Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, when the Government asked the Human Sciences Research Council to conduct an investigation into the provision of education in the Republic of South Africa none of us thought that the final result of that very extensive investigation would be a piece of legislation which covered only four pages. That may mean one of two things. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must listen to what I am saying before he gets upset. It may mean that it is very good legislation, the consequence of a thorough job of work being done by his department. [Interjections.] I am being nice to him, but he is being nasty to me. I cannot understand that, after we have been so nice to him during the course of this debate.

We would want to wish the hon the Minister and his department, as well as all the other education departments who are going to be charged with the responsibility of putting into effect the provisions of this legislation, well. We would in fact like to make a commitment to them that whenever we believe that they are acting in the best interests of South Africa and all its people, that they are not discriminating against people, and that they are not being unjust to certain sections of the community, they will get our unqualified and enthusiastic support. There is no doubt about that. However, we equally reserve to ourselves the right to examine the actions of the Government and its officials at all times to determine whether in our opinion they are acting in the best interest of South Africa and all its peoples. When in our judgment they do not do so, they must expect the severest criticism from us.

Mr Chairman, I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to see this legislation not as the end of the road but as the beginning of the road. There is a great division in the ranks of the NP in regard to the new constitution for South Africa. There are people in the NP who see the new constitution as the beginning of the road and that in future great things can happen on this road. There are, however, other members of the NP who see it as the end of the road; they look upon it as the final word as far as constitutional development is concerned. [Interjections.] I am convinced that there are people in the NP who see this legislation for a new educational policy for general education in South Africa as the end of the road, that that is as far as the Government is prepared to go and no further. [Interjections.] Those are the people who are in ideological agreement with the members of the CP. At the same time there are members of the NP who see this as a foundation on which they are going to build for the future and I hope that there are members of the NP who see this as the start of a modernizing, reformist approach to education in South Africa. In other words, I hope that they will use the very valuable and very effective open-ended provisions built into this legislation to continue on the road of improving education; to continue on the road of providing what is now set out as a principle embodied in law, namely equal opportunities for education, including equal standards of education, for every inhabitant of the Republic, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex.

Mr Chairman, I hope that this hon Minister and all the other Ministers—and eventually there may be approximately 14 members in this ministry of his—will strive to adhere to the provisions of this Bill. The hon the Minister and his Ministers in this new ministry remind me of one of these modern new charismatic churches, and I hope that they will, in the same spirit of the charismatic churches, go forth and put into effect the spirit of the principles embodied in this Bill. If they do that, they will certainly find that they will get the enthusiastic support and encouragement of the PFP. [Interjections.]

One of the things that the hon the Minister does not in fact talk about but which we are concerned about is what is going to happen in respect of the phasing out of the provinces, if indeed they are going to be phased out. How are the provincial systems for White education going to be phased out? How are the responsibilities and activities of the provinces going to be phased into the department of educational own affairs of the White chamber in the new Parliament? Things are taking place at a very fast rate, and within a few months the new constitutional system is going to take effect in South Africa. Yet, on the part of the Government we have only heard talk about ideological aspects. There has been very little information from either the Minister of Constitutional Development or from the other Ministers on how in effect these new provisions are going to be implemented. South Africa and the Opposition are waiting to hear from the Government how the provincial system is going to be phased out and how their activities and responsibilities are going to be phased in under the new White Parliament. I am sure that the Coloured, Indian and Black communities would like to know where they stand in respect of the new dispensation. There has been a lot of hinting at a new regional system of government, a second-tier system of government, but the Government has not taken the opportunity of telling us where the new second-tier government is going to stand in relation to education. We do not know what the new second-tier system of government is going to look like and we do not know what their responsibilities and functions are going to be and we would like to know what the Government foresees for them.

We have indicated throughout the debates on this legislation that one of the aspects we are very happy about indeed is the concept that the Minister responsible for general education matters will be in a position to decide a number of policy matters in future. One of his important functions will be to decide on norms and standards for syllabuses and examination, and for certification of qualifications. This is a very broad provision, but he will decide on these things wihin the framework of 11 principles which are set out in clause 2 of the Bill. The Minister takes these decisions with regard to policy matters after consultation with the other Ministers. He does not do so in consultation with the other Ministers, but after consultation with them. He also does so after consultation with the South African Council for Education and the bodies which represent universities and technikons. The Minister is clearly in a strong position. He takes decisions not for individual groups, not for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks separately, but for South Africa as a whole as regards educational matters. After those decisions have been taken and the policies determined, the racially structured system takes over and the various Chambers of Parliament, the various departments and the various Ministers are required to carry out those policy decisions in respect of their respective racial groups. That is a very pleasing aspect, because we have here an open door which can be used by the Government if it wishes to do so to move further and further away from racial segregation and racial discrimination as far as education in South Africa is concerned. We are reasonable and understand that the Government, particularly because of its fear of the right wing, cannot do these things overnight. We understand that it is an on-going process and that the Government is in a position to use this legislation to move in that direction. However, I would once again like to plead for the creation of opportunities for the children of the various race groups to study together, to go to school together, to play sport together and to take part in cultural and recreational activities together, in order to develop understanding of one another, to co-operate with one another and to remove prejudice and distrust between the various groups. Provision for private schools subsidized by the State is made in the Bill and I think they are the obvious starting point for bringing about, on an experimental basis, contact between children at school and to develop the opportunity for children to get to know one another at school level. The results of such contact will soon be obvious. I challenge members of the Government who are suspicious about that sort of thing and who are concerned about interracial contact at school level, to go to schools attended by children of various race groups. There are already many schools in South Africa today attended by Black, Coloured, Indian and White children. I have been to some of these schools and I have spoken to the teachers, the parents and the children. I challenge the Government members to do the same, to go to those schools, talk to the children and establish whether there is a single disadvantage that results from contact between Black and White. In fact, the opposite is true. There are numerous and considerable advantages which flow directly from the contact between children at those schools. It is so obvious that it benefits both sides of the colour-line. The Blacks are attending schools where they are getting very good schooling and are getting the opportunity to communicate with White people and to learn about White people’s attitudes and cultures. Equally, the White children are getting the opportunity to learn about the cultures and attitudes of the other race groups in the country. Sound friendships and understanding develop across the colour-line. That is where one lays the foundation for a united South African nation in which people can in the future co-operate with one another in the interests of South Africa and in which colour will not be a divisive factor.

I believe that, once it has been proved that we have nothing to fear from the point of view of the maintenance of identity and the security of any group, once it has been proved that one can open schools without damaging the security of any group or undermining the identity of any group, we can move forward with that process. That also applies to technikons and universities. It is really unsound and unwise to have a situation where the people who have to work shoulder to shoulder in our industries and commerce in order to strengthen and expand our economy, must qualify for such jobs in separate educational institutions. It is terribly unwise to insist on that. One of the first steps the Government should take is to remove all barriers from educational institutions like technikons and universities. In a situation in which people have to work together for their entire lives and in which it is important that they should understand and trust one another and should be able to co-operate productively with one another, it is unwise that these people, who come from diverse cultural backgrounds, should meet one another for the very first time at the place where they work. It is vitally important that they should meet one another in the relaxed and congenial atmosphere of the educational institutions in which they qualify for their jobs so that when they start working together one will have laid a sound foundation of confidence and trust between these people. I appeal to the hon the Minister to use the provisions of this Bill to move in this direction.

A lot has been said here about the fact that we must not talk about the “Government’s” constitution but that we should talk about the constitution of South Africa because two thirds of South Africa voted for it. That is not true. It is totally untrue.

Why?

Because, while it is correct that two thirds of the White electorate voted for it, no Black people voted for it. The constitution deals with the rights of Black people. It deals with every interest of the Black people in South Africa. Furthermore, not a single Coloured person in South Africa voted for this constitution or, for that matter, a single Indian. You see, Sir, if hon members opposite want to claim that it is South Africa’s constitution then they should have given all South Africans the opportunity to say whether or not they support it. Because they failed to do so, it would be dishonest of us to join in this fraud of saying that it is South Africa’s constitution. I wish it were. If it were, I would feel much happier, much safer and much more secure. However, it is a constitution of two thirds of the White electorate of South Africa.

Order! Is the hon member debating the constitution or is he debating this Bill?

This Bill, Sir, absolutely, because it is a direct consequence of the constitution.

Yes, but the hon member is now debating the constitution itself. The hon member must come back to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am trying to correct a complete misapprehension on the part of hon members opposite that the constitution is South Africa’s constitution. I say it is a constitution of two thirds of the White electorate. If they say that, then they are correct.

Another point that was made by hon members opposite during the education debates and which was quite incorrect was that when we objected to the fact that the system would result in a plurality of Ministers and education departments and that they would duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate one another, hon members opposite said that in our system we would also have various education systems in our various federated states. That is obviously true but there is also a big difference. You see, Sir, under the Government system—and this is so wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary—in any specific area of South Africa there will be a White education department controlling White schools, White teachers, White inspectors, and with a White bureaucracy. For the same geographic area there will also be the same thing for the Coloured community, the Indian community and the Black community. There will therefore be at least four bureaucracies operating within the same geographic area, and this in fact is what makes the whole system inefficient and wasteful. Moreover, in the process it contributes towards misunderstanding and prejudice among the races and does not contribute towards the development of a united South African nation.

Tell us about your policy, Horace.

Mr Speaker, if you will allow me to do so, I should like to quote our policy to the hon member.

On education.

Yes, on education. I thank the hon member for the opportunity he has afforded me of doing so.

The first principle of our policy on education reads as follows:

This is similar to the first principle contained in the report of the De Lange Committee and the Government’s White Paper. However, the Government only got to this in 1980 while we got to it in 1976. Our second principle is:

This goes to prove that we are fully conscious of the differences in our society. However, we do not wish to legislate those differences into permanent, stratified compartments. We want to allow freedom of association across those boundaries and not to create bureaucratic divisions between those different groups which are synthetic and unnatural. Our third principle reads as follows:

The significance of this is that we are opposed to the sort of system that one had in America where there was unacceptable and forced integration such as the bussing policy. However, we believe that in any neighbourhood in South Africa all the people living within that neighbourhood should be entitled to allow their children to attend the nearest school to where they live, if they so wish. I will say this for the Government: I know that it will take a few years, but eventually the Government will have to accept that that is so. I continue:

1. 4. To recognize the fundamental right of the parents to choose the medium of instruction for their children.

That is another one of the principles which appears in the De lange report.

1. 5. To raise the prestige, status and economic position of the teaching profession.

That is another one of the De Lange principles.

1. 6. To recognize the right of universities, although assisted financially by the State, to full economic autonomy, more particularly with regard to the admission of students, the appointment of staff and the content of the curricula, subject to the provisions and the principles set out in clause 3 above.
2. 7. To vest control of education in the federated states.

The point I wanted to make was that our education would be a federal matter, and it would be vested in the federated states.

How many states would there be?

The number of states would be decided by a multiracial convention or commission.

How many would be acceptable … [Interjections.]

That will be decided in time to come, but does it really matter?

Yes.

Why?

How many departments are you going to have?

I explained to you: They are geographic departments, and there is no duplication whatsoever. In fact, it reduces costs and increases efficiency because it decentralizes power and it decentralizes the administration. It is a good and sound principle. I continue:

1. 8. To ensure the following—
   1. (1) the provision of subsidized preprimary education;
   2. (2) the provision of free primary and secondary education;
   3. (3) the extension of compulsory primary and secondary school attendance;
   4. (4) the provision of adequate training for all teachers;
   5. (5) the determination of teachers’ salaries according to qualifications, experience and responsibility alone;
   6. (6) assistance for private schools provided they comply with the provisions and principles set out in clause 3 above—that is non-discrimination;
   7. (7) the provision of technical and vocational training;
   8. (8) the provision of tertiary education with financial assistance for students where required;
   9. (9) the provision of adult education;
   10. (10) the promotion of universal literacy; and
   11. (11) the provision of subsidized special schools, for example remedial schools.

You see, Mr Speaker, I have now had the opportunity of reading this to the Minister, and now the Minister will realize that what he should have done in 1980 was to come across the floor to me and ask me for a copy of our policy. If he had done that, he could have saved all the costs and trouble of the De Lange Committee investigation and the interim committee investigation, and writing out a White Paper, and presenting his Bill to Parliament. Now, Sir, we are making progress in South Africa with the Government. All that is now left to us is to start working on the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party at the moment do not understand the implications of the realities facing South Africa. The Government is starting to understand it and is starting to perceive the implications of the realities facing South Africa. When the Conservative Party understands that by the year 2020 the White population could number 4 to 5 million and that the Black population could be 60 million; when they understand that by that time matriculants and Std 8s will be 10 to one as between Black and White; when they understand that by that time the economy of South Africa will be effectively in the control of Black people—I think that when we get these realities across to the Conservative Party, as we have now managed to get them across to the National Party, even they will realize that a discriminatory, separated political system is not in the best interests of the future of South Africa. I know it is going to take a long time to get through to them; I know it will take longer than it did to get through to the Government.

This Bill is the first step in the right direction.

You know, Sir, that sort of slogan is thrown around very loosely in South Africa, but this Bill is indeed a first step in the right direction, and we in the PFP would like to wish the Government well and once again undertake to support them when they act in the best interests of the education of all the peoples of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, from this side of the House, we wish to express our thanks to the hon member for Bryanston for having entertained us in this way. [Interjections.] I shall return to some of the hon member’s arguments later in my speech.

Since we have now arrived at the Third Reading, having spent hours dealing with the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, I think that we shall all spend a little time looking back on the scene that unfolded itself before our eyes as we proceeded. On the one hand I found it frustrating and on the other very interesting to observe, during the discussions during the Second Reading and Committee Stage, how the parties differed with one another and also how some of the hon members who participated in the discussions, went out of their way to adhere to the letter of the legislation in a responsible way and to state their arguments and policies, while we also found other hon members who made no affort whatsoever to adhere to the truth of the legislation.

When I think of the hon members of the NRP, I want to say at once that although they differ with us in regard to specific matters, I am convinced that they debated them meaningfully. I also want to say to the official Opposisition that its hon members, as far as I am concerned, argued in a well-balanced way. Naturally we took cognizance once again of their policies, as we ascertained them again this afternoon from the hon member for Bryanston. However, we also listened to the spokesmen of the CP whom I shall deal with in greater detail in a moment. I fear that I cannot say the same about the contributions made by the hon members of the CP.

First of all I want to react to a few of the statements the hon member for Bryanston has just made. I want to tell him at once that I find it very interesting that he, like so many of his colleagues, is now objecting—particularly in view of the outcome of the referendum—because the Black people did not participate in it. However, I have never heard the arguments from that side of the House that they do not wish to accept the 1910 Constitution Act for that specific reason. I have never yet heard that argument, but quite suddenly this argument is now being advanced in respect of the 1983 Constitution Act. With all due respect to the hon members, I want to say that I do not think that is consistent enough.

The hon member put a question to the hon Minister about the second level of government. I think the hon the Minister will provide him with the necessary reply in this connection. The hon member requested—in fact he made an appeal to this side of the House—that we should not regard this as the end but as the beginning of the road. I do not know into what category he classifies me, but I want to say at once that as far as I am concerned there is no such thing as the end of the road on this side of the House. In fact, the end of the road, if we may philosophize on this concept, is not even reached when we die, for then a new life begins. I want to state categorically to the hon member that this side of the House will continue to seek the best education opportunities for all in the Republic of South Africa. If this should entail that changes will have to be made, then changes will be made in future. Therefore I am not prepared to say that this is the end of the road. We must understand one another correctly on our standpoints in this connection.

As regards the question of mixed schools, this is a policy of the hon member for Bryanston and his party, a policy we know. He has the right to argue the matter, and he devoted a large part of his speech to it. However, I do not want to argue the matter any further with him; I should now like to confine myself to the legislation we have before us.

Unfortunately I have an axe to grind with the speakers of the CP owing to the fact that these speakers, to my mind, did not adhere to exactly what was stated in the legislation. These people are masters of the art …

“These hon members”.

These hon members, to satisfy the hon member for Rissik, including the hon member for Rissik—I shall deal with him later—are masters of the art of distortion in respect of specific facts within the Bill. The hon members use words which are not in accordance with what is stated in the draft legislation to …

Prove it to us.

I shall do so.

