Government White Paper on the De Lange report—on further steps which are being taken in this connection.

†Mr. Chairman, it is now perhaps the appropriate stage to move to the second leg of our debate, namely the field of sport, a field which was not very generously treated in terms of the number of participants. However, I should like to pay attention to the large number of questions which the hon. member for Sandton put to me, and try to reply to some of them.

*To tell the truth, if one thinks of how many questions the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member Prof. Olivier are able to ask in the space of 10 minutes, one needs about an hour in any case to reply to all those questions of theirs.

Firstly, I want to deal with the HSRC investigation into sport. In this connection, it is a pleasure for me to refer to the fact that my predecessor, Mr. Janson, requested the HSRC in November 1979 to institute a comprehensive investigation into sport in the RSA. The HSRC sport investigation commenced on 1 January 1980 and will come to an end soon, on 30 June 1982. As far as we know, this is one of the largest sport investigations ever attempted in the world, and definitely the most comprehensive single investigation into sport in South Africa. This is apparent, for example, from the fact that the total report—almost like the De Lange report—comprises 20 volumes, including a main, condensed volume.

I hope it is in both languages.

Hon. members who cannot read all that material, may consequently read only the one volume. The survey reached a total of more than 35 000 target points, where information was sought, and a total of more than 81 000 individual questionnaires were sent out. More than 250 people participated actively in the investigation, inter alia as members of the 16 committees. This is in addition to the thousands of people who completed questionnaires or who helped to collect the information needed to complete the questionnaires. This comprehensive and clinical investigation, under the guidance of Prof. G. E. L. Scholtz of the Potchefstroom University, was completed in only 30 months. The department made an amount of R322 000 available to the HSRC to cover the research costs. The hon. member for Sandton has already referred to the interim report of the Legal Committee, which appeared in September 1980, and dealt with certain legislation which has a restrictive effect on the autonomy of sports bodies. Steps have already been taken in this connection, and I shall return to this matter in a moment. First I should just like to deal with the matter in general, with reference to certain questions which the hon. member for Sandton put to me on some of the laws that have not yet been scrutinized.

Although the investigation has not yet been finalized, and the report has not yet been submitted to me either, I did glean a few interesting particulars from talks with the investigating team, from which it was very clearly apparent that the Government did a sensible thing at the time to institute the investigation. With the permission of the chief researcher, I wish to mention a few of these particulars. They found that at the level of sport administration and management there were serious bottlenecks on all levels of sport administration in the country. Particularly in the present macro-structure, as it is called—in other words, in the national or umbrella bodies for the respective sports—a large-scale duplication of functions was identified, which leads to inadequacy and disparity in meeting the needs of sport, and a rationalization of the existing umbrella bodies is therefore very definitely needed. It is also pointed out that relatively little progress has been made with the optimum and multipurpose utilization of existing sports facilities, something which gives rise to a constant escalation in the need for sports facilities. The hon. member also referred to this aspect.

In the report almost astronomical and I think very idealistic calculations are made on what the ideal situation would be when it comes to the provision of sports facilities at schools, at sports clubs and for provincial sporting bodies, and they calculate a total amount of R1 400 million as the amount which will be necessary for this purpose. I think this is a very idealistic and generously made calculation.

The report also points out that sport has become a huge industry, a business undertaking with an annual gross turnover of approximately R571 million which is spent on sport. It is calculated that the private individual—i.e. the sportsman or the spectator—spends 48,5%; the sports bodies themselves, 18,3%; the private sector, 15,7%; the government sector, 15,6%—this is considerably more than is provided for in our estimates; we are only one component of the government sector—and the educational institutions, 2,2%. What caught my eye here was the relatively low contribution on the part of the educational institutions. The contribution made by the Central Government is only 5%, while the total contribution of the government sector is 15,6%.

In spite of the enthusiasm South Africans feel for sport, the report finds that it would appear that financially speaking, a relatively low level of priority is allocated to sport, so that serious financial problems occur among most sporting bodies on all three administrative levels, and it would appear that many particulars in this regard are furnished in the report.

By means of a country-wide survey, the investigation also assessed attitudes among the South African population towards so called open sport—that is, sport which has been thrown open to participation by all population groups—and found that there was a relatively general acceptance of open sport on the national and provincial level, but at club level and particularly at school level it was found that this matter has to be treated with great circumspection, for it appears that in respect of these two points, strong differences of opinion exist among, and within, the various population groups.