The hon member uses words which are not in accordance with what is stated in the draft legislation in order to score political points in that way among the general public when they are engaged in a by-election. It is clear that in the process, because they deviate from the truths of the legislation, anomalies crop up among those hon members when they debate certain matters.

The hon member for Koedoespoort was the main spokesman of the party during the Second Reading, and said inter alia: “This legislation is a direct result of the new constitution”. I want to say to the hon member at once that on this score I agree with him, this is in fact the only point on which I agree with him. Of course the legislation is based on the new constitution. Surely the government will base its education policy on its constitution. What else? Therefore we make no apology for that. Surely what the hon member was telling us was nothing new. We are prepared to abide by our constitution in respect of our education policy as well. The CP members, on the other hand, manipulate their policy depending upon the circumstances and upon the audience before whom they are appearing. I said that those hon members said things that were mutually contradictory, and in particular I am thinking here of the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Germiston District. When they were discussing our manpower needs, the one adopted a contrasting standpoint vis-á-vis the other. Any hon member who reads the speeches of those hon members will agree with me. The hon member for Koedoespoort went further and said:

Sir, I state categorically that this is an absolute distortion of the facts; this is an untruth which the hon member stated here.

I shall say it again.

Of course the hon member will continue to say it, but the hon member is unable to quote any proof of this from the Bill. I challenge him to substantiate that statement of his on the basis of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Brits, with reference to one of my colleagues here, said: “The hon member is lying again”.

Mr Speaker, may I point out that these hon members conferred among themselves for a long time before they decided that I had allegedly said something or other …

Order! Did the hon member say it or not?

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The hon member for Koedoespoort alleged that here we had integrated education. I want to point out to him, however, that in terms of this legislation every education department has the right to determine the content of its syllabuses and the nature and character of its education itself. In this way, for example, they can base their education on Christian national principles, if they so prefer, as the Whites in fact did in terms of Act No 39 of 1967. In this way each population group will have its own education legislation in terms of which it will regulate its own education in conformity with its own principles. This Bill is not going to take over all the existing laws or cause them to fall away. All the existing education laws continue to remain in force, inter alia the Indians Education Act, No 61 of 1965, the Education and Training Act, No 90 of 1979; the Coloured Persons Education Act, Act No 47 of 1963 and the National Education Policy for Whites Act, Act No 39 of 1967. All these Acts continue to remain in force and determine the education of the separate population groups.

The hon member for Koedoespoort went on to say:

Once again I challenge the hon member to prove this on the basis of a single clause of this Bill. This is simply a fabrication which the hon member, for some reason or other, thought out here. Whether it was wilfulness or whether he wanted to create a specific climate among the general public, I do not know. The point is that there is no general department whatsoever with which the teachers have to register. The fact of the matter is that at present we have the South African Teachers’ Council, a professional council …

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that. The hon member for De Aar may as well sit still and listen.

The present South African Teachers’ Council is the professional council with which the Whites are able to register. At present there is no professional council as far as Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are concerned. At the moment they “register” with the respective departments.

After the De Lange Committee report the Government, in its White Paper on it, committed itself to eventually establishing a central registration body on which all the various professional councils would be represented. What is important is the function of such a registration council. It is stated in the White Paper that such a central registration council will only occupy itself with the registration of all teachers and will only establish the minimum qualifications for registration. That is all that is important, and it is far removed from what the hon member for Koedoespoort was trying to proclaim here in this House. The function of that registration council will only be to serve as a registration body. It is precisely the same as the present situation in which Whites, Coloureds and Indians register as voters with the Department of Internal Affairs to be able to vote. Surely there is no question of the Department of Internal Affairs having a say over the politics in which those specific groups are engaged in. It is precisely the same here. The teachers will register with that central registration body, and that is as far as it will go.

The hon member for Koedoespoort also alleged that education—referring to White education—would no longer be Christian-National, and that mother tongue education would allegedly cease to exist. That is an absurd and untrue statement. It ill becomes the hon member to make such statements here in this House for he knows that they could reach the Press, and what is more important, he could also proclaim things like that in specific constituencies and if people were then to look at his Hansard, they could get the impression that it was the truth. [Interjections.] I shall demonstrate why it is not the truth. In the interim memorandum which the Government released together with the White Paper, the following inter alia was said:

Consequently, that is still there. It goes on to state:

This was stated as the Government’s policy in the White Paper. What is more, in Act 39 of 1967, which is still in operation for Whites, it is specifically stated that in respect of its education policy the Government will adhere to the broad national as well as Christian character of education.

I come now to the remarks made by the hon member for Kuruman. There is so much I could say about the hon member, but I shall confine myself to one aspect only. The hon member alleged that this was the last piece of legislation pertaining to education which would be piloted through a White Parliament.

True or false?

I now want to demonstrate how the hon members are flirting with the truth. Of course it is correct.

But in what respect is it then false?

The hon member must listen now. Of course the hon member is correct when he says that this is the last piece of legislation on education which will be piloted through a White Parliament. The hon members are constantly playing off Parliament on the one hand against the three different Houses on the other. They know just as well as I do that for outside consumption no distinction is drawn between the three chambers and that people may consider this to be the last say which this White House of Assembly will have over education. I want to teli the hon member that it is disgraceful to bruit such a standpoint abroad. What are the facts? The facts are that this House of Assembly, this House in which we are debating today, will in future continue to discuss legislation applicable to our own White education, and those hon members know it. They know that the White Chamber will occupy itself with legislation on own affairs.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not want to reply to a question now.

In exactly the same way, the other two population groups will have an opportunity to pilot legislation in respect of their own affairs through their own respective Chambers. The hon member knows as well as I do that when it comes to legislation on general education affairs, this same White House of Assembly will still have an opportunity to express its opinion on that legislation. I said the same thing yesterday.

Who is going to decide?

The hon member does not know the constitution. The constitution provides that in respect of a general affair all three Houses must agree to it.

Or?

Yes, and then the rest that follows. In other words, legislation on common education affairs will continue to be discussed in this same House of Assembly. The Whites will continue to have the right to express an opinion on such affairs. Consequently I accuse the hon member for Kuruman of not having told the whole truth in this House. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon member for Rissik. He said inter alia that absolutely nothing would remain of own education after this Bill. The hon member for Germiston District, on the other hand, replying to the question of what would actually remain of own affairs in a school, said that it would be only the pupils. The hon member for Germiston District said that only the pupils would remain as an own affair at a school, while the hon member for Rissik said that there would be absolutely nothing left, not even the pupils. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Rissik, who considers himself to be an honourable member … [Interjections.] Sir, I did say though that the hon member would consider himself to be an honourable member. I accuse him of not knowing what is contained in the Bill, or otherwise of having wilfully told an untruth.

Order! The hon member for Virginia, too, must consider the hon member for Rissik to be an honourable member.

I do consider him to be an honourable member, Sir. [Interjections.] Although I consider him to be an honourable member, I nevertheless want to put it to him that he is not fully acquainted with the truth. [Interjections.] He said that in this Bill absolutely nothing remained of own education, but I want to point out to him—and he knows this—that provision still exists, and is being made by way of legislation, and will be made in future, for separate schools, separate education departments, separate Ministers responsible for separate education for the various population groups, separate teachers’ associations, separate professional councils which will take charge of the professional code of the teachers for their own separate population groups, separate institutions for teacher training as well as a separate White Committee of Heads of Education. Here I have been enumerating quite a number of separate own affairs, but then the hon member comes along with the absurdity of saying that absolutely nothing remains of separate education.

In addition to this, every separate education department and school determines its own nature and character in accordance with its own philosophy and outlook on life. Surely that is true. A Minister responsible for the education of his own population group can pilot legislation through his own Chamber on a matter affecting only his own education without it ever having to be discussed by the Cabinet. The hon member for Rissik went further and said that the education of the Whites would be made subordinate to a diversity of councils. He said the one was the South African Council for Education and the other was the Committee of Heads of Education Departments. Then he said—and this is the absurd part—that Coloured and Indian education, and apparently a part of Black education as well, were being placed in a position of control over White education. Can one imagine anything more absurd, for example that Indian, Coloured and Black education are being placed in control of White education? Where on earth did the hon member for Rissik read that in this legislation? I cannot understand it, Sir. The hon member said further (Hansard, 4 April 1984):

Mr Speaker, I maintain that this is a distortion of the facts, and probably for the mere sake of political expediency. White education is not being made subordinate to any council—in fact no education whatsoever is. The two councils to which the hon member referred, advise the Minister responsible for general education affairs only on the four matters specified in clause 2, matters pertaining to general policy. This has been spelt out so many times that I do not want to do so again. The Minister takes the decision, not the councils. Neither the councils, nor the Minister, have any say over the own education of the respective population groups. So where the hon member got hold of these things only he knows.

The hon member also said (Hansard, 4 April 1984):

In reply I merely want to warn the public against the false and distorted statements of some CP members, people who as a result of frustration, hatred, envy and of a consuming need to bring about the downfall of the NP, go so far as to dismiss as liberal the principles which have existed since the passing of the 1967 Education Act, which is at present still in operation—including inter alia principles such as a Christian and broad national character—for if they do that they must also dismiss the Christian principles and a broad national policy as liberal, and in my opinion that is disgraceful.

Mr Speaker, with the acceptance of this legislation we are now standing on the threshold of an era in which equal education opportunities and equal education standards are being striven for, with the hope that we will eventually arrive at an equal quality of education for everyone, regardless of race, colour, creed or sex. Co-operation between the four separate education departments is of course being contemplated, but with the acceptance of equal norms and standards which must apply in respect of certain common matters. Every population group will continue, by means of its own Minister, its own education department and its own schools, to offer its own education in accordance with its own philosophy.

The Minister responsible for general education affairs will, in consultation with the four other education Ministers, and on the advice of various councils, determine the general policy within the framework of specified principles. This co-ordination is of cardinal importance in ensuring an equal standard of education, examination and certification, and also to ensure partity in respect of salaries and conditions of employment of the staff of the various population groups.

The future offers an invitation to each population group to enhance the quality of its own education by means of sound planning, well qualified teachers, interested parents and communities, good discipline and a desire on the part of the pupils to learn. If a population group were to decide to require a levy from its own people for education purposes, it is free to do so. We are therefore on the threshold of challenges to each community to offers its own children an education which is as good as possible, which in the process is eventually in the interests of our country. Consequently I should very much like to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Before calling upon the next speaker, I should like to point out to the hon member for Virginia and other hon members that I am aware of the fact that the use of the word “distortion” in debates has on occasion been debated here. Strictly speaking the word is definitely unparliamentary when it is used in connection with a speech made by another hon member. The hon member for Virginia, and other hon members as well, should please take note of this for future reference.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I just want to say that if the hon member for Virginia had praised the CP or had been satisfied with what we had said, I would have been very worried. Then the CP members would have had to be careful, because when your opponent begins to praise you, you must know that something is dreadfully amiss with you.

The hon member for Bryanston said that the CP did not understand the realities of the Republic of South Africa in regard to our population structure, etc. I just want to tell him that I have a complete and sound understanding of his political principles and standpoints, because they are the old political standpoints and principles which his party has always upheld. The principles and standpoints of the CP differ radically from those of the hon member for Bryanston. It is not true that the CP does not perceive the reality of the diversity of peoples in South Africa. However, we stand by the old standpoint which the old NP upheld for 30 years, namely that of separate development. The CP does not begrudge the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians the best education they are capable of, but we wish them to have it in a totally separate way, as the old NP used to uphold and apply separate education, for each population group in this country. The CP has not deviated from that policy and those principles. If the hon member for Virginia is dissatisfied with that, it merely goes to show how far he and his party have deviated from those standpoints and that policy. We perceive the realities very clearly, and our policy is not one of discrimination. If one wishes people to have absolutely everything, in their own right and separately, and is even prepared to help them to achieve their maximum potential, it is not discrimination. It would have been discrimination if we, on our part, had said that we wanted the White people to have everything and were not prepared to give the other population groups anything, or that we wanted to give them something inferior. But that is not the standpoint of the CP.

The hon member for Virginia can carry on as much as he likes and use every possible adjective with which to label the standpoint of the CP, but the CP sees this Bill, with every justification, as a direct result of the new constitution, of an integrated constitution, and that integrated constitution provides in Schedule 1 that there will be own education for each race group which is made subordinate to any general law in regard to certain aspects specified therein.

What do you mean by certain aspects?

The hon member knows what they are. Why should I enumerate them now? [Interjections.] Schedule 1 is being implemented in this Bill, and what is being implemented here, is integrated education. Let us take the matter to its logical conclusion. I trust, Sir, that you will allow me to say a few things for the sake of my argument which are not directly related to the Bill. I do not know whether you are going to stop me, but I want to refer to these things to support the point I want to make. There is going to be a racially mixed Cabinet. There is going to be a tricameral Parliament which will jointly have to decide on all legislation relating to general education matters. There are going to be Standing Committees which will be racially mixed. There is going to be a President’s Council which will be racially mixed and which will ultimately have to take certain decisions. A built-in part of this Bill is a South African Council for Education, which will be a racially mixed council. The Committee of Heads of Education Departments will be a racially mixed committee which will advise all the Ministers. All that eventually remains—and I shall still deal with this fully— is the question of own departments for the three population groups, departments which are going to have certain powers because certain other powers are going to be provided for them in general laws with which they have to comply and which will be binding on them.

I shall come back to the question of integratedness. I want to say that I concede that the hon member for Virginia is correct as far as one point is concerned, a point I spoke about which apparently was not correct according to the hon the Minister. In this connection, last Wednesday evening, I attached an interpretation to the Bill as I had read it. I also discussed the matter with a few legal experts and they told me that my interpretation of it was also possible. I am referring specifically to clause l(v) now. [Interjections.] For the edification of that hon member one of the legal experts I consulted was a Senior Advocate. There are such people too who are prepared to advise us. In clause l(v) one reads:

Our interpretation was that there was going to be an education department for general education affairs which would have an own Minister. That interpretation is possible according to this definition. The hon the Minister is admitting that I am right now. The standpoint we adopted was that there was going to be such a general education department with its own Minister reponsible for general education affairs who would implement this legislation.

But surely the White Paper makes the matter clear.

Sir, we are constantly being referred to what is stated in the White Paper. When all is said and done, it is what is stated in the Bill that is really going to be valid and that is going to count, and not what is stated in all kinds of other little documents, even if it is a White Paper. What has been included in the Bill is what is important.

Yesterday the hon the Minister said that there was not going to be such an independent Department of State which would be an education department. He said that as far as general affairs pertaining to education were concerned, there was going to be a subdepartment or a subdivision of a general department of State, for example the Department of Internal Affairs. I accept that statement of the hon the Minister. I accept that he interprets paragraph (v) of this clause in this way. However, that does not mean that I was misleading anyone when I interpreted the provision concerned in a different way. The hon the Minister did not indicate that my interpretation was wrong. We have the situation that we have a Department of National Education today which is a White department with a Minister who has representation on the Cabinet and who has his say there on behalf of White education. From there it works its way downwards to the provincial education department. In the new dispensation, however, there will be no longer an independent education department that has its own Minister who serves in the Cabinet. That Minister is apparently going to deal with a few matters which, inter alia, will also be concerned with education. I also want to point out that the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs announced that all the own affairs of all the population groups will be vested in one administration for each, and that there will be an administrative head in charge of each of those administrations who will be equivalent to a departmental head—a Director-General. Consequently this means that White education will be part of the administration of general affairs, which will fall under one departmental head. [Interjections.] White education is going to be a subdivision (onderafdeling) of that one administration. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is shaking his head.

Mr Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon member said that the Minister and the department responsible for White education would be a component (onderdeel) of the administration of general affairs? [Interjections.] Possibly it was a slip of the tongue on his part. He probably meant the administration for White own affairs. For the purpose of the record I should like to know whether that is what the hon member meant.

Mr Speaker, possibly it was a slip of the tongue on my part, and I therefore want to repeat my argument. The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs announced that all own affairs of all three population groups involved in this matter were going to be combined (saamgetrek) into one own administration for each. Those administrations will each have an administrative head as departmental head, and he said that that administrative head was equivalent to a departmental head. It therefore means that the entire administration for White own affairs is being combined in one department, and White education is therefore involved in this as a subdivision. On this basis it means that nowhere in the new dispensation, therefore, will White education be a full-fledged education department as we have it today.

But today it is already a subdivision in the provincial administrations.