Moreover, a strong need was identified on all levels of sport administration for the provision of more coaching, and also a need for the training of sports administrators. These are two fields to which the department has already given its attention recently, within the limits of its means.

It is interesting that participation by the South African population in sport, according to the 1980 census, appears to be considerably less comprehensive than we would perhaps expect in general from this sport-loving population of ours. It also appears that participation in sport is related to the general level of socio-economic development of the community. The percentage participation in competitive sport per population group is, among the Asiatics, 5,3%; among the Whites, 12%; among the Coloureds, 2,4%; and among the Blacks, 1,9%. The percentage participation in recreational sport is, among the Asiatics, 23,6%; among the Whites, 32,4%; among the Coloureds, only 8,1%; and among the Blacks, 7,6%. The general picture definitely does not compare favourably with the situation in other developed countries, but is in fact very favourable in comparison with the situation in undeveloped or less developed countries. It is therefore very clear that as the economic position of people improves, their active interest in sport increases. In my opinion, the nature of people’s work involvement has a direct bearing on their active interest in sport. It is clear that people who do hard manual labour actually find physical recreation, to put it in that way, in their work, and that it is in fact people with more sedentary types of employment who have a greater need for sport and recreation.

The department as well as sportsmen and sportswomen in our country are now looking forward with great interest to the findings and recommendations of the main committee of the HSRC investigation. I can state that the reports as well as the condensed report will be submitted to me on Thursday, 3 June. Two reports of a more technical nature will be submitted later. My impression of the sports report is that, like the educational report, it is a blueprint for a fine future and the improvement of the quality of life of all the inhabitants of South Africa. As soon as possible after receiving the report, the Government will decide on its release, either with or without comment on the part of the Government.

I should also like to comment on the role of the South African Council of Sports, Sacos, in this connection. In spite of constant personal liaison by the leader of this investigation in an effort to involve all sporting elements, including the anti-Government and nonco-operative groups joined together in Sacos, Sacos recalcitrantly refused point blank to participate in the investigation. This negative conduct on the part of Sacos in respect of an objective, scientific investigation in which a sincere attempt is being made to obtain the unbiased opinions of everyone, in order to do justice to South African sports matters, causes one to doubt afresh the bona fides of this organization which is constantly proclaiming to the outside world that it is doing its best for various causes, such as giving effect to the provisions of the constitution of the IOC and other international sports control bodies to prevent and eliminate discrimination among sportsmen and sportswomen which is based on race, colour, creed or politics. It is a pity that Sacos adopted this approach, and I trust that it will have the courage to justify its conduct to its followers. It is ironic that it is in fact those which Sacos claims support it which appear to have a need for a reinforcement and an improvement of the infrastructure in sport, as investigated in this report. These people have now been prevented, as a result of Sacos’s actions, from making a meaningful contribution to the investigation which will give the decision-makers and policy-makers a definite indication of the magnitude of the problems, and will also contain suggestions on the way in which assistance may be rendered and the deficiencies and shortcomings rectified.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton asked me about the progress being made in connection with the Crown Mines project. The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the so-called Uncle Charlie’s project, as he called it. I should like to inform this Committee that the working group under the chairmanship of Mr. C. Skeen which was set up by the Government and which comprises representatives of the relevant Government departments, Wits University, the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society, the Johannesburg municipality and other interested bodies, including the sponsors of professional soccer, had worked very hard this past year. They have had to overcome some quite considerable difficulties to achieve two goals. First of all, they had to define a structure for either a non-profit-making company or a foundation which would have the responsibility of setting up these facilities, taking charge of them and making them available to the various participating parties. Secondly, they had to work out a feasible financing project which would ensure that there could be compliance with the request of the hon. the Minister of Finance that the Government should have the assurance that whatever was invested in this project in the way of Government money should, in so far as the project was profitable, be repaid, at least to some extent, to the taxpayer. I had hoped that the report on this matter would be ready by the beginning of this year but, after discussion with the leaders of the working group, we felt that further investigation had to take place. I have recently learnt that the report is with the department and the department is seeking the comments of the other interested Government departments. I hope to be able to take this matter up further with the Government in the foreseeable future.

I want to emphasize the fact that I personally consider this to be a matter of the greatest urgency because of the insufficiency of facilities for large or mass attendances of sporting events on a multi-racial basis and also because I think the project has become a symbol of providing reasonable facilities for all population groups in the eyes of the inhabitants of Soweto. At the same time it is also an instrument to solve the problems of expansion as far as Wits is concerned, to provide a future acceptable accommodation for the Witwatersrand Agricultural Society and, at the same time to provide a very generous facility on an international basis for exhibitions, conferences and so forth in the southern area of Johannesburg.

The hon. member also made a request for the construction of a small-boat harbour in Port Elizabeth. This links up with requests from the hon. member for Mossel Bay and other interested parties who have brought the whole question of the increase in small boat sailing activities as well as power-boat activities along our South African coast to the attention of the department. Hon. members are also aware of the Granger Bay project that is also aimed at setting up a small boat harbour in Granger Bay. This project has meanwhile grown in extent to include a type of urban development project, that has unfortunately elicited a somewhat negative response from people living in the neighbourhod. This matter is being studied very carefully.

Hon. members must, however, realize that the cost involved in the provision of small-boat harbours is very considerable. I therefore thought it advisable first to have a survey done of the most important areas on the South African coast in which small-boat harbour facilities would be required before going to the Government with specific proposals for a schedule or programme according to which facilities of this nature could be provided. I am fully aware of the fact that this is not merely a question of recreation but that such facilities would also enhance the prestige of South Africa very considerably in the international world. Furthermore, this sport has already led to the establishment of a quite important boat building and boat maintenance industry and I think it has also had a positive effect on tourism.

I should now like to move on to the hon. member’s questions regarding the legislation affecting the autonomy of sports bodies. An announcement has already been made that the Blacks Urban Areas Act will be revised in such a way that it will no longer affect sport, and I want to tell hon. members that the legislation in this regard has already been drafted in its final form by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. That Bill, as well as the legislation dealing with Community Councils will eliminate restrictions on members of other races entering Black areas and will also remove restrictions on Blacks entering areas in which they are normally not resident. This is not only in respect of sporting activities but is also intended to make their movement as visitors in these areas less restricted. I believe that the Bill will be tabled during this session but I personally doubt whether it will be passed by Parliament this session.

As far as the Separate Amenities Act is concerned, my reading of the HSRC report was that they did not find that it had any direct effect by way of restriction on sporting activities. They nevertheless recommended that it should be reconsidered in toto.

Recreational activities?

Recreational and sporting activities. This Act, as I have announced before, has been referred to the technical committee dealing with the Group Areas Act. It is the intention of the Government that any restrictions on the autonomy of sporting bodies included in this Act should be dealt with in the same way as such restrictions were dealt with in the three Acts mentioned previously. At the same time I have been informed by Prof. Scholtz that the HSRC has also investigated legislative measures on local government level in so far as these affect sport. In their final report they have set out certain recommendations in that regard that will be made public in the very near future.

The hon. member for Sandton touched on the question of financing sport, and I can assure him that this matter has received the close attention of both myself and my department. Unfortunately the overall financial position this year was such that we could not make the desired progress in regard to certain programmes for the promotion of sporting facilities, of sports training and the subsidizing of sportsmen to attend both national and international events.

I am quite sure, however, that the findings contained in the HSRC report will strengthen our hand and will enable us to carry through our film resolve further to improve sport opportunities in South Africa, and specifically in respect of those population groups that have been lagging behind very considerably, as also appears from the figures of participation in both competitive and recreative sport.

*I now come to the question of interschool sport. In this respect I should once more like to make the standpoint of the Government quite clear. Hon. members are aware that the sport policy of the Government consists of its having laid down a clear preference for each population group to have its own sports clubs as its policy as political party, but that it decided at the same time that it would not enforce this policy by way of legislation, but that it would feel itself at liberty to exert every influence which it was able to exert as Government and as political party in this respect. In addition to that, the Government recognizes the autonomy of sporting bodies to decide for themselves about participation in sport by the separate population groups. This is, however, not an unqualified recognition of autonomy. It is a recognition of autonomy, subject to three qualifications, which one of my predecessors set out clearly in this House in the past. In the first place it is an autonomy within the limits of the laws of the country and the maintenance of order. Where necessary, we have already amended the laws of the country. The second condition is that that autonomy may not be abused for purposes other than sport. Autonomy in sport must therefore not be used as a lever for social agitation. In the third place, that autonomy may not conflict with the autonomy of other institutions. In addition the Government stated as its premise that it recognized the autonomy of the owners of sports facilities as far as the availability of such facilities was concerned.