And national education is of course a subdivision of the provincial administrations with an own Minister who has a seat in the Cabinet! [Interjections.]

Consequently, all that remains which is a full-fledged department of State with an own Minister who has a seat in the Cabinet, is the Department of Education and Training. The education of Whites, Coloureds and Indians is therefore being made subordinate everywhere in subdepartments, instead of remaining independent as it should. It will only be Black education which will in future have its own department as at present, which is a full-fledged department.

Mr Speaker, I can honestly say I am glad that this debate is on record. As a matter of fact I am so glad about this that I want to ask the hon the Minister whether his department would not seriously consider publishing this legislation and the entire debate on it as it appears in Hansard in an information document. This could then be posted to every teacher in South Africa who could then study it. It would convey a complete picture of debate conducted in this House, so that it could be studied by every teacher in South Africa.

I think the less one reacts to the interpretation of the hon member for Koedoespoort the more dignity one will give to the case for education. When I listen to hon members of the CP it seems to me as if they do not understand the whole system and structure of education. I do not believe these people are speaking on behalf of the heads of education of the various provinces, who have been endeavouring for many years now to read an agreement in order to bring about a form of parity in education throughout the Republic of South Africa just between the four provinces, and that does not include the two departments of education for the other two population groups that are now also becoming a part of the overall problem in South Africa.

I do not believe these people are aware of the struggle which has been in progress in the teaching profession just in the four provinces since the sixties, in its search for a common curriculum in order to find a basis in terms of which more or less the same things could be taught to White children through out South Africa. I do not think the hon members are aware of the problem members of the Joint Matriculation Board have in at least being certain in their hearts when they issue certificates to the various people in South Africa that they are ensuring the same standard throughout this mutual sphere of the economy. I do not think they are aware of the problems the professional educational bodies have in negotiating on the conditions of employment of teachers. Here, in 1984, the hon the Minister has given us a Bill with which we can achieve a parity as close as possible to the ideal, not only in respect of White education in the four provinces, but also in respect of these other three departments of education which are now being included under the same umbrella, under the same concept of equal standards and norms. Under this hon Minister for the first time, the years of negotiation and discussion are now culminating in something.

I want to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for the Bill in its entirety; for every clause in it. I can honestly say that I feel it is a pity that the teaching profession in general was dragged into this discussion at the level of debate we have had, here in this House during the past week. I do not think it was worthy of the concept of education—in capital letters. Seen in this spirit I really hope that this Bill, with its promising contents, will prepare every child to be useful and productive in the professional, administrative and creative spheres in this South Africa in which each of them must seek a livelihood.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion I want to ask the hon the Minister again whether for the sake of education and in order to put an end to distorted arguments and to ensure that people are not uninformed and for the sake of a profession which is the most valuable profession when it comes to preparing the future of our country, we could not seriously consider making this Bill and the arguments surrounding this Bill available to every teacher as an information document. I would appreciate that; it would place education in the correct perspective and our entire country would be well served by it.

Mr Speaker, now that we have come to the Third Reading of the Bill, I think it would have become very clear to hon members that this Bill was necessary because of the new dispensation, the new Constitution, which will start its implementation here in this House on 3 September 1984. I think to a very large extent this is a milestone, not only in constitutional development in South Africa and the concept of coresponsibility for decision-making among three groups but also will herald in a new era in education as such within the framework of this Bill.

I think if anything this Bill has clarified once and for all the differences in philosophy regarding education within the context of a new Constitution among the four parties represented here. As the hon member for Virginia said earlier on, to a very large extent we also discovered where we overlap—I would not necessarily say agree—and where we differ fundamentally from one another both in intent and in philosophy. In this respect I am convinced that we shall find that where the majority in this House have agreed to pass this Bill and to see to its passage here, to that extent we would have made a very valuable contribution towards the upliftment of education for the other two population groups who are going to become involved in the new Constitution, namely the Coloureds and the Indians.

By that I do not mean to imply that their educational systems were in any way inferior as such, but the fact that we are going to be marshalling our resources to implement or to try to achieve the objectives set out as the principles of this Bill with coresponsibility will enrich the whole of the process of offering education in South Africa.

I am positive that in this new Constitution we shall find the new set-up working extremely well. The goodwill is there, the need is there and the intellectural ability from all three groups is there to ensure that this new educational policy will succeed depsite the reservations and the fears of the hon members of the CP who for some reason or other have totally confused the concept of coresponsibility and decision-making with a fully integrated structure in society. I believe it will behove the hon members of the CP to decide for themselves very shortly and to learn to discriminate between what is actual integration and what is plural coresponsibility in a society such as ours because unless there is this degree of sharpness, this degree of finesse in one’s perception of what a plural society is and what constructs are possible in that society without sacrificing minority rights, then one does not have a proper understanding of what things are all about in South Africa. That is what the hon member for Bryanston said about the CP. one cannot bludgeon one’s way through a plural society wth blinkers on and say that there is only one solution to all one’s problems and that is physical separation. That is a non-reality in a plural society such as we have in South Africa.

I also thank the hon member for Bryanston for giving us some idea of what the policy of that party is. It was just a peep under the skirt, but it was at least some indication as to what they stand for. I think they owe the population of South Africa a fuller explanation, and no doubt that will come with the passage and the fullness of time. What has become very clear is that that party will at some stage or the other divide South Africa up into a number of states—I believe it will be approximately 11—and within each of those states they will have a unitary system of education in which every parent and every child may decide for themselves which school that child will attend. They will in fact invoke a Bill of Rights to ensure that every individual can force his way into any school irrespective of cultural background and the right of the group who possibly may want to retain separation in that particular school.

Are you speaking on behalf of those without any cultural background?

The hon member obviously does not fully appreciate what culture is about. He will one day learn that to try to have a cultureless society, is to have a faceless society and a faceless society consists of totally ineffective people because they have no roots. They drift like the flotsam and jetsam in the ocean and from one wave to the other and one decree to another. Where the mass media will push them today, the mass media will pull them away tomorrow. One must have your strength rooted in your culture. Look at the rest of Africa, at all the other plural societies, and one will find that to try to establish a cultureless society, is a vain attempt. It just does not work. [Interjections.] That is what the policy of the PFP will be in their federal structure of South Africa and they will use a bill of rights to ensure that this happens.

I want to put it to the hon member for Bryanston and the PFP that good education is not only to be found in integrated education. In fact, the whole concept of integration and structuring a society of free association—as they call it—but denying the right to disassociation, is a typical post-colonial, European liberal philosophy. That philosophy has found its manifestation in the solution which was imposed on Zimbabwe, where there was a White minority and a number of ethnic majorities. We have seen what has happened there.

Can you tell us whether your party believes in the concept of equal citizenship rights for everybody in South Africa eventually?

Not eventually, but equal citizenship rights right now. But one must first define what citizenship rights are. Included in that is the right to disassociate and the right to associate in a plural society.

Order! I wish to point out that we are discussing the National Policy for General Education Affairs Bill and I think the hon member is going a bit too wide.

Mr Speaker, I respect your ruling. We possibly went a bit far in order to demonstrate the point that in our society this Bill which we are discussing today and which will create the new structure, is appropriate for our South African society while the solutions offered by the other two parties are not appropriate for our society, and their chances of producing better education are considerably less than the chances of this Bill producing the education which we want. Undoubtedly, although the new constitution and this educational policy will only initially include Coloureds, Whites and Indians in direct decision-making, there will be a spill-over effect to the Black population of South Africa as well. The principles embodied in clause 2, the objectives of the education for which we need to strive, can also be adopted by the Black community of South Africa. We do not need to have a totally integrated policy as required by the PFP in order to strive for those particular objectives. In fact, it would be counter-productive to their implementation.

Hon members in the PFP often say that the report of the De Lange Committee is the panacea and provides all the answers for South Africa’s educational problems and liberally say how they support it. What the hon members conveniently forget is that the De Lange Committee recommended that as a fundamental in early-year education that it should take place at primary and pre-primary level within a structure of an own community and culture. It is in fact counter-productive to do that education outside the cultural environment in the initial years. They keep failing to mention that. They want to force integration even at that level contrary to the recommendations of the De Lange Committee’s report.

The structure which we are creating with this Bill lends itself admirably to enhancing education for all population groups. I believe that the very fact that we have interaction …

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

Yes, as long as it concerns education.

Sir, the hon member says that his party believes in ethnic option. Will he support an English community who apply for an English school in an area and who want their children to go to an English school as opposed to a parallel-medium school? Is he in fact in favour of an English Education Department for English-speaking people?

I will start with the first part of the hon member’s question. The philosophy of any education department established by this Parliament is created by the will of its majority. That becomes the State implementation of education. If this Parliament’s policy, as passed by the majority, is to have schools for English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking members of the South Africa community, and over and above that there is a sector of the community who wishes to have exclusivity of education within their own cultural group, be it Jewish, Greek, Portuguese, English or Afrikaans, then of course they are free to establish private schools should they wish to do so. In fact, we know there are a number of private schools in South Africa that operate a policy that is totally different to that accepted by the majority in this House. The hon member knows that private schools are permitted to admit Black students to their classes should they wish to do so.

I am talking about Government schools.

The structure of Government schools will be determined by the will of the majority in this House. That is what democracy is all about. [Interjections.]

Order! I should be pleased if the hon member for Bryanston would not conduct an audible conversation with the hon member for Durban North with his back to the Chair.

Should any minority within a democracy wish to exercise their will in a different way to that of the majority they have one of two courses of action available. Either they have to convince the majority and win elections, or they have to find the money to establish institutions which the law allows them to establish for their own exclusive use. If the hon member thinks about that he will find the answer to his question in it.

You are evading the issue.

No, not at all. I believe in education there should be a right to free interaction, association and dissociation. The hallmark of ethnicity is to grant people rights on a group basis.

What about your colour; is that ethnicity?

Here in South Africa it is coincidental. [Interjections.] Of course it is. Ethnicity and colour are coincidental in South Africa. Historically that is a fact. We did not make the world like that; we received the world like that. If the hon member is saying that Zulus are Black and therefore it is bad for them because they should be White, that is his argument, but the fact that Zulus are Black is a historical fact and one has to accept it, whether one likes it or not. [Interjections.] I want to point out to the hon members that they themselves have recognized that evolutionary change is necessary in South Africa. They are also demonstrating that by accepting this policy, which is not fully subscribed to Progressive Federal Party policy but is a step in the right direction. The latter, of course, is a new cliché we have heard from the PFP since they have discovered the error of their ways during the referendum. We also believe that this is very much a step in the right direction and that all three population groups will benefit from the interaction which will occur at the general educational level. However, we will not be giving away the prerogative of each community to run its own schools the way it prefers to do it.

I want to say to hon members of the CP and hon members of the PFP, especially the hon member for Bryanston and the hon member for Greytown, who is making so much noise there at the back, that they must consider the rights of minorities other than Whites as well. We in Natal have 637 000 Indians in the community, some of whom are Muslim and some Hindu. The majority is Hindu and the minority Muslim. They would prefer to run their educational institutions in conformity with their particular cultural requirements.

That is nonsense.

Can the hon member for Greytown tell us whether the Hindus would like to practise Christian national education in Hindu schools? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must afford the hon member for Durban North an opportunity of continuing with his speech.

But he asked me a question.

Order! I request the co-operation of the hon member for Greytown in this regard.

I want to illustrate the fact that there are other minorities in this country besides Whites whose needs must also be catered for at the educational level. We believe that allowing each of these groups to have their own Minister of Education, as is prescribed for in this Bill, within their own assemblies, is the right way to tackle the problem of educational upliftment in South Africa. There is absolutely no way that this party can pretend that it can do the job better for the other population groups. We do not want to deny them the right to participate in administering their own education. I believe that all the groups will in fact agree with us 100% on the principles enunciated in clause 2 of this Bill as being the fundamental pillars on which education should be built. This is, of course, something that we would all agree with and something that we will strive for in the future.

The problem has always been that the assets available, in terms of cash, to the departments of education in South Africa, has always been less than the requirements. I believe that the projected Standing Committee on Finance that will have to provide the money for the implementation of this Bill, will have to pay particular attention to balancing the needs of the one group with the other. It is a highly emotive and politicized fact that the minute one starts to add up the amount of money available for each group, one will find that there is discontent and, in fact, aggrievement about how that money is being apportioned. A factor that therefore goes hand in hand with this Bill is the mechanism providing the money in order to provide the educational facilities and the implementation of the policy is provided for in this Bill. In this regard I believe that still during this session we will have to see some legislation that will deal with the responsibility and determination of priorities as far as the fiscus is concerned.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, may I say that we believe that as we start to implement this new policy for general education in South Africa, we will from time to time have to adapt our stance in order to improve the policy set out in this Bill. The hon member for Virginia said today, and I am very pleased to hear it from him, that we all see this Bill merely as the starting point for a general policy on education. We are experimenting with a bold, new solution to the vexed problems of a diversive population. The continent of Africa is littered with the skeletons of colonial liberal type of philosophies that were imposed on the countries north of us after decolonization that took place after the Second World War. There are very few countries north of us that have been able to survive or produce an upliftment in their quality of life, including education, along the lines of the old classical colonial thinking that is being advocated by the PFP. We are of Africa; we have a unique structure in our society and for that we require unique solutions.

I therefore want to compliment the hon the Minister on being the first Minister in this House who actually brought a Bill for discussion here within the framework of the new constitution that represents a fine example of this unique solution which we have had to find in South Africa. I believe every single hon member in this House owes it not only to the Whites of South Africa, but also to the members of every other population group to see that this Bill in particular succeeds in its objectives. Education is the golden key to the improvement in the quality of life of every single individual within a democracy based on private free enterprise. The extent to which an individual is educated will determine the extent to which he is able to prosper within that society. If an individual is able to prosper, he will be rewarded for it and if he is rewarded for it he will be able to satisfy his needs. His needs include housing, clothing, transportation and communication, and a man who is able to satisfy those needs becomes a stable and responsible citizen.

It is that lack of stability, the lack of responsibility in the countries north of us that has created the poverty and the degradation of the citizens who have been decolonized in the previous colonial parts of Africa. I read with horror in a newspaper today that the infrastructure of Mozambique has collapsed to such an extent—and these are the words of a South African businessman who has just returned—that it will become impossible for South Africa actually to trade with Mozambique. Telecommunications have been flattened out. Transportation is non-existent. There is no infrastructure whatsoever in Mozambique.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

It is impossible for us actually to do what the spirit of the Nkomati Accord intended, and the reason for that is the collapse of that society because there are insufficient people who are educated to carry it through. Our responsibility as Christians in this country, and also as Moslems and Hindus, is to see to it that what we give future generations and the heritage we leave them, is sound education. We believe this Bill will provide that and we give it our wholehearted support.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban North referred to the history of Africa and I should like to point out to him that in every state in Africa where power sharing and mixed government were implemented, the Whites left and poverty set in. This Bill is the outcome of a mixed government in South Africa and for that reason the CP will oppose the Bill with all its might. [Interjections.] We shall not leave, because the CP is going to take over the Government of this country.

Yesterday the hon member for Barberton put the following question to the hon the Minister: “I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would try to explain to us what the difference is between a mixed school and an integrated school.” The hon the Minister then replied as follows: “A mixed school will by definition be an integrated school.” I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. If Whites, Coloureds and Indians study at the same university, is that university also by definition an integrated university? Will the hon the Minister give me an answer?

I shall.

But does he not want to tell me now? It is so easy, after all. The hon the Minister said that by definition a mixed school was an integrated school and all I am asking him is whether such a university would also be an integrated university. The hon the Minister knows he will first have to make a few twists and turns before he can answer me. On the strength of that statement by the hon the Minister I want to ask him whether the University of Stellenbosch is an integrated university because Coloureds and Blacks also study at that university.

No.

That is absolutely astounding. If Whites and Coloureds attend the same school the hon the Minister says it is integration but if they are studying at the same university he says it is not integration. Is it then a mixed university? The hon the Minister also said: “If one takes people out of their community for education purposes and places them in the same school with other people, one is undermining one of the fundamental bases of an own community life, namely separate education”. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister whether, if one takes people out of their own communities for education purposes and places them in the same university or technikon with other people, one is not also undermining one of the fundamental bases for an own community life, namely separate education.

If you know anything about the history of the universities, you would know … [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is now harking back to the past. He is, however, so confused that he cannot give us a reply to these questions.