Now it is unfortunately the case that the autonomy of a sporting body as a user of sports facilities has on occasion come into conflict with the autonomy of an owner of those facilities. I adopted a firm standpoint—and I am stating it again now, in this House—towards local authorities, viz. that the Government expected them to make their sports facilities available to all orderly, properly organized sports leagues in which teams of all population groups participated, as well as to teams which included members of more than one population group, because it was in accordance with the policy of the Government that leagues could also be organized on an inter-ethnic basis and that there was no legal impediment preventing clubs, if they so preferred, from admitting members of other population groups to their teams, or including them in such teams. That is why we made a very clear appeal to local authorities who did not wish to make the grounds over which they exercised control available to such leagues, to make such grounds available. According to my information, we obtained co-operation in all cases.

In its policy the Government also places emphasis on the development of sport opportunities for all population groups on a community basis; in other words, as far as possible within the context of the communities in which these population groups live.

However, when it comes to the question of school sport, I wish to reiterate that the Government considers sport to be part of the educational activities of the school, to be an integrated part of the educational process, and that it therefore falls under, and is subject to the control of the department of education concerned.

The body which has to exercise autonomy in regard to sport is in this case, therefore, the department of education concerned. In accordance with the policy of the Government, every population group has its own schools and its own system of education. Consequently normal school sport—sport which comprises part of the school’s educational process—is also practised separately by every population group. However, procedures have been laid down by every department of education for the consideration of applications which are made for the occasional match between White and non-White school teams to take place. These are considered and decided upon by the departments of education of the respective provinces. In contrast to school sport—sport which forms part of the normal school activities—there is the so-called junior sport; i.e. participation in sports meetings by school children in an out-of-school context, sports functions in which the school as such does not participate, for example the Craven rugby week and various championships which are organized by the national sports bodies instead of by the schools themselves. In this case participation by individual pupils takes place on the level of voluntary participation according to their own choice and the decision of their parents. Departmental approval is not relevant for this purpose and school principals cannot interfere in these cases to compel the children to or prevent them from participating in such events. The Government is not prepared to deviate from this distinction. Consequently a clear distinction is drawn between school sport as such, and junior sport.

Mr. Chairman, if a school submits an application to play a match of some sort against another school to the department and the department refuses the application, is there any right of appeal, or is the decision merely something that has to be accepted?

The authority in this matter is that of the Administrator, and his decision is final. I must say, however, that there have been cases of differences that were negotiated and then amicably settled. I think hon. members are aware of the fact that the Transvaal Cricket Council has a quite considerable programme of inter-racial cricket matches towards the end of the season, in September, October and November, matches arranged with permission of the Transvaal Education Department.

*That is all I wish to say about the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton, as main speaker of the official Opposition, on sports matters, and I conclude by conveying my appreciation for the particularly positive, patriotic way in which he reacted as a member of this House to the double standards from abroad, and particularly from the British Government in regard to the Gleneagles Agreement and international participation in general. [Interjections.] It seems to me his political experiences during the past year and the dressing down he might perhaps have received from his young big brother over there, ensured considerably improved methods of conduct from him.

†In associating myself with the hon. member’s remarks about the need for foreign governments to take a new look at what is going on in the field of sport in South Africa. I should also like to refer to the double standards that have been applied by such bodies as the International Olympic Council, which had to admit, when it was approached by representatives of the South African Olympic Council, that South Africa had really gone beyond what they had requested when they originally came into conflict with the South African Olympic Council, but they were nevertheless unwilling to react in accordance with their conclusion and readmit South Africa. We had the same experience with the International Cricket Council, as we had last year with the international Amateur Athletics Federation. I think there were also similar statements from the former Minister of Sport of the United Kingdom. Mr. Munroe, who admitted to changes in South Africa but was not courageous enough to translate this into adjustments in policy. [Interjections.]

At this stage I should like to pay tribute to our diplomats in the field of sport administration for the sterling work they have been doing in the international field to try to renegotiate the admission of South African sportsmen into international competition and international sporting bodies. I should like to refer, in particular, to the success achieved last year by the South African Olympic Council and its leaders, amongst whom I should like to mention Mr. Opperman, Mr. McIldowie, Mr. Tabe and others who represented South Africa at a meeting of the International Olympic Congress in Baden-Baden and who presented a strongly prepared case outlining new developments in South African sport. A collection of ten brochures on sport in South Africa were compiled, dealing with several aspects of development in sport. Hon. members may recall that this diplomatic effort on the part of our South African Olympic Committee resulted in what appeared to be a decision of the International Olympic Council to send a so-called triportite commission to South Africa to investigate the progress and changes in sport.