During the debate the hon member for Virginia and the hon member for Gezina referred to ethnic universities. If Coloureds and Indians are studying at a mixed University of Stellenbosch, is it still an ethnic university?

Of course.

Of which people? Can the hon member for Virginia tell us of which people? The hon the Minister said: “If one takes people out of their communities for education purposes and places them in the same school …—and I want to add, “and university”—… with other people, one is undermining one of the fundamental bases for an own community life, namely separate education. For that reason I want to tell the hon the Minister that with this legislation the Government is undermining one of the fundamental bases for an own education in South Africa.

Coloured persons were admitted to the University of Stellenbosch in Mr Vorster’s time.

I know, but that hon the Minister always harks back to the past. In Mr Vorster’s time this Parliament was a White Parliament and it was going to remain that way, but with the assistance of the Hon the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications this House of Assembly is to become a chamber in a multiracial tricameral Parliament. I would not be surprised if that hon Minister were to lose his post to a person of colour. [Interjections.]

If Whites and Coloureds sit in the same classroom at school, the hon the Minister of National Education says it is integration. Now I want to ask him: If Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks all serve on the SA Council for Education, which advises the Minister— and in order to advise him they have to deliberate and decide what advice thay are going to give him—is that not also an integrated council? [Interjections.]

Order!

The same also applies to the Committee of Heads of Education Departments which will be an integrated education committee that lies to advise the Minister. With multiracial advisory councils and committees and a multiracial Cabinet whose decisions will be enforcable on the own education departments of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians—this is included in this Bill—the Government has taken the road to integration, and road on which they will not be able to turn back. Because they are on that road, they are receiving the enthusiastic support of the PFP and the NRP. but the CP will fight them tooth and nail.

Today the hon member for Virginia praised the PFP and the NRP because they agreed with him and he referred derogatorily to the hon members of the CP because they disagreed with him. I want to tell him that the CP and the NP disagree fundamentally on education. The NP, the PFP and the NRP are fundamentally very close to each other as far as their policies on education and politics are concerned. I want to tell the hon member for Virginia that politically he is far closer to the hon member for Bryanston than to me. [Interjections.] Sir, what I am saying now is true. Politically the hon member for Virginia is far closer to the hon member for Bryanston than he is to any hon member of the CP. [Interjections.] The hon Chief Whip of the NP is going so far as to say: “Thank the Lord for that”.

No, I said you had a long tar brush today. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon Chief Whip should climb out of the tar himself if he wants to talk about tar brushes.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Virginia said that I was proclaiming an untruth when I said that this legislation would be the last legislation to be passed by a White Parliament.

Quote me in full.

This is general legislation and this is the last time that a White Parliament and a White House of Assembly will be able to amend this legislation on its own. I want to tell the hon member for Virginia that henceforth, in order to amend this legislation, he will have to seek consensus with the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi. [Interjections.]

May I please ask a question? Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon member whether he objects to the fact that all medical doctors in South Africa—and the hon member for Pietersburg is one—both Whites and non-Whites, are included on the same register and are represented on the same council. Will the CP change that? As far as attorneys are concerned, will the CP also keep separate registers for Whites and people of colour? [Interjections.] I am asking that with reference to his argument on education.

Mr Speaker, will you allow me to reply to that question? [Interjections.]

Order! That has nothing to do with the legislation before this House.

Mr Speaker, if you will allow me, I shall reply to it.

Yes, but then the hon member will have to be brief.

I just want to tell the hon member that according to the policy of the CP that Coloured lawyers, advocates and doctors will be afforded an opportunity to fill the highest posts in their own national states, as is the case with the Xhosas and the Tswanas in their own fatherlands. In the father-land of the Whites preference will, however, be given to Whites. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the CP cannot tread the path of political integration with the PFP, the NRP and the new NP.

Mr Speaker, if we draw a comparison between the debates on an education policy that were conducted in 1967—about which the hon member for Brentwood appears to know so much—and the debates which have been conducted over the past few days, then there are a few things which become very apparent. At the time the old NP came forward with its old policy and stated the position in principle, as the party saw it. We on this side of the House do not differ with that policy. At the time of official Opposition, the United Party, and the hon member for Houghton, opposed that legislation so vehemently that they asked by way of an amendment that it be read this day six months. That is the difference between what happened in 1967 and what happened during the past few days.

The hon the Minister of National Education and the chief spokesman of the Government, the hon member for Virginia, have been at loggerheads with me about this matter during the past few days. Today they find themselves in the position that the hon member for Bryanston and the hon member for Houghton agree with them in respect of a national education policy. [Interjections.] That is what I find so astonishing about this Government.

It simply proves that they are not in conflict with this legislation.

Surely the hon the Minister has a fine record and surely he is a brilliant academic. I want to tell him, however, that the somersaults he is beginning to perform as regards the standpoint which he previously adopted and the one he is now adopting are turning him into an incompetent debater. [Interjections.] With reference to the debates conducted in 1967, I just want to tell the hon the Minister that he now agrees with the PFP and the NRP, or that they agree with him. One speaker after another on the Government side thanked the hon member for Bryanston and the hon member for Durban North. That is the situation we have in South Africa today. I know the hon the Minister. He was an ardent supporter of a Coloured homeland. Mr Vorster looked him in the eyes just once and he got such a fright that he dropped everything. Then another Prime Minister came along, and when that Prime Minister looked him in the eyes he got as big a fright. I want to say this to the hon the Minister: In respect of these matters, the National Party is treading the path trod by the old United Party and the Progressive Party. I also want to say this to the hon the Minister: He has become the “blue-eyed boy” of the PFP … [Interjections.] … or perhaps the brown-eyed boy. Let me put it this way: The hon member for Bryanston is delighted with the first, slow, hesitant step which the hon the Minister how now taken en route to the education policy of the PFP. But I also want to warn the hon the Minister and tell him that the same kind of flattering remarks were also made in respect of the former Minister of Manpower, and that hon Minister is treading the same path.

Mr Speaker, what are the consequences of this Bill? We are now getting a Minister of a department of State for general affairs who will be responsible for general education affairs. Yesterday the hon the Minister said that there was not going to be a specific department of general education affairs, but today he admitted, to the hon member for Koedoespoort, that there might indeed be a possibility of that happening. In other words, I do not know why the hon the Minister denied it so vehemently yesterday. Yesterday he said that we were simply scoring political debating points off him. I therefore make the statement that in the future dispensation, as far as this education is concerned, there need not be a department which is responsible for general national affairs in regard to education. There need not be one, but on the other hand, it is also not impossible that there may indeed be one, and the hon the Minister agrees with that, does he not?

I think it would be a very foolish Prime Minister who entrusted a task of this magnitude to a single Minister as an overall commission.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that those may perhaps be quite sensible words, but remember: What you now say here, we shall have to convey to the hon the Prime Minister upon his return.

It is stated in the White Paper; it is in the White Paper of the Government.

No, do not come to me with the White Paper. Mr Speaker, I have had enough experience of the National Party … [Interjections.] We shall tackle the hon the Minister on these points. [Interjections.]

Order! I am trying to establish now who is speaking. I called upon the hon member for Rissik to speak, but three speeches are now being made here—inter alia by the hon member for Pinelands.

Mr Speaker, I apologize.

And it seems to me that the hon member for Kuruman also wants to make a second speech. We cannot continue in this way. The hon member may now proceed; we now know that he has the floor.

Sir, the hon the Minister uttered a warning here, directed at the future President. Well, we shall convey it to him, and he will quite probably read this debate. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister a further question: In this time which is coming, what are the powers of this Minister to whom I have referred actually going to be? This Minister is, by notice in the Gazette, going to determine the general policy in regard to formal, informal and non-formal education that has to be followed in the Republic in respect of, inter alia, the norms and standards and the financing of the running and capital costs of education. Very well; we must know about the norms now, because my experience of the Government has been that one simply has to subject what is said by the Government to very careful scrutiny. One needs to have quite a few explanatory dictionaries handy, because with the passage of time so many codicils are added to what they say today that it differs completely from the original words. Mention is being made here of norms. This Minister, you must remember, may in future—and this the hon member for Virginia should go and tell the Free Staters—be a White person, or he may be an Indian.

Theoretically it is …

No, not just theoretically; he may be an Indian. In other words, an Indian, who since the creation of the earth, according to my archeological knowlegde, has never had any say over the Free State, is now receiving in respect of education … [Interjections.] In respect of education, an Indian may receive control over the education of the children in the Free State. [Interjections.]

He cannot receive it on his own.

In respect of certain matters in the Bill, this Minister of general affairs is going to obtain control of a certain kind over the education of the children, the White children, in the Free State.

He cannot receive it on his own.

The hon member says he cannot receive it on his own. Yesterday we had the absurd argument that this Minister—such a person may now be a Minister—has to work in a general, collective Cabinet. [Interjections.] The absurdity lies therein that I want to be shown where in South Africa one has ever found a coalition government among the Whites which was feasible and which functioned properly. And now, what is more, we are getting a racially mixed coalition Cabinet.

But surely you agreed to this in 1977.

Surely the NP is going into an election, even in the Parliament with three chambers, on the basis of the stating of principles, and surely it is on those principles that the NP wishes to govern the country. However, we are now going to have a collective Cabinet and serving on that Cabinet will be an Indian, Rajbansi, a Coloured, Rev Hendrickse, or whoever it may be, and one of them may become the Minister. I now want to know what policy is going to be adopted in that collective Cabinet. Is it going to be the education policy of the NP which is going to be adopted there, or is it going to be the education policy of the Coloured people? Which party’s education policy is going to be adopted? [Interjections.] In the new Cabinet the Coloured people and the Indians are also going to be subordinate because the majority, so I understand, will be NP Ministers. Surely neither the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition nor the hon leader for Durban Point will be included in that Cabinet, or will they?

Is the hon member making a canvassing speech for himself now?

Definitely not for you.

If we may give the hon the Minister some good advice, we urge him to go back to RAU. I just want to ask him, when he helped to establish RAU, was it an ethnic university for the Afrikaners, or for whom? The hon the Minister said last year that those students—I am saying this since we are now dealing with universities—had full student political rights. They could become members of the students’ council. However, when I asked the hon member for Stellenbosch whether those non-White students were able to go and stay in the hostels and whether they were also full-fledged students there, the hon member said that he was holding a discussion with Mr Myburgh.

Order! Is the hon member still dealing with the Bill?

Sir, I am coming to it now. [Interjections.]

I want to point out a few things to the hon the Minister. This Minister is now going to lay down norms. What are the norms? “Norms” also mean that he must lay down criteria He must lay down rules. He must lay down requirements. Within those words—the hon the Minister will agree with me—there is a very wide range of meaning, so that the NP or a more liberal person than the hon the Minister, if he should become Minister one day, could read far more into that terminology than what is merely regarded superficially as the norms. He must maintain standards. “Standards” means that he must establish a criterion. He must create models. Yesterday the hon member for Gezina spoke about the historical inequality that existed in the education systems of the various population groups.

Who establishes the criteria at the moment?

I should very much like to know. What plan does the Government have in this regard? How long is it going to take to eliminate the so-called historical inequalities? What are the implications of this? Did the hon the Minister, who worked out so easily what our Coloured homeland policy was going to cost the country, work out for himself what it is going to cost to achieve parity in respect of the education of all the individual children in South Africa?

Many calculations have already been made.

I should very much like to see those calculations.

The hon the Minister goes further and says “norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations”. What are syllabuses? Syllabuses are also the classification of the subject matter taught so that it is spread methodically over the learning period. This Minister, of whom it is said that he would not have much to do with own affairs, is going to have a say in the classification of the subject matter, because “syllabuses” means that as well. If one looks up the word in the dictionary, one will observe this. He shall receive a say in respect of salaries. He shall have to provide a resumé of what is being dealt with. I want to make one thing clear here today. With this terminology the National Party is going to rewrite the history of the Whites in this new relatively unitary people that it wants to build in South Africa—it has already taken the first hesitant steps in that direction—and then in particular as far as the Afrikaners are concerned, rewrite it in accordance with the idiom of the hon the Minister of Education and Training and the left wing of the governing party so that a totally liberalized education policy is being made an integral part of the syllabuses.

Rubbish!

The hon member can say it is rubbish if he likes. Fifteen years ago, whenever the homeland policy was mentioned, many people also said it was rubbish. [Interjections.]

The governing party must know that the consequences of this Bill will in future determine that the education for the three so-called population groups—in the terms of those hon members—will be equalized. As we proceed and in the process in which hon members will try to achieve consensus in respect of education in South Africa, the specific aspects peculiar to this education will compel the Whites to change their norms and standards, and change them in such a way that the norms, standards and syllabuses of the Whites are brought as close as possible to those of the Coloured people and the Indians. The hon the Minister will not be able to prevent this.

We shall see in future who the people are who wanted to score political debating points off others, and what the consequences of this political State structure will be.

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that we are dealing here with three population groups and population organisms. If those things which keep those population organisms separate are forced closer together, conflict will occur and it will first occur on the level of education. Today the hon the Minister admitted in reply to a question that he had been invited by the NP for Potgietersrus to address teachers. The hon the Minister used his position to put this policy to the people in the way in which he saw it. As far as education is concerned, the hon the Minister, like the hon the Prime Minister who wants to create a relative people, is creating an education policy for a new relative people, and these are the reasons why the policy embodied in this Bill will have no salutory meaning.

Mr Speaker, when I heard the hon member for Rissik speak about a relative people, I realized how relative understanding and intelligence can be, too. His was probably one of the most pathetic contributions to a debate on a serious matter. The hon member has the ability and the experience to do better, if he would only prepare himself and free himself from the frustration that is biting him so. He must kill that flea; if he does so, he will be able to make a positive contribution in this House once again.

When a Bill is drafted and the interpretation of such clear and obvious concepts such as norms and standards have to be left to the hon member for Rissik, legal drafting is no longer really possible. I wish to state categorically that if norms and standards for syllabuses, examinations and certification are to be determined by the Minister in future, then by no stretch of the imagination could that include the classification of subject matter, nor could it, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to a liberalization of the syllabus. If, after the previous debate, and after the contribution made by the hon member for Virginia in connection with the entrenchment of a specific culture, a specific religion and national and mother-tongue education in existing legislation—legislation to which the hon member himself referred and which was violently opposed at the time—and bearing in mind that those principles were subsequently reconfirmed by two Government statements—if, after all that, an hon member again wants to contend that the specifically cultural aspects are being removed from education, then we are not engaged in a useful, meaningful or constructive debate. The hon member made the statement that in determining standards and norms in respect of examinations and certification it was inevitable, due to the first principle stated with regard to the goal of striving after equal opportunities and equal standards of education for all, that these standards and norms for the Whites will be as close as possible to those of the Coloureds and Indians. The implication of that remark is that by definition, and necessarily, the standards of those population groups will be lower than those of the Whites. I think that that is an unreasonable and contemptible allegation to make. It is true that at this stage the level of educational development of the various population groups differs, but the Government and this side of the House do not accept that it is eternally predestined that the standards of the one group will be low and those of another group high. We accept that there is a possibility of evolution in each of the population groups, and with this specific point in mind we believe that educational opportunities must be made fair and equal for everyone, to enable those possibilities to develop to the maximum extent in each group.

I want to repeat what I said in a contribution to a previous phase of the debate, viz that the setting of norms and standards does not imply that in doing so one is forcing the quality of a specific group’s performance upwards or downwards. All it means is that one is establishing a standardized instrument of measurement, or criterion, in terms of which everyone’s quality of performance may be assessed. If it is true, as the hon member for Rissik believes, that one group is predestined always to perform better, then, according to that standardized yardstick, they will achieve higher marks. If another group is predestined to perform less well then, in accordance with the hon member’s cultural philosophy, they will achieve lower marks. The point is that the criterion, the standpoints and norms applied in the process of measurement must be the same for each of these population groups, or else one will have unfairness on the one hand and the possibility of discrimination in reverse on the other.

At this point I should like to thank hon members briefly for their contributions to the debate. I also want to thank those who have given their support to the legislation. I have a few brief remarks to make with reference to the contributions by hon members. The hon member for Bryanston wanted to know what the educational situation would be within the White educational setup if there were to be a change in the role of the provinces in the system of Government, and therefore in education as well. This is a matter which is still very much in a phase of negotiation. Until such time as negotiations have been conducted with the provinces, as the Government has laid down in its constitutional guidelines, in respect of changes in the powers of government of provinces, the status quo of the provincial departments under the overall co-ordinating control of the department responsible for White education will continue, as at present, under the Department of National Education, which is responsible for White education in the present dispensation.

In the second place, I want to refer briefly to the remark of the hon member for Bryanston that “the door is wide open to move away from educational segregation.” The hon member is misreading this matter. Yesterday, in reply to the hon member for Koedoespoort, I said that the powers laid down in the constitution in respect of general education legislation and determining of general education policy were limited powers relating to the three spheres that we have mentioned by name here several times, and which I do not wish to repeat now. It is clearly stipulated in the constitution that if any population group wants to put its education services at the disposal of people other than members of its own population group, this can only be done subject to the approval of the State President, the Government and inter-ministerial negotiation. In this Bill and also in the constitution, no door has been opened to educational integration, as hon members of the CP contend and as the hon member for Bryanston also intimated here.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Virginia for his key remark to the effect that as far as education is concerned, we can never speak about the end of the road and that we must always continue to bring about renewal. This is true, because education is in essence a process in which people are prepared for the world they will enter as adults, and that world, too, is constantly changing. Therefore, as far as education is concerned, we shall never really see the end of the road, and anyone who argues otherwise does not know what education is all about.

I should like to thank the hon member for Virginia for the effective way in which he dealt with some of the misinterpretations put forward by hon members of the CP.

The hon member for Koedoespoort once again dragged in the allegation that White education was supposedly being undermined because it would be a department within the own administration for White own affairs. However, I wish to point out to him that at present, White education is one of five legs of the Department of National Education. This department has a chief director of education and a chief director of macro-educational affairs, which is now being developed into general education affairs. The department also has a chief director of culture promotion, a chief director for sport advancement and a fifth chief director to whom certain other services, such as archives, language services and so on, are entrusted. Therefore the education of the Whites as such is at present a part, although a very important part, of a Government department, and there will be no essential change in the position of that education if it becomes part of a White administration for own affairs.

I should like to thank the hon member for Brentwood for the suggestion he made in connection with an information document concerning the most important aspects of the new dispensation in education for the determining of general policy aspects of education. We shall certainly follow up his suggestion. The hon member also pointed out very effectively how long it has taken and how much effort, trouble and negotiation it has taken to achieve proper co-ordination among the various White education departments. He mentioned that the leaders of those education departments and of the professions regarded it as very important that this co-ordination in respect of the essential points embodied in the constitution was now being extended by way of general legislation to a co-ordination of all education departments, that is to say, of the Whites and the other two population groups.

†I should like to thank the hon member for Durban North for his support and his contribution to the debate. There are, I believe, no particular points in his speech that call for a reply.

*The hon member for Kuruman once again raised the university/school issue here. I want to put it to him that a school is an institution where members of a specific community undergo their first formal moulding as members of that cultural community. If, therefore, there is an interference at school level with the cultural embedment of the ethnic links of the members of that community, as would occur by way of mixed schools, this would—as I put it, “by definition”— have an integrating effect because through such a situation those persons would be detached from their cultural links. Therefore it would be a school which, due to cultural neutrality, would not be capable of promoting a characteristic cultural embedment for those children. Although universities are also community-oriented, and although they are geared to serving a specific people in a specific country, they are institutions that also recognize that they form part of a universal community of knowledge. Throughout history, in our country as well, universities have always accepted members of other peoples, particularly at an advanced level, but also at even the under-graduate level, without thereby jeopardizing their own identity, their own ethnic and cultural orientation. If we consider how many people from other nations have attended the universities of the old university countries of Germany, England, France and the Netherlands, how many hundreds of thousands there have sometimes been, without threatening the identity of those universities, then that, too, is the reply to the question as to why it is necessary and desirable and why the opening of universities entails no threat to identity, as long as it is done in such a way as not to jeopardize the characteristic ethnically-oriented or community-oriented character of the universities in question. If one understands the difference in function between the school phase and the university phase of education, and if one has a feeling for what has happened in history at these levels, it is really no problem to see that the implications of a mixed school can have an integrating effect radically different to the situation in the university system, where the opening of a specific university on a limited basis, without endangering its community-oriented character, is indeed desirable and should therefore be accepted, and can by no means be regarded as integration.

In concluding the debate on this matter, since we are now at an important milestone in educational renewal, I wish to convey thanks and appreciation to specific persons, groups and bodies for the very hard, thorough and—in some respects—fairly lengthy spadework that has been done in preparation for this legislation.

In the first place, this Bill—as hon members have correctly stated for various motives—is a result of the constitutional dispensation. If it had not been for the spadework, the thinking and the creative renewal that have gone into the new constitutional dispensation, in which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has played such a leading role, we should not have been able to lay this additional stone on that cornerstone today. Accordingly, on this occasion, from the point of view of the educational interests, I should like to thank and pay tribute to all who have played a constructive and creative part in the establishment of a new constitutional dispensation.

In the second place, we as a House must once again attest to the fundamental contribution made by the HSRC report on renewal in education that was published in October 1981. In this regard we must once again pay tribute to Prof Peter de Lange and his co-workers who, within a very short time, made fundamental and in-depth recommendations in respect of renewal covering a wide sphere. I think that if the history of education were to be written, the profound importance of Prof De Lange’s leadership in this field will be writ large. I should also like to refer to the role he played as chairman of the interim education working party, which has in the meantime been converted into an interim SACE, which made a direct contribution to the formulation of the White Paper. This is the White Paper that the hon member for Rissik quotes as gospel when it suits him and, on other occasions, casts aside as an insignificant document. However, that White Paper is the policy of the Government of the day, and that fact will have to be taken into account. Education and the teaching profession must also take this into account. In this regard I again wish to remind hon members that in the December 1983 edition of its journal, Mondstuk, the Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging clearly spelt out to the teaching profession that if they differed on the new constitutional dispensation and on the educational aspects of the new constitutional dispensation, they were free to fight it in the party political context, but that as members of the profession, as teachers, as people in the employ of education departments, they had to accept and be loyal to the new dispensation with its educational and teaching implications, and work within it. If they do not do so, they must find other jobs.

It is a Trojan horse.

The hon member ought not to talk about horses, because he cannot even neigh.

On this occasion I also wish to pay tribute to Dr Flip Meyer, the Director General of National Education, for the leadership that he, together with the officials in his top management, has displayed in the whole process of preparing the Bill. Dr Flip Meyer has achieved much in the course of his distinguished career, but I believe that, historically speaking, this Bill will perhaps stand out among the beacons he has planted as the one which will have had the most enduring and positive consequences for education in South Africa. Since he has now reached the end of his period of service and, as I mentioned in the course of the discussion of my Vote, he is to retire at the end of July, I should like to convey my personal appreciation and, I am sure, that of this House as well, to him for what he has contributed with regard to this Bill.

When we consider this Bill it is as well to try once again to give an account of the fact that what is probably one of the finest and most significant contributions to our education is to be found in the 11 principles of education embodied in this Bill. The fact that after extensive debate the HSRC research group was able to bring together a wide variety of orientations in educational thinking, so as to accept these 11 principles unanimously, represents a very important achievement. Moreover, they were able to express those 11 principles in concise, crisp and understandable language. It is striking that in the comments on these educational principles that have been received, with one exception of the principle which the Government has in any event qualified, viz that relating to the freedom of choice of the parents, there has been general acceptance of and support for these educational principles.

I should like to point out to this House once again that in the future implementation of these educational principles, which will serve as a basis and point of departure for the formulation of general education policy, special note will have to be taken of the balance and equilibrium between different claims in our educational approach, a balance which is emphasized in these principles. Not only it is necessary, as stated in the HSRC report and as the Government, too, stated in its White Paper, to interpret all these principles within the context of their mutual interaction and never to single out and isolate one of them—each is always qualified by what is stated in the others—but it is also true that in some of these formulations of principle, an appeal is made to the education planner and policy maker to strike a balance and find an equilibrium between the various demands in the process of educational planning. In the second principle the balance is struck between positive recognition of that which is common on the one hand and that which is diverse on the other in our society. The fourth principle—I have already pointed this out in the debate—advocates the necessary balance or equilibrium between, on the one hand, the needs of the individual—his aptitudes, his aspirations and his talents—and on the other, the needs and the claims of the society, including the religious and cultural aspects of the society, as well as the economic and manpower considerations of the country. As this principle has been formulated, these claims are neatly balanced vis-à-vis one another and this impresses upon us the need to take this into account in our planning. In the fifth principle—and this is one of the most important contributions made by the report of the HSRC—it is advocated that we do not see education one-sidedly as institutionalized education, education at an institution or so-called formal education but that we should also see the positive relation, the equilibrium, among formal education that takes place in institutions, informal education which occurs spontaneously in society and the non-formal education that takes place in the work situation and at post-school level. In the sixth principle it is stated that even in formal institutionalized education a balance is struck, in that on the one hand, the State has a very considerable responsibility but on the other, the parents and the community, too, have a responsibility and a right to a say. Moreover, it is specified in the ninth principle that in the process of educational administration, the demands of centralization on the one hand and decentralization on the other must be reconciled or balanced. Reading through this, one is struck by the delicate balancing of demands and the feeling that in education one cannot storm in with simplistic and one-sided solutions, but instead that one has to strike a balance, in a responsible way, between the various demands.

By way of this Bill this House is being confronted with a piece of significant meaningful renewal in educational administration. However, this renewal is founded and based on the existing proven basis of the system of educational differentiation in accordance with population groups, the existing and proven educational differentiation expressed in own schools and own education departments for each population group and also expressed in own political decision-making on education as an own affair for each population group by way of legislation in their own Houses of Parliament and ministerially, by way of the own Ministers who are members of the various Ministers’ Councils. Therefore the renewal we have here is based on the existing and proven principle of educational differentiation which gives each population group meaningful self-determination in respect of education as an own affair of that population group.

If we ask ourselves exactly what constitutes this renewal, we must again say—various hon members have done so in the course of this debate—that on the one hand, this renewal is to be found in the fact that it recognizes the reality of South African society, which the constitutional plan is also based on. It recognizes the fact of our population diversity and of our ethnic diversity. However, it also recognizes that the accepted State objective of stability and orderly development in the State, and the vital need, in a multi-national society such as that of South Africa, that provision be made for group security, for a feeling of security in each group, requires that there be the greatest possible degree of self-determination in respect of each of the own affairs of each population group. It also requires that where a population group participates in a broader political decision-making process involving more than just its own population group—in other words, where a group participates in decision-making on general affairs—that that participation in politics should also be on a basis of population differentiation, as we have in our new constitutional system. We have separate voters’ rolls and separate constituencies and representatives elected to separate Houses which, in turn, co-operate with the separate Ministers’ Councils for each of the various population groups, and so on. Therefore we are dealing with renewal, but it is renewal that recognizes and takes full account of the realities of our society, and this also forms the basis for our constitutional plan.

If we examine this renewal more closely, we find that what it consists of is a recognition of the vital need for there also to be certain limited but extremely important aspects of education that must be dealt with as general or common affairs, both by way of legislation and by way of the determination of policy. Therefore, whereas education in its entirety is reserved as one of the most important own affairs for self-determination, nevertheless there are these few defined but important aspects which must be dealt with by way of general legislation or the determining of general policy—those relating to finance, those relating to the various staff matters—salaries, conditions of employment and professional registration—and those relating to standards and norms for examination and certification.

Experience, as well as the HSRC investigation, have shown us very clearly that the differentiation we have built up in the course of time and are continuing to maintain in separate educational systems must be combined and co-ordinated with regard to these three general affairs. The question can again be asked: Why? Why can we not simply fragment them, and even separate them from one another totally? In the first place, it is necessary to ensure fairness by providing equal educational opportunities and standards for all parts of the population and by moving purposefully towards the achievement of that ideal of a fair deal for all. This is only possible if, with reference to these defined matters, we do so on a basis of determination of general education policy.

However, it is not merely a matter of fairness in regard to those who may at present have lesser opportunities. It is also the case that by combining the separate systems under a general determination of education policy, we must also afford protection against the undermining or lowering of standards at the expense of those parts of the population that do in fact wish, and are able, to maintain standards achieved. As I said earlier in reply to the speech by the hon member for Rissik, there is a real danger that if we do not set common standards and norms for the measurement of performance in examinations and certification, we could have a form of discrimination in reverse which could be to the detriment of the more advanced educational systems.

Sir, at an earlier stage of the debate an hon member said the following, and I wish to repeat it: It would be nothing less than a disaster for education if we were to continue to specify standards and norms separately and individually for the various educational systems. If we have separate and individual standards in watertight compartments with respect to examinations and certification, the result could only be chaos, entailing an inability to compare educational performance and mutual distrust. In the same way chaos would result if we were to apply separate and individual standards and norms in respect of staff appointments in respect the salaries and conditions of service that teachers are to enjoy. If every department of education were to set its own minimum qualification requirements for appointment at specific levels, we should have chaos, suspicion and mistrust in our inter-ethnic relations and in our education as a whole. In the same way, if we do not have standardized and equalized minimum requirements for the professional registration of teachers, we shall have chaos in that various groups of teachers, due to lesser qualifications in accordance with which they are able to qualify for the same status, would view one another with suspicion and would not really regard one another as professional colleagues on the same footing.

But, Sir, there is sufficient reason why the various education systems must be combined by way of a general education policy in respect of certain matters, and that is that, as hon members have indicated in the course of the debate, it has already been shown in practice in respect of some of these matters that it is necessary to establish co-ordinated standards and, indeed, that this is feasible and possible. I have already pointed out how, since 1975, this Government has successfully introduced a policy in respect of parity in conditions of employment and parity in salaries in respect of persons in the Government service and in particular, persons who are fully qualified educators.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs J H Hoon, T Langley, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Mr L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden, Dr F A H van Staden, Messrs J J B van Zyl and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, the Bill which the hon the Minister has introduced is predominantly very acceptable to us. It represents to a very large extent a forward passage in the emancipation of technikons which serve the Black community of South Africa. In reading the Bill and seeing what it contains, one will discover that to a large extent the terminology had been changed in order to come into line with accepted practice for other technikons in South Africa. The word “director” for instance is now changed to “rector” while the old term “board of studies” is changed to “academic board” and so forth. This, of course, is not contentious and we accept that without any argument at all.

What we particularly appreciate about this Bill is the fact that it embodies a principle which we in this party hold dear, and that is the principle of the devolution of power and decision-making power to the technikons themselves. If one reads through the Bill, one finds many provisions in terms of which this particular council is now empowered to make decisions without the approval of the Minister. That to a large extent is an indication of the fact that this particular technikon has grown in stature and in maturity so that it is now able to accept responsibility having moved further away from being under the wings of the Minister. This principle of the devolution of power is of primary importance to us especially in the light of the fact that the technikons which will serve the Black community of South Africa are going to become increasingly important in their relevance and in their number in South Africa. South Africa will during the next 10 years require a minimum of 100 000 newly trained technical personnel and because of the population structure in South Africa, the majority of those trainees and students will have to come from the Black population. In fact, at the moment there is a total disproportion in the ratio of the number of technikons in relation to the population as such between Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians. There are of course historical reasons for this. Even if we had ten times the number of technikons serving the Black community, we would not have sufficient teachers or eligible students to take advantage of the fact that the infrastructure had been expanded. However, if one looks at the number of students at Black secondary schools today, one will find that the numbers are expanding geometrically, and within the next five years we will probably have to provide at least another five technikons similar to the one which we have at the moment in order to cope with the demand for technical training amongst Blacks.

South Africa, economically, at the moment has a pressing need for labour-intensive industries in order to soak up the unemployed unskilled workers in South Africa. As the average level of education increases, so, proportionately, the number of Blacks that will come forward for technical training will become of paramount importance, not only to South Africa itself, but also to its neighbouring states. We will have to become the educational hub for technical training for Capricorn Africa. Although we will have our hands full with training our own Black people, we will owe it to our neighbours, such as Mozambique, Namibia—when it becomes independent—Botswana and other countries to actually accommodate many of their students as well, simply in the interests of economic prosperity and stability in Southern Africa. In that sense we will require more and more technikons as are catered for in terms of this particular Bill.