I should like to recall that that stalwart Nestor of South African sport, Mr. Reginald Honey, in his 94th year, and then still a member of the International Olympic Committee, was our only mouthpiece at this meeting and that this was the last effort he could make on behalf of South African sport before his lamented death recently. Unfortunately, we have meanwhile learnt from abroad that the president of the International Olympic Committee, Mr. Samaranch, has advised international sporting bodies to discontinue their contact with South Africa in order to avoid being penalized by exclusion from future participation in the Olympic Games. It is very difficult to harmonize this new attitude of Mr. Samaranch with the alleged decision by him and his International Council last year to send a tripartite commission to South Africa. I sincerely trust that our sports diplomats will be able to carry through this venture and I should like to give the assurance here that the Government and, I feel certain, all hon. members of the House will give our sportsmen all possible assistance to make a success of this visit by the International Olympic Committee’s tripartite commission to South Africa.

*I should like to return to the large number of contributions which hon. members made in the course of this debate, and deal specifically with certain aspects and contributions. Hon. members will realize that, in the available time. I am not able to give proper and fair attention and do justice to all of them. I should very much like to convey my gratitude and appreciation and express my acknowledgment for the high standard of the contributions, for the expertise which was displayed and for the positive way in which hon. members acted.

†I have paid quite some attention to the many remarks made by the hon. member for Pinelands, but there is one important point I should like to touch on, viz. the question of the shortage of science teachers. First of all, I should like to mention that the Committee of Heads of Education is presently busy with the revision of science syllabuses in order to enhance the attractiveness of science as a subject in the eyes of children. It is generally accepted that the problem of the lack of popularity of science at school is not only owing to insufficiently qualified teachers but also to a syllabus which stands in need of revision to make it more interesting. Secondly, all education departments give high priority to in-service training to those science teachers who are insufficiently qualified or feel that their knowledge of science should be updated in view of new developments in the field and changes in the syllabus. The National Committee for Educational Technology is also giving attention, particularly to the use of technological aids in science education. As other hon. members have stated, the reach of a good science teacher can be considerably extended by educational technology in the form of computers or television. There is also presently a mission abroad to investigate and, if possible, to implement the recruiting of suitably qualified science teachers for South Africa. In this regard I should also like to refer to a remark by an hon. member that there are some irritating formalities in connection with the recognition of teacher qualifications for people from abroad.

That was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. He is in the Senate Chamber at present.

Yes, it was the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I should like to say that I gave specific instructions to the Committee of Heads of Education to deal with this matter on a more discretionary basis. I have discussed this matter personally with the Administrators, the MECs and the Directors of Education. I have also asked people who are still dissatisfied with decisions that have been taken to appeal to me personally so that I can see what kind of problem has arisen. For instance, recently the official working with these qualifications assessed an honours degree in physics from Oxford on the basis of M plus two years. He did so because of certain technicalities, but to my way of thinking that should obviously have been assessed on the basis of M plus four years, although it is actually a three year course. This is one of the difficulties, but we are trying to identify and eliminate these problems by handling them with more discretion on a higher level. I should like to express my appreciation to the Administrators and the Directors for their keen understanding of this matter. All cases that have been addressed to me and where I thought a good case had been made out were handled very sympathetically and I think dealt with in a very satisfactory way.

I should also mention that the number of teachers in the so-called scarce subjects, for example in the sciences, being trained in the Transvaal with bursaries from the Education Department of Transvaal amounts to 1 113, which is quite a considerable number. In Natal the number is just under 400. The scholarships were recently increased to R2 400 a year for those wishing to become secondary teachers. This includes a special merit or scarce subject award of about R450 for those taking these subjects.

*I have already referred with appreciation to the contributions made by the hon. member for Virginia, who dealt with matters of principle in education and particularly, too, with the appreciation we owe to those persons who made a contribution to the teachers’ congress in Bloemfontein. In addition, I have already associated myself with his objection to the unflattering remarks made by the hon. member for Pinelands about that matter.