I would like to say to the PFP that we agree with them, not only in their support of this Bill, but also the fact that they will be moving an amendment to clause 12 of the Bill. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we will also be supporting this amendment of the PFP because we believe the right should be given to the council and senate of every tertiary institution to decide for itself which students to admit and that the criteria for admission should be based purely on academic and educational criteria and not on any other criteria at all.

The fact that the hon the Minister has seen fit to bring about an increased devolution of power, of the decision-making powers of the councils of these technikons, as is embodied in this Bill, indicates that the hon the Minister himself has confidence in the decision-making process and ability of these technikon councils. We believe that, as we have allowed the White, Indian, Coloured universities of South Africa to decide for themselves in terms of a quota system whom to admit as students, a similar philosophy should be followed in the case of Black technikons. After all, if we have the confidence in them to run the infrastructure and the finances and to determine for themselves what people’s salaries should be and what curricula should be given, we should also have the confidence in that council to decide which students they should allow. I say that not only in terms of the principle of devolution of power, but also in terms of the status, image and perception which people have of these technikons, both locally and overseas. It is a well accepted principle in academic circles that the academic freedom of any tertiary educational institution includes the academic freedom to decide whom to admit as students.

While we are aware of the fact that any tertiary institution in South Africa could over-exercise its discretion in allowing too many students of different cultural groups we nevertheless believe that institutions such as technikons and universities will always put academic standards above ideological and political considerations. Therefore I would like to tell hon members of the PFP that we will be supporting their amendment. The hon member for Pinetown—I do not see him here at the moment—will probably be pleased about this. This stems from the fact that the NRP’s policy has always been that education up to matriculation level should take place within the framework of the culture of the particular population group, but that thereafter it should be free-floating and that it should occur within a purely academic environment. We believe at that level individuals and institutions are mature enough to make rational decisions for themselves and that they will not be undermining the basic value system of the culture within which they find themselves.

With these few words I want to say to the hon the Minister that, with the one exception, we will be giving this Bill our fullest support.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members who have participated in the debate so far for their contributions. I also thank the three Opposition parties for their support of the legislation. I want to reply briefly to a few of the matters that have been raised, before we proceed to the Committee Stage.

In particular, I want to thank the hon member for Virginia for the excellent exposition he gave of the contents of the legislation, so much so that I hope it may save us a little time when we come to the Committee Stage. I believe that to a large extent, his contribution served as a reply to the arguments advanced by the hon member for Pinetown.

†The hon member for Pinetown has tendered his apologies for being absent this afternoon. I should like to reply to him in any case because he designated the hon member for Walmer to act in his stead. First of all, the hon member asked me for a clear statement with regard to remarks made by the hon the Minister of National Education with regard to management style etc, pertaining to technikons. He also asked why the particular representative on the council does not enjoy the same privileges as the other members. The fact is that the hon the Minister referred to the status quo. At this moment, before the implementation of the Bill before the House, the technikon under the auspices of this department is being managed and financed in a completely different fashion from the others. However, as soon as this Bill is implemented—the idea is to implement it in phases—the distinction will gradually, and hopefully as soon as possible, disappear. That will also necessitate a rethink on the status of the representative of Black technikons on the particular council under the auspices of National Education.

Secondly, the hon member also said that there need not be separate technikoms at all. He argued that as far as technikon training is concerned, it should not be seen as cultural transmission. The fact is, as was also enunciated by my hon colleague for Virginia, that the Government sees education in its entirety as a culturally based activity, and in that sense we also provide separate technikons for the various population groups. We obviously cannot do it in watertight compartments, as we will argue a little later, but as far as the character of an institution is concerned we believe that it should address the particular needs of the various and diverse cultural groups in South Africa. We must remember that a student is not only in class all the time but that he also moves on the campus and that he is involved in various organizations on the campus, which also not only relates to his technical studies as such but also to his cultural and other activities. Thus our approach. After all, there cannot be such a thing as absolutely sterile education without any cultural content whatsoever.

The hon member then made the point that technikons should be utilized to the utmost extent, referring to all technikons in South Africa. I obviously fully support that view. I checked with my hon colleague for National Education, and it is a fact that also as far as his technikons are concerned, as is the case with universities, there are small numbers of students from other population groups attending technikons all over South Africa.

As far as the hon member’s intended amendment is concerned I think we should leave the argument for the moment and rather take it further in the Committee Stage. The hon member also said that to have only one technikon for Black people in this country is scandalous. The fact is that we have one technikon for Black people under the auspices of Education and Training. There are, however, two technikons in kwaZulu under kwaZulu’s jurisdiction, and there is the correspondence technikon, Technikon RSA. Black students can obviously study at all four of these technikons. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I believe we should take note of the fact that the Mabopane East technikon has up to date cost R130 million. Cost is therefore a basic consideration. Bearing this figure in mind when one thinks of what will be needed in the future—the hon member for Durban North also pointed out that we will need more technikons in the future—it is obvious that the cost factor compels us to utilize to the maximum the technikons that we have at present. In planning and building technikons we must also make absolutely sure that right from the start the facilities will be utilized fully.

There is a demand for technikons in various places in South Africa but there is a very specific demand in the Port Elizabeth area, and to this end we are amending the Act by clause 3 of the Bill that is now before us to enable the department to commission any college which is a secondary institution to also offer certain technikon courses. In this way we will generate the necessary support and once there are indications that it will be economical and feasible to erect an entirely separate technikon in a particular area, we will obviously proceed with it. In the meantime we are endeavouring to satisfy the existing needs in the most economical way.

Another constraint that we have in regard to technikons is the matter of adequate staff. We have already a staff problem at our one technikon. At the moment there are 44 vacant posts out of a total of 161, in spite of the fact that the salaries are not that bad. The demand for people who are capable of teaching at technikons, especially in high technology, is such that it is extremely difficult for an education department to compete. It is therefore obvious that some time in the future some arrangements will have to be made to bring about a meeting between the department and industry where this very issue can be discussed. Ways and means will have to be found where we, without stealing each other’s talent, can endeavour to satisfy the need for highly skilled people to lecture the students.

Another aspect which is worthy of investigation in the future is that of a decentralized campus. We could, for instance, perhaps consider the establishment of such a decentralized campus at Port Elizabeth as an interim step before the erection of a totally independent technikon. We have successfully applied this concept in Vista University. The concept therefore provides some means of meeting the needs for technikon training on an interim basis.

A last point raised by the hon member for Pinetown was in regard to what he called the disturbing results of technikon training which were referred to in the department’s annual report. As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, Black people in the Republic and also in the self-governing and independent national states attend four different technikons. We are only directly responsible for one of these technikons but the results of all four institutions are reflected in our annual report. I have, however, had the figures analysed and I am happy to say that as far as our technikon is concerned, the results were much better percentage-wise than the general results of all four the institutions taken together. Should the hon member require further analyses in this regard, he is free to table a question and we will gladly respond to it.

*I come now to the speech of the hon member for Koedoespoort. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him for having supported the Bill, for having raised certain important points and for having interpreted this Bill correctly. I am glad he supports the principle of greater devolution of authority. In this way, the administrative independence of the technikons will naturally be increased. The hon member asked that we should conduct our debate in the same positive spirit as that which I showed in the debate with the PFP yesterday. This is not always possible. The PFP’s standpoints on this matter go back a long way and their principles have not been retreaded, like those of hon members of the CP.

And like yours.

My principles have never been retreaded. They remain the same as they have always been.

They remain liberal.

If the hon member for Rissik calls me a liberal, I just want to tell him that we on this side of the House have reached the stage where, when he says something to us which he regards as an insult, we regard it as a compliment. One day, when the hon member has left this House, in the not too distant future, I hope, we shall remember him as the strong-arm man of the CP. When their arguments become threadbare, he is the man who makes personal attacks on their opponents, as he did with my hon colleague today. He denounces me as a liberal, but I want to tell him that he can call me whatever he likes. It makes no difference to me. If he calls me a liberal, suggesting that I differ from him, I want to tell him that I am very grateful for the fact that he perceives that difference.

The conduct of the hon member for Koedoespoort in debates concerning this department has always been that of a gentleman. I disagree with many of the things the hon member says, but I am not ashamed to think of his speech being read by people all over the world who take an interest in Black education in South Africa. At least he knows how to conduct himself, and even though he is on the wrong track, as far as I am concerned, at least he expresses his opinions in an acceptable manner. I am not unduly concerned either when I think of his speeches being read by the Black people in South Africa who are educationally much more advanced than people in South Africa may think. However, I am ashamed to think that the things which the hon member for Rissik says are recorded in Hansard and can be read in the best libraries in the world, because the things which the hon member presumes to say do not redound to the credit of any person or institution.

I am very glad that the hon member for Koedoespoort noticed the fact that while we are conferring greater powers on the council of the technikon with regard to donations and so on, we are doing so subject to specific conditions which are consistent with the aims of the technikons. He understood that our intention with this was to prevent donors from gaining any power over the council of Black technikon. We are dealing here with a soft target as far as revolutionary politics are concerned, and we must be extremely careful in this connection. I am grateful to the hon member for noticing this and for correctly identifying our intention.

As far as the hon member’s concern for purity of language is concerned, I support him in principle. I do not know whether or not this is an Anglicism, but it is a fact that in their everyday language, people who deal with technikons and similar institutions speak of a “school” rather than a “department”. This has become a commonly used and accepted term. People speak of a medical school, an industrial school, etc, and now it is a fact that this is also the accepted term at a technikon. We simply have to accommodate ourselves to the terminology used in everyday language. That is why we have used the term in the Bill, but I agree that a more correct word would probably have been more satisfactory to us all as far as language is concerned.

The hon member also asked me to clear up what he considered to be an anomaly in clause 18. It is in connection with reporting back and the fact that we use the words “House of Assembly” instead of “Parliament” in the Bill. The position is that section 97 of the new Constitution provides that any reference to “House of Assembly” is to be construed as a reference to Parliament. If it becomes necessary in future to report in terms of the provision in this Bill, the report will indeed be submitted to Parliament, ie to all three Houses.

Then I want to come to the point on which the hon member said that he naturally differed with us. I do not object to the fact that he differs with us in this connection, although I want to say that this principle of his is somewhat of a retread, as I shall indicate. I respect the fact that it is a matter of principle to him that no people of colour or members of other population groups should attend a Black technikon. However, he will concede to me that this cannot be an absolute principle, or does he think it can be an absolute principle?

I think it can.

He says he thinks it can be an absolute principle. This is precisely where we differ with each other, for at the time when his leaders were responsible for this kind of thing on this side of the House … [Interjections.] I think this is something which should be placed on record, because we know very well that statements recorded in Hansard are used in pamphlets and similar publications. Therefore the record must be absolutely straight. The hon member’s leader …

Who is his leader? [Interjections.]

It is the hon member for Waterberg, if I am right. In his former capacity as Deputy Minister of Education and Training, he piloted a Bill through this House dealing with the tertiary institutions falling under this department. The debate on the Bill took place on Tuesday, 20 March 1979. Up to that day, the admission of any member of any other population group to a Black university had been absolutely prohibited. In terms of that Bill, this prohibition was then lifted and another provision was written into the Act, which made it possible for people from other population groups to be admitted to Black universities. Since we are dealing here with a technikon which is also a tertiary institution of this department, I think it is relevant to look at what happened on that day. The then hon Deputy Minister was speaking when a former member, Mr N B Wood, put the following question to him (Hansard, 1979, col 2891):

The Deputy Minister’s reply was:

Then Mr N B Wood interrupted the hon the Deputy Minister and asked:

To that the Deputy Minister replied:

What was the objective of that Bill at the time? In the past, when Black universities did not confer autonomous degrees, but all conferred Unisa degrees, lecturers at such institutions were entitled to a certain rebate on tuition fees for themselves and their families. When the universities became autonomous and began to confer their own degrees, that door was closed. Then it became necessary to revise this matter, and this Bill was introduced at the time, the primary idea being—the whole debate revolved around this, and the hon the Deputy Minister also said so at the time—that that concession would be for the lecturers and their families. However, when the hon the Deputy Minister was asked whether it would be exclusively for them, his reply was: “No, not exclusively.” A little further on—this was a long story—he made the following statement which is relevant and which I just want to quote (col 2891):

The same applies today. After all, the purpose of the amendment which is before us, and to which the hon member for Koedoespoort is now objecting in principle, is not to throw open Black technikons to all. The department’s experience with Medunsa, for example, has been that as far as medical training is concerned, it is truly in the best interests of the Black communities in South Africa that as far as undergraduate study is concerned, Medunsa should as far as possible be reserved exclusively for Black students. This is our policy, and we refuse to do anything else. As far as post-graduate study is concerned, there are quite a number of White students who have been allowed to register in terms of the guidelines which were also applied by the hon member for Lichtenburg on a large scale. In his time, he allowed 80 students of other races to register at Black universities in one year, and more than a hundred in another year.

The only point I want to put to the hon member is this: If the hon member says that this is a watertight principle, he must also have regard to the practical situation. Here it says in black and white that his hon leader and even his hon deputy leader were unable to create a watertight situation in practice. It is simply impossible. Wè cannot think in such compartments and we cannot work in such compartments either. The position is exactly as his leader put it, namely that it is not the idea to throw open the door—it is to be opened slightly, but not too much, and under strict control and according to guidelines. This is the idea which still exists today. If the hon member tells me now that this is an absolute principle which he believes should be applied, I must infer from this that if the country were to suffer the misfortune of having the CP come into power, this would mean that all the Black universities, where we are going to have many White lecturers for decades to come, would be placed in the position where the right of those White lecturers to register at those universities would also have to be cancelled. The right of those lecturers to register members of their families as well, their wives and so on, for both undergraduate and postgraduate study, would also have to be removed by the CP. If the CP wants to adhere to a watertight principle in this kind of matter, it is going to cause trouble. I just want to ask the hon member whether he does not agree with me that they should not adopt such an absolute standpoint in debating these matters. It does not impress anyone. Perhaps it is for public consumption, I do not know. I just have a suspicion that when one is speaking from a position of strength, as we do on this side of the House, where one is in a position of strength and when one has a strong party, and when one is also speaking from a position of responsibility to keep the wheels turning so that the country may keep on functioning, then one is able to say what one’s fundamental standpoint is, but that one can deal with the exception, and it will not be the end of the world. However, when one finds oneself in a position of relative weakness, then it seems to me that one hides behind a wall of principles and quasi-principles. One draws back and one says that one will not do it, because it is a principle and it is contrary to one’s principles.

You are still young.

I am glad to be young, Mr Speaker. I also think that I shall survive that hon member politically, if not physically as well.

I honestly think that this—I do not want to call it propaganda—this verbal game which revolves around so-called irrevocable, unbreakable and immutable principles is making the hon members of the CP seem a little ridiculous. I want to tell the hon member that if he wants to keep on making a positive contribution, as he has done up to now, he will have to steer clear of that approach. It does not impress anyone on this side of the House and it certainly does not impress the Blacks. It should not impress the voters either, because it is completely impractical. We should all be careful not to elevate ordinary policy measures to the level of sacred cows which we cannot touch, for in doing so, we would only be getting involved in all kinds of disputes.

Nevertheless, I want to thank the hon member. Like other hon members, I believe, he made a constructive contribution.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to the hon member for Durban North, who also made a very constructive contribution in his speech. It is very clear that the hon member takes an interest in education and training, and I thank him for the contribution he made.

†The hon member referred to the disproportion, as he called it, between the number of technikons and the total population. I concede that immediately. The hon member also very correctly and aptly made mention of the fact that there are not sufficient teachers, and the main constraint in many respects is also the fact that at certain stages of the development of certain communities there are insufficient eligible students. This indeed is a fundamental constraint in many respects.

He also, correctly, pointed out that with the tremendous escalation in the number of matriculants, eligible students will be produced on a massive scale and that we should keep it in mind in erecting the necessary number of technikons in order to cope with this. We are indeed in our planning doing just that and I thank him for his support in principle for that. He also made mention of the fact that we would have to provide facilities and opportunities for people from our neighbouring countries also to study at our technikons. That principle has already been accepted for some time as far as our tertiary institutions are concerned. I think it is in fact in operation. I thank him for his support. With regard to the amendment about the autonomy of the technikons as far as the admission of students is concerned, I think we can debate that in full during the Committee Stage. I think there are certain arguments in connection with that which hon members will find interesting.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendments:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 3, in line 17, to omit all the words from “rector” up to and including “rector” in line 18 and to substitute:

1. 2. In the English text, on page 3, in line 23, to omit “course” and to substitute ”direction”.