As far as the hon. member for Germiston District is concerned, I have already referred briefly to some of her observations in connection with a co-ordinating body in education. At this stage I should like to associate myself with the question asked by the hon. member for Koedoespoort on what the form of the eventual co-ordinating umbrella structure should be. At this stage neither I nor the Government can say that we give preference to any particular form of structure. There are considerable constitutional and political problems involved in the way in which one would establish co-ordination of educational matters between population groups whose mutual political relations with one another differ to such an extent, such as the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the Whites on one hand and the Blacks outside the national States on the other, and in addition those within the national States. I think it is to be hoped that one will, in this entire setup, also be able to involve the independent States on a consultative basis. Therefore I cannot give any finality at this stage. The Government definitely has not yet committed itself to any particular form.

The hon. member for Germiston District also made a remark which I consider to be important enough to warrant my commenting on it. She said that funds for education from private bodies should preferably be administered by government departments. In this connection I want to make it clear that the Government has great appreciation for the contribution which private schools are making. The Government has also, in terms of one of the principles of the De Lange report, recognized the desirability of private schools. The Government believes that the authorities should make a contribution to the financing of private schools. Since this matter has up to now been dealt with by the various departments on a very divergent basis, we are at present taking steps to obtain co-ordinated proposals in connection with the way in which the State can give the private schools financial support, through all its various departments. We recognize the right of private bodies to make their funds available to schools, private schools, career schools or other institutions which are not necessarily directly controlled by the department. We feel that it is sufficient that such private schools register with the department and consequently fall under the control of the inspectorate. In that way it is ensured that if any irregularity or improper conduct should occur, it will be possible to identify it in time.

In his first contribution the hon. member for Standerton made an important observation on the manpower needs. It was in fact with reference to that that I quoted the figures when I was dealing with the illusion hon. members on the opposite side suffer from when they think that one would be able to solve the educational problems with a wave of a magic wand if one made all the schools open institutions. I singled out those figures as a result of the hon. member’s emphasis on the importance of manpower needs, and at this stage I wish to allow that reference to suffice, and thank the hon. member for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Durban North made a contribution regarding the whole question of rationalization as against regionalization. I think I have dealt with the hon. member to some extent and I should merely like to reiterate that the Universities Advisory Council keeps a very close watch on the introduction of new subjects and new fields of study, especially to try to ensure that whenever a university identifies an important new field of study all the other universities do not attempt to get on to the same bandwagon. I had some experience of this in my university career where I was responsible for the introduction of a number of subjects which had meanwhile become fairly general. It was rather amusing to see how, the moment a young university identified a good starter, everybody else tried to get onto the same cart. I am referring here to subjects such as communication, computer science—this was first taught at the RAU—electronics, development administration, energy studies and other subjects. With these remarks I trust the hon. member for Durban North will accept my acknowledgement of his valuable contribution.

I now want to touch upon the question, in some more detail though, of the cost of university study which was raised by the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Johannesburg West. The contribution of the Government to universities has increased steadily and substantially since World War II when an all-time low percentage contribution was reached in 1944. In 1944 the Government contributed 38% to the annual current expenditure of universities. The student fees contributed 40% and 22% was found from other sources such as donations. This position has meanwhile changed to the extent that the Government’s contribution is now 80% instead of the former 38%. Students contribute 16% as against 40% in the past, and other sources only 4% as against 22%. I should say this considerable decrease in the contribution, relatively speaking, of the private sector gives cause for alarm. In the rest of the world, especially in America, university excellence has been built particularly on generous and imaginative private sector support.

While the Government’s contribution to universities per weighted student in the rand value of 1981 was about R1 026 in 1950, this figure increased by about 400% to R4 050 in 1981. Hon. members will recall that the figure I gave for this year was in the region of R4 500. This therefore represents a very considerable increase. On the other hand I must agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg West that university education has become quite expensive over the past few years. As a father who for the eleventh year running has a child at university, and this year three of them, I fully realize what this means. It has been firmly established that despite improved Government contributions the cost of university education to the student has increased at a faster rate than the inflation index since 1970. Depending on the cost elements which are taken into account, it is estimated that it can cost a student a total amount of as much as R4 000 to R4 500 to study at a residential university in 1982. This is virtually the same amount as that which is contributed by the State, so it is therefore virtually a 50-50 or a rand-for-rand system. The relatively much higher Government subsidy has been a contributing factor in keeping university education within the reach of a much greater percentage of the population. However, I must fully concede to the hon. member for Johannesburg West that this matter is causing concern and that the Government, through the Universities Advisory Council, will have to look into it very carefully to ensure that we are not pricing students from the lower income groups out of the university market.