Mr Chairman, for years now a debate has been going on as to whether the Afrikaans word “hoof” should be used instead of the word “rector”. The English words are “principal” instead of “rector”. Sir, you will find that in the original Act the word director (direkteur) is used because of this difference of opinion on the terminology. In the Bill before us the word “rector” is used, but the problem in connection with the terminology has since been cleared up, and I, therefore, move that in the English text the word “principal” be substituted for the word “rector” and the word “direction” be substituted for the word “course”, which is the most acceptable terminology at the moment.

Mr Chairman, the amendments are acceptable to me.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 11, to omit “technical college or other” and to substitute “college or other educational”.
2. 2. On page 5, in line 12, to omit “technical college or” and to substitute “college or educational”.

The reason for these amendments is that if we confine this to technical colleges, there will be a restriction on the possibility of also holding negotiations with a commercial college, for example. For that reason we should like to omit the word “technical” and substitute the words “college or other educational” so that we are able to negotiate with a wider range of institutions. This applies to both page 5, line 11, and page 5, line 12.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr Chairman, arising out of the first amendment to clause 1, I move as a consequential amendment:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 5, in lines 28, 41, 44 and 45, to omit “rector” and to substitute “principal”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr Chairman, I move as a consequential amendment:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 5, in line 52, and on page 7, in lines 11 and 15, to omit “rector” and to substitute “principal”.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 7, in line 36, to omit “rector” and to substitute “principal”.

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr Chairman, there is an aspect of this clause which we should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. We are not moving an amendment because this clause provides exactly the same as the corresponding sections in the Acts concerning the technikons for other race groups. What concerns us here is that the clause provides:

There are surely lots of other types of income that a technikon could earn and which it should be able to use for its normal expenditure. There are for example donations. There is trust income—the income on a trust plus the donations to a trust—and there are even earnings. It will be remembered that recently we discussed a Bill in connection with the CSIR which made reference to the giving out of certain work to technikons virtually to expand their resources of research. The CSIR would then pay for that. Surely these types of income should be usable for the normal maintenance and function of the paying of teachers’ salaries or any purpose. In fact, a little later on there is a clause which indicates that the council has the power to decide on salaries. Where one has the situation that people will be used on work other than ordinary teaching work—that will be in the hands of the council—the council must be able to use additional income. We just bring this clause and the same provisions in other Acts to the attention of the hon the Minister. These provisions could cause considerable embarrassment because expenditure might be undertaken which people could subsequently attack as even being ultra vires.

Mr Chairman, in view of the other clause to which the hon member referred, which empowers the council to institute a department or a school for which the Government will not be liable as regards subsidies, I do not think this clause will place a restriction on the application of any funds obtained by the council by way of donation or by any other source. I shall have the matter clarified, however. As far as the legal advisers are concerned, it was not in conflict.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause as printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Pinetown, as follows:

1. 1. On page 11, from line 60, to omit “with the approval of the Minister and on the conditions determined by him,”.
2. 2. On page 13, from line 4, to omit subsection (2).

These amendments are designed to ensure that the Act will fulfil the hon the Minister’s stated purpose of giving Black technikons greater autonomy. The hon the Minister said the following in this regard:

The removal of the phrase “with the approval of the Minister” will leave the responsibility for the admission of students to these technikons squarely in the hands of the council. I believe that in the interests of the devolution of management authority that this is exactly where it should lie. In fact, one finds that these councils are very conservative in their approach to a problem such as this because they are going to be left with the baby. They have to manage these technikons and therefore will not make any rash decisions. Besides, the hon the Minister will have his own representative on one of these councils in any case.

These amendments conform with the whole pattern of the department’s suggested amendments, a pattern which runs right through this Bill. In this regard I refer to the removal of the requirement of ministerial approval, for the right to receive money, the power to regulate meetings, remuneration of councillors or committee members, the appointment of staff and numerous other spheres. It is with this in view that I move these two amendments.

Mr Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading the hon the Minister addressed a few friendly words to the hon member for Koedoespoort. The two of us also had a few things to say to each other across the floor.

I want to mention two matters to the hon the Minister. If at that stage, when he was still an ordinary member of the National Party caucus, the hon the Minister had had any interest in the discussions in the caucus, in the discussions of the study groups held between members of the various groups in connection with the education of Coloureds, Blacks and Indians, he would have known that very serious, responsible and profound discussions took place on the standpoint regarding the opening up of tertiary institutions to the respective population groups. I participated in those discussions myself and expressed my concern about the situation which might arise and the problems involved. The hon the Minister must find out from his colleagues who are now spokesmen on education about the nature of the discussions which were conducted as well as the minutes that were kept and which I have in my possession. The hon member for Water-berg also expressed his concern about certain aspects. At that stage, within the political structure of the NP, we accepted that under certain circumstances it would be essential for the Government to allow students to enrol at specific tertiary institutions. We did, however, express our concern about that, pointing out what it could lead to, but we eventually allowed those matters, about which we were concerned at the time, to go through without making too much of a fuss about them or causing unnecessary tension in the party. There are many things happening within a party with which one does not always fully agree. The hon the Minister also knows that there were various aspects of policy within the party with which he did not agree, but to which he eventually resigned himself.

We as a party advocate specific fundamental standpoints. The time will come—if God spares us in good health we shall be seeing this for ourselves—when we shall be sitting on the side of the House on which the Government is now sitting. It is therefore not all that impossible. [Interjections.] We are not so rigid and unbending that, in the vernacular of the hon the Minister, we do not realize that there will be points of contact in South Africa between the different population groups in a variety of social contexts.

There are two principles we take into consideration in this regard. The first of these is that those points of contact must be synchronized. They must not cause conflict. The second principle is that they must not impinge on the integrity of the individual or the specific people. This is no easy matter in Southern Africa. It is no easy matter anywhere in the world. That is, however, the attitude and spirit in which we shall approach it. The hon the Minister holds the very important portfolio of education for the Black peoples. At the time he was one of the hon members in the Government—he will know what I am talking about—who waged a fierce vendetta against the hon member for Waterberg.

I say categorically that that is untrue.

The hon the Minister can say it is untrue. It does however, remain a fact.

There is no evidence of that. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member for Rissik that although the clause can be widely interpreted he must please confine himself more closely to the provisions of the clause.

Sir, I should very much like to do so, but it is customary for the first speaker of a party to be given more freedom in the Committee Stage. The hon the Minister said certain things, and I feel it is essential for us to speak frankly about the specific clause.

You can do so in the Third Reading.

That hon Minister does not know what this Bill is all about. He would do well to confine himself to water. [Interjections.] I shall, in any event, be returning to this in the Third Reading Stage.

I want to refer the hon the Minister to a speech he made on the CP’s standpoint in connection with Black people. The hon the Minister knows what I am referring to. He remembers the statement he made after that speech. I shall return later to what he said about the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect I want to suggest that the hon member is not confining himself to the clause. He is, after all, referring to old speeches made by the hon the Minister.

Order! I do want to appeal to the hon member for Rissik to confine himself more closely to the clause. He may proceed.

I shall discuss this with the hon the Minister at a later stage. The CP will be voting against this clause. We shall be doing so because this clause is being used by the hon the Minister and the Government to bring about integration in education in South Africa and we want to register our protest at this so that the things we did in good faith, and with the utmost confidence in the Government, cannot ever again be held against us.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to talk about this clause, but I must react to what the hon member for Rissik said. I do not have any fault to find with what the hon member said about the standpoint he adopted while he was still on this side of the House. It is general knowledge that while he was still on this side of the House there were certain things the hon member objected to. We on this side of the House probably did not even know about some of the things he objected to. That is true, too.

You knew precisely what they were!

The hon member need not get excited. It is true, however, as the hon the Minister indicated, that while the hon member for Waterberg was still a member of the NP, he was responsible for an amendment of precisely the same principle in regard to Black universities. On that occasion the hon member for Rissik accepted the amendment, even if it was under protest, and that also applies to the other hon members on that side of the House. The point is, however, that at the time the hon the leader of the CP was the Minister who implemented this principle for the very first time.

Now that the hon member for Rissik has changed parties, he actually considers it a principle and totally opposes it. He is entitled to do so. When, however, the hon member accuses the hon the Minister and this side of the House of using those methods, in his words to introduce an openness, a liberal spirit, into education; to liberalize education, to integrate it, then I say that is not fair. Then the hon member must also say immediately that he rejects the standpoints his leader, the hon member for Waterberg, adopted four or five years ago. If it is a matter of principle to him, let me ask him: Do his principles change every five years? Do his principles only hold good for five years? Do the principles of the leader of the CP only hold good for five years? When they are in another party on the other side of the House, are those principles suddenly worthless? [Interjections.] If that is the case, I must also tell the public at large that the principles being proclaimed by the members of the CP now will last for anything from one year, to five years or ten years, but the point is that those principles are changeable.

In contrast I can say with conviction that as far as this side of the House is concerned I am not aware of any principle we have thus far violated or amended. We have indeed changed our policy. We have done that, but we have not changed our principles. When the hon member therefore puts forward that argument, I reject it with contempt.

This amendment is being effected in respect of technikons in order to bring their position into line with that of the admission of people of colour to universities—whether it be a White student going to a Coloured or Black university, or a Black student going to a White university, the same principle applies. The hon the Minister also indicated that this should not be seen—as the PFP would like to see it—as a total throwing open of universities. The standpoint of this side of the House is that for practical reasons the door is being left slightly ajar. The necessary control will still be exercised, however, as the hon the Minister has also indicated.

Mr Chairman, I want to apologize to the hon member for Virginia for not reacting now to what he has said.

You cannot.

If the hon member for Brits would just keep his ears open and his mouth shut, he would fare better. I should like to address myself to the hon the Minister and what he said in his reply to the Second Reading debate.

I think the hon the Minister and I am talking at cross purposes. The hon the Minister will remember that I said yesterday evening that we realized—I shall not tell him now why we did so, but shall tell him so in person, because I do not want to implicate certain people—that this clause does not involve the throwing open of facilities. I then went on to talk about the definition of the words throwing “open” and about when one could say that something has been thrown open and when one could not. I do not have a copy of the speech I made here during the second reading debate, but I am trying to refresh the memory of the hon the Minister with reference to my notes. I said then that we realized that this throwing open of facilities was only intended to allow lecturers at those technikons to enroll for specific courses. I then said that this argument and the concomitant concession for exceptional cases, in other words with regard to lecturers, had unfortunately become a foot in the door on the basis of which throwing open would take place to an ever-increasing extent. I also said that we objected to that. As far as we are concerned this has become an objection based on principle, because that small concession, made for exceptional cases, has been abused to such an extent that the exception has now become the rule. We object to that. I also said that there was an alternative, and the hon member for Virginia agreed with that alternative. He nodded his head in affirmation when I said what the alternative was. The alternative is that one should not throw open the technikon established for specific population groups to other students, but in view of the hon the Minister’s argument that this involved courses perhaps not be offered at other technikons—I said I doubted whether any course was offered at the Black technikons which was not being offered at the technikons of the other three population groups—steps should be taken to offer the courses which are not offered at those technikons so that it is not necessary for students of other colour groups to enroll at those technikons. I therefore not only said that I objected to it in principle, but also suggested an alternative to indicate that it was not essential for the facilities to be thrown open. One can enlarge the existing technikons for the various population groups by allowing the courses that are not offered there to be offered there so that the need to encroach on the territory of someone else’s technikon would fall away. This would then be in line with the principles of the CP, namely that we do not begrudge other population groups, in their own technikons, what we demand for ourselves in our own technikons. I do not think that the hon the Minister can accuse me of not being right about this. He referred in the process to what the hon member for Waterberg had said. The hon the Minister should not resort to the modus operandi of the hon the Minister of National Education by referring time and again to what the hon member for Waterberg or the hon member for Lichtenburg are supposed to have said when they were still members of the NP. [Interjections.] The CP is a new party with its own principles and policies, and it operates within the bounds of those principles and policies. The NP has now just said, in the person of the hon member for Virginia, that it has changed its policy.

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that he is ranging very far afield. On the CP side the hon member for Rissik has already discussed the principle, and I therefore want to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort to discuss the clause only.

Sir, I defer to your ruling. For that reason I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that on the basis of the standpoint I adopted yesterday, I am still opposed to this clause.

Mr Chairman, first of all, I should like to respond to the hon the member for Walmer who, on behalf of his colleagues, moved two amendments. I fully concede the point that this particular clause appears to be in violation of the whole trend of the Bill in the sense that it checks the autonomy of the council with regard to the admission of students. I should, however, like to motivate this clause. This is the first and only technikon exclusively under the auspices of this department. We are in the process of building an entirely new culture in the department. We are a young department and we have never had a technikon before, although hopefully we will have many of them in the near future. We are developing certain skills. We are developing certain avenues of administration and ways of handling certain difficult problems. The admission of members of other population groups to the Mabopane Technikon, which, by design, was intended for Blacks only, is a very sensitive issue. Basically, it is a political issue. It was a political decision of this Government that, basically, that technikon should be for Black people. We cannot expect a council, particularly not a council which in itself is relatively young and in terms of that particular institution relatively inexperienced, to take the political responsibility for that kind of decision. Particularly in the early years, until a certain rhythm has been established, until we have established more technikons and until technical training particularly in our department has been expanded and is functioning on as broad a base as possible, I believe that the council should much rather concentrate its efforts, its resources and its powers of decision-making on those issues directly related to the practical running of that institution and the courses offered there and should not so much be involved with a decision which fundamentally is based on the political policy of the government of the day. I think it is unfair to burden that council with that particular decision. I do believe, however, that, as the technikon develops further and also our other tertiary institutions in this department develop further, we will follow the model of the White universities and that, increasingly, also as far as these rather sensitive political issues are concerned, that responsibility will be transferred to the relevant authorities in those particular institutions—in this case the council. So, while accepting the logic of the hon member’s argument, I should like to conclude that point by saying that I accept that it involves a political decision and that I really do not think it is wise to transfer that responsibility to that council at this stage. That may come about later on. I do not think the council will feel unnecessarily inhibited if that responsibility does not rest with them at this stage.

Mr Chairman, just before business was suspended for supper, I was replying to arguments advanced by the official Opposition in connection with clause 12. They feel that the total discretion with regard to the admission of students from population groups other than the Black population groups to Black tertiary institutions should lie with the council, especially as far as technikons are concerned.

I then turned to the hon member for Koedoespoort, and also, in passing, to the hon member for Rissik. I think the slip of the tongue on the part of the hon member for Virginia, when he referred to the “hon member for Risiko”, was rather apt, because it seems to me that the hon member for Rissik does indeed represent a risk to that party. He is so absolutely programmable, as predictable as the sunrise every morning. I told the hon member this afternoon that when he had departed from this House, and we hoped it would be soon, we would remember him as the man who had been delegated to make personal attacks on people. The hon member got up and talked a lot of nonsense and then attacked me personally. He said a lot of things which has no relevance to the clause concerned, and then he accused me of conducting a vendetta against his leader. The truth of the matter is that I am not conducting any vendetta against his leader. I have not done so in the past and I am not doing so now. I do reject his political standpoints with contempt. I pointed out to the hon member that his hon leader was the very man who, according to the quotations which I read to him from Hansard, had opened the doors of Black universities to Whites when he was still on this side of the House. Surely it is absolute nonsense to tell me that my doing so is a manifestation of a so-called vendetta which I am conducting against his leader. It is a childish argument and it is typical of the hon member to make personal attacks and to try to disconcert hon members in this House. He can try to do the same to me for as long as he likes, but he will not succeed. If he wants to waste his time and the time of this Committee in this way, he is welcome to do so within the rules of this Committee.

The hon member for Koedoespoort created the impression that since the time when the amendment of that legislation was initiated by his leader, the whole matter had got completely out of hand. He used expressions such as “throwing open to an ever-increasing extent” and “abused”. He also said that the exception had become the rule. I want to ask the hon member whether he can give me one single figure across the floor of this Committee to substantiate these wild statements of his. [Interjections.] Give my just one. I want to put this question to the hon member. How many students, to the nearest thousand, were registered at the Black universities last year? Can he tell me that across the floor of the Committee? [Interjections.] Was it 12 000?