*Questions were also asked in connection with the amount in respect of bursaries which is being made available to universities. In this connection I should like to mention that the amount which is available in the form of bursaries is in fact astonishingly large. Last year we made a calculation that what was being granted by universities themselves, as well as bursaries received by universities from other bodies for grants, comprised a total amount of R31 million. This is the amount paid out in 1980 by universities to university students in the form of bursaries. If loans were to be added to that amount, it would total R35 million in round figures. For the total number of full-time students in that year, it amounted to a theoretical average of R403 per student receiving bursaries or loans. This is apart from bursaries or loans made available directly to the students by bursary-granting bodies such as municipalities or various private sector undertakings.

I think I have already dealt with the contribution made by the hon. member for Pretoria East.

I should just like to tell the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens briefly, since he dealt with administrative staff at schools, particularly school secretaries, that I requested the Committee of University Principals, as a result of his contribution last year, to re-investigate the existing staff provision scales for administrative clerical staff at schools. Because it appeared that the recommended scales were too idealistically generous, the most provinces were in reality unable to apply the scales, and others only applied them in part. My standpoint is that we should rather introduce a rather less idealistic and more practicable scale for the proper provision of administrative staff at a reasonable remuneration. I hope that this matter can be finalized during the course of this year so that the schools can be in a more favourable position to employ people and to pay them a reasonable remuneration.

†The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also appealed to me to prevent the construction of the new Cape Technikon on a site in the former District Six area. I want to say very briefly that the decision to establish the technikon there was taken by the technikon council after a very careful study of the Director and other planning experts on the technikon council. I have also discussed with the Director the possibility of the loss of funding and goodwill and his considered opinion was that although they are likely to lose a few supporters, overall they felt that the advantages of that site far outweighed the likely loss of a few supporters.

A bad decision.

I should also like to point out that the Director of the Peninsula Technikon was very concerned when he heard that there could be an unqualified opening of the Cape Technikon without any distinction in respect of population groups because, as he pointed out, that would directly affect the growth and the planning of his own institution. Therefore, I want to say that there is no intention to interfere with the plans for the technikon or to change the basic policy in respect of admission of students to that technikon.

That was a very unwise decision.

I should like to refer with appreciation to the considered contribution made by the hon. member for Kimberley North on education for the exceptionally gifted child. In this connection I just wish to quote from the subsidiary report of the working committee of the HSRC which dealt with education for children with special educational needs, in which they made the following interesting recommendation on page 207—

It is very interesting that this report, which actually deals with the handicapped child, nevertheless came to the considered conclusion that seen from a national point of view, the exceptionally gifted child should in fact be our first priority.

The hon. member for Nigel, who professes to be an expert on typists as assets—I found that to be a very apt reference; he seems to have a good understanding of this matter—inquired in a sympathetic way about teachers who live in at industrial schools. I want to point out that teachers at industrial schools are not required to live on the premises. The principal, the deputy principal and the departmental head are, under certain circumstances, required to do so, but if there is a large number of teachers, living in on a rotational basis is allowed. The department has a thorough understanding of the problems which are caused by teachers being compelled to live in. I also wish to point out of course that teachers who accept such duties receive considerable benefits for doing so. This applies in all educational departments.

I should like to refer with appreciation to the contribution made by the hon. member for Brentwood in connection with leadership, and the role which the Cultural Affairs Branch has to play in the promotion of leadership.

I have already replied to the appeal made by the hon. member for Parktown in connection with optometrists, and if I may I would prefer to reply by way of correspondence or otherwise to the question of the provision of training opportunities for handicapped children in the other population groups. There is much leeway to be made up, a major task that has to be performed. I think this is a matter to which very serious attention should be devoted.

I also wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for Alberton for his contribution on the importance of technikons.

To the hon. member for Losberg I want to say that in connection with the unsavoury incident which he told us about, the incident concerning the “dragon rallies” of Ma Jones’s friends, I shall hold earnest consultations with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Law and Order, so that steps can be taken to curtail this kind of unsavouriness effectively. We dissociate ourselves from this kind of thing with great emphasis.

Sir, I have been warned that I must now call a halt. I am sorry that I was unable to get round to all of the hon. members. I shall reply in writing to all of those to whom I have not reacted personally.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.