I shall react to that. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member now. He can give me the figure across the floor of the Committee, because it is within the rules of this Committee. Does he know how many students there are at the Black universities?

I shall reply to that.

The hon member says that he will reply to that. I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that he does not know how many students there are at Black universities. I can also tell him categorically that if this is so, he does not know either how many Whites were studying at Black universities last year. Once again, however, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. I ask him, therefore, whether he could give me an indication of this figure, too. The figures are available.

How many Coloureds are there at Stellenbosch?

We are not talking about Stellenbosch. I think that hon member should wake up. We are talking about Black universities, because we are debating legislation of the Department of Education and Training. I want to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort once again whether he can give my an indication of the figure on the basis of which he made the statement that the concession which had been granted in the past had indeed been abused and that it had become the exception to the rule. Can he give me an indication of the number of Whites that were registered students at Black universities last year? Can he do that, yes or no? [Interjections.] I am talking about registered students. You see, Sir, the hon cannot even venture a guess to substantiate his wild statements. I want to tell him that there were 15 000 students—14 977, to be exact—at the Black universities falling under the jurisdiction of this department last year.

And the year before?

The year before it was 11 000. Does the hon member want the figure for 1981 as well?

Yes, please.

It is not relevant at all.

Why not?

Order!

It is ridiculous to go on like this. The fact of the matter is that the total number of students at Black universities last year was 15 000, that is to the nearest hundred. Let us see now in what respect this concession has been abused to such an extent, according to that hon member, that is was necessary for him today to adopt the standpoint as a matter of principle that that door should now be closed and that no Whites—not even lecturers, according to his admission across the floor of the House this afternoon—should be allowed to study at those universities, either at undergraduate or at post-graduate level. Those hon members are interested in figures for previous years. In 1980, when their hon deputy leader was Minister and when, by the way, there were only 7 800 students at Black universities, the total number of Whites, including lecturers, their wives and perhaps the odd undergraduate student, was only 88. The next year, there were 111 Whites out of a total of 7 900 students. The year after, there were 135 Whites out of a total of 11 000 students. Last year, there were only 180 Whites out of a total of 15 000. This is abuse; this shows that matters are getting out of hand, according to that hon member. [Interjections.]

We are doomed as a people! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, 12 680 Black students were registered at the University of South Africa last year. That hon member’s leader also referred in Hansard to the Medical School of the University of Natal. This is also dealt with as an exception, so one cannot take in into consideration. The total number of Black students at White universities—where the matter is very strictly controlled, just as it is at our universities—is only 1 700 of the total number of students. I want to tell that hon member categorically, therefore, that I think he spoilt an otherwise meaningful debate by making a lot of unfounded, extremist statements which cannot be substantiated and which really cannot stand the test of the truth or of scientific fact or of responsibility.

It is a lot of rubbish!

Yes, it is a lot of rubbish.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the figures I have mentioned and in the light of the fact that it is the standpoint of this Government that educational institutions are primarily intended to serve a small group of related population groups—as I told the spokesman of the hon official Opposition a short while ago—it is clear to any objective and informed observer that we are able to state with the greatest confidence that this concession which was introduced by that hon member’s leader has since been used by this Government in an extremely responsible way. I can tell the Committee that we go through these applications with a fine comb and that we are only prepared to make an exception in cases of real merit, for the fact is that, especially with regard to those institutions that have been established specifically for Blacks, we insist that every possible place should be filled by a student who comes from the communities for which it was intended. That hon member asked whether it was not true that it was primarily intended for lecturers. That is quite correct. This concession which we are now making with regard to the technikons, and which is identical to the concession to the Black universities for which his hon leader was responsible, is primarily intended for lecturers and their wives, and their wives are doing invaluable work in promoting academic activities at those institutions. As this hon leader also said, however, it is not absolutely and exclusively limited to lecturers and their wives. Therefore it is possible in terms of the legislation, as dealt with by his hon member, and as he in fact said in the last sentence which I read, to accommodate the ordinary student as well.

I do not have the relevant document with me at the moment, but as regards Medunsa, for example, there is only one person in the veterinary department who is not Black. He is an Indian. During the past year, since I took up this position, we have received applications from eight Whites who have wanted to take a course at Medunsa, a course which is not offered at other medical faculties, namely a graduate course for oral hygienists. Permission was refused. This is public knowledge.

We are handling the whole matter with regard to the admission to the admission specifically of Whites to tertiary institutions for Blacks with the greatest circumspection. In order to suggest that it is not being handled well, that it is being handled irresponsibly, the hon member for Koedoespoort has to adopt a watertight standpoint, a standpoint based on the absolute principle that this must never be allowed. I really think he ought to be ashamed of not having done his homework properly before adopting that standpoint.

Finally, I want to say something to the hon member for Rissik. He also talked about the so-called principles of the NP which have to be rewritten every five years. I want to tell him that if there is a group of people in the political history of South Africa that is forced to retread their principles every five years because they disavow their principles every time, it is the hon members of the CP. They go back on just about every point which they have made in the critical political arena of South Africa and which they have believed in. They go back on those points and they disavow each of their standpoints. They are doing the same with this point which we are debating here today under clause 12.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the hon the Minister’s reaction to the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon member for Pinetown, in connection with clause 12.

I want to say at once that it is rather difficult sometimes to disagree with the hon the Minister, because the civilized and pleasant way in which he reacts to proposals of this nature normally makes it difficult to disagree with him. I cannot blame him if he reacts a little heatedly now and then to the kind of thing which one gets from the CP, and because I get that kind of thing from them myself, I can quite understand it. However, this does not absolve us from the duty of subjecting the arguments used by the hon the Minister in connection with my hon colleague’s amendment to rational analysis.

The hon the Minister advanced two considerations to indicate why he was unable to accept the amendment of my hon colleague in this particular case. The one was that it was actually a political decision, and the second one was that it was related to the particular character of the institution of the technikon. Let us examine these arguments on a rational basis. The sober fact is that when we look at the Bill, we see that clauses 9 and 11 in particular provide for the council of the technikon to have a very great measure of autonomy. I cannot understand why, if powers are being conferred upon the councils of technikons in terms of this Bill, especially with regard to the appointment of staff, and if we accept that these powers will be exercised in a responsible way, we do not have enough confidence to give the councils of technikons the power to regulate the admission of students. Quite honestly, to me this seems like an illogical argument which I simply cannot accept. If we consider the councils of technikons to be competent enough to make appointments, surely they can be considered competent and responsible enough also to deal with the admission of students themselves.

We are concerned here with the powers of the councils of the technikons and the Minister’s right to determine conditions. This is specifically dealt with in clause 12. It seems to me that the hon member for Virginia doubts my standpoint in this connection. The proposed new section 12A(1) reads as follows:

The amendment moved by the hon member for Pinetown seeks to omit the words “with the approval of the Minister and on the conditions determined by him”. In all other respects, the councils themselves are allowed to exercise full control, so I cannot understand why we cannot put the same trust in the councils in this sphere as well.

However, it goes beyond this particular matter. There is the general problem of the kind of fear which exists, and this is actually what I want to talk to the hon the Minister about. The fear exists that if a council or a body of a university which controls that university or technikon is given the power to admit as a student anyone it wishes to, the council may endanger the character of that university or technikon. The hon the Minister has already conceded this by implication, because he referred earlier on to the changes which had been introduced by the hon member for Waterberg when he was still the responsible Minister and when he in fact provided for the opening of Black universities and the steps which resulted from this. At the White universities it has proved that in spite of that opening and the lifting of the restrictions, nothing has happened which has materially altered the character of the universities. I do not know why we should always live in the fear that the bodies that are in control of institutions such as these will act in such a way that they will voluntarily endanger the character of an institution such as a university or technikon.

I want to refer to White universities. Since those universities were established, they have been able to admit anyone, as long as he or she was White. This applies to all White universities such as those of Stellenbosch and Cape Town. In spite of the fact that they have been able to admit White students just as they saw fit, most students have preferred to attend the university where they would feel at home, in other words, where they felt themselves at home in terms of cultural, sociological and other factors. In other words, there was no great influx of Afrikaners to Ikeys or Wits or English-speaking people to Stellenbosch to change the character of those universities. It is merely logical that people should prefer the company of their own kind. People seek affinity, within the university context or anywhere else, and they can only find it among people with whom they feel at ease. Why is there always the fear that if institutions were thrown open, it would lead to an influx of people who would threaten the character of such an institution? The facts have proved that this does not happen. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we cannot get away from this psychosis of fear which has us in its grip.

That is a very simplistic way of putting it.

I am talking about the facts. I do not know what the hon the Minister means when he says that it is a simplistic way of putting it. I should very much like him to enter the debate so that we may debat the matter.

As regards the admission of non-White to White universities—I happen to have the figures of the University of Cape Town before me—the position has to a large extent been relaxed in recent years, as the hon the Minister knows, and there has in effect been no restriction at this university. In spite of this, the number of non-Whites registered at the University of Cape Town in 1983 constituted 13,9% of the total number of students, which is only 1,5% higher than the figure for 1959, before restrictions were imposed or, the universities. Why? Not because the University of Cape Town has discriminated, but simply because the character of an institution is preserved in spite of the powers that are conferred on the council. We know this from experience. We know that students go to the institution where they feel at home. To think that if the council of a Black technikon were given the power to control the admission of students, it would be confronted with large numbers of White, Coloured or Indian students, is, with all due respect to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, a simplistic kind of argument which has no validity. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister objects to accepting this amendment, he should base his objections on grounds other than those he has mentioned so far.

Mr Chairman, to a very large extent I agree with what the hon member Prof Olivier had to say. In fact, we support his argument.

I should also like to motivate our support for the amendment moved by the hon member for Pinetown. The purport of the amendment of the hon member for Pinetown is to remove the necessity for ministerial approval should a member of an ethnic group other than Black wish to attend this technikon. Let me immediately say to the hon the Minister that these technikons are the best possible technikons for Black students that one will find on the African continent. In fact, I will go as far as to say that they are comparable with the best in South Africa for the other ethnic groups. If one looks at the infrastructure, the administration, and at the availability of capital and equipment one realizes that they compare with the best in South Africa.

Now we come to the problem. In practice, as the hon the Minister himself indicated, the number of Black students at White universities is minimal. Simply because of the geographic position of this technikon, and any other technikon which may be covered by this Bill in future, including those in kwaZulu, I would suggest that a minimal number of people from other ethnic groups would actually apply to attend this particular technikon or those which will be built in the future. Therefore the number who will attend will be extremely limited. The problem is, as the hon member Prof Olivier also suggested this evening, that in order to avoid a stigma being attached to the academic abilities or status of these colleges, as will be judged by other institutions academically, one wants to avoid descriptions such as “bush college” or “part of the system”, or any suggestion that they are in any way inferior to other institutions of the same kind in South Africa. That is the problem. It is not a fundamental practical problem. The hon the Minister himself has indicated that in his argument to the CP. It is one of ideology and of giving labels to institutions in South Africa. Our fear is that with this clause we are going to find that the status of this particular technikon will, in fact, be reduced unfairly simply because of this clause as it stands at the moment. There is no stronger motivation for removing this clause than the motivation and arguments used by the hon the Minister himself to indicate that, in any case, it is not a threat of flooding or “indringing” of one population group by another. The hon the Minister quoted the figures himself regarding the White universities. The hon member Prof Olivier also indicated what happened at the University of Cape Town’s campus which, after Wits, is probably the most liberal campus that we have in South Africa. Despite that orientation, there was no basic change in the character of the university campus.

Our appeal to the hon the Minister is to accept the amendment moved by the hon member in order to remove any possibility that these institutions will be labled unfairly as being inferior to other institutions in South Africa. I think the Government has advanced far enough not to put its own power base at risk. The principle has been accepted in other institutions I think that the communities that will be served by these institutions themselves will not abuse them, and overall there is no necessity for this particular clause as it stands at the moment. We will therefore be supporting both the amendments in order to remove this impediment that is so unnecessary in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, from what I said to the hon member for Walmer earlier, it ought to be very clear to the hon member Prof Olivier, as well as to the hon member for Durban-North that we are not arguing about an aspect that will last forever. I had already said earlier that this specific technikon is still in its infancy; in fact, the entire technikon structure, taking the technikons of the other population groups into account, is relatively young. It is a relatively new kind of institution, and as regards technikons for people of colour, apart from the two in kwaZulu, there is only the technikon for Blacks at Mabopane near Pretoria. There is a technikon for Indians in Durban and one for the Coloureds in Cape Town, but it is not correct to assume that there are not many applications from people of colour at the institutions of our department. For example, we receive a tremendous number of applications at Medunsa, and I believe this is a good parallel. Mabopane is full to capacity at present, and until such time as our extensions have been completed, or we can make provision elsewhere in or in the vicinity of Pretoria on the basis I mentioned earlier this afternoon so as to be able to accommodate additional applicants, we are going to experience problems.

Since we are dealing specifically with technikons for Black people, and against the background of the availability of these institutions for Coloureds and Indians, of whom there are large numbers in the vicinity of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand as well, and if we take into account that it is a young institution which was erected specifically for Black people, but which receives applications from other population groups, I should like to know what criterion we are going to give the council for the admission of students? Let us take Medunsa as a practical case. The plain truth is that if, for example, in the case of Medunsa we do not vest the political responsibility in the Minister to refuse students from the White, Coloured and Indian population groups who are eligible on merit in favour of Black students, a considerable number from those population groups will be admitted in the place of Black students if it were purely a case of merit. These are the unfortunate facts and this is the practice we have to work with. Should we not turn the situation which is going to repeat itself at the technikon over to the council so that they have to take responsibility for refusing a deserving White, Coloured or Indian student, even if his merit is better than, for example, 90% of the students we admit, merely as a result of his race or colour?

Is the hon the Minister really afraid that the council will not continually bear the character of the technikon in mind when a decision is made about whom to admit to the technikon?

The issue here is not primarily the character in the broadest sense of the word, viz that it must be ethnically oriented. Nor does it mean that we mistrust the council or that we harbour the suspicion that the council will not be competent to deal with the matter. As regards its functions, the council must rely on measurable criteria in the admission of students. In this regard one need only look at the medical faculties at our White universities. Just look at the average percentage of students for admission at present. It is extremely high. Many of the students cannot get into the White universities, and a university such as Medunsa is at present being inundated with applications for admission. It is a purely political decision when it is stated that even if someone’s merit is better than another person’s, he is not going to be admitted because the institution is reserved for a particular population group. The issue is therefore not the character. As soon as there are sufficient technikons and matters have developed a little, it will not matter so much. Then this responsibility can be given to the council, since there will be less pressure on the council to admit students from other population groups than is the case at present. If a Coloured technikon were to be established on the Witwatersrand that could also accommodate the Coloureds from Pretoria, and an Indian technikon were perhaps also to be erected, students of these two population groups could be accommodated at their own technikons and it would then not be so much a political decision in terms of which the admission of students eligible on merit to the technikon at Mabopane will be considered. The issue is really not the character, since the character will maintain itself if the same pattern as the one pursued at universities is pursued when many more institutions are available. In the case of Black universities which fall under the jurisdiction of the department, it is still the case that the Minister’s approval is granted. I foresee that this will also change in the near future, because it is not something that need carry on forever. However, let us give the technikon a chance to establish itself and for the council to overcome its growing pains. We will subsequently be able to shift more politically-oriented responsibilities onto them. Perhaps this does not sound convincing to the hon member. [Interjections.] Then we must simply agree to disagree. However, I am not adopting the standpoint that they will be given this power for all time. A time will come—and it is to be hoped that it will happen very soon—when we will feel free to impose this responsibility on them. I think I have also replied to the argument of the hon member for Durban North now.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 15, in lines 7 and 11, to omit “board” and to substitute “council”.

Basically, it is an error in the terminology which has to be rectified in this way.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment:

1. 1. In the English text, on page 15, in line 48, to omit “rector” and to substitute “principal”.

The motivation for this amendment is precisely the same as in the case of clause 1.

Mr Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I think that this debate has been a very constructive one, and we wish to express our appreciation for that fact. We welcome this Bill as a significant step towards treating all educational institutions no matter for what race they were originally established on a completely equal basis. I believe that it is only when this is achieved that we will be able to remove explosive tensions from our educational system, and only then will the selection of an educational institution be up to the individual entirely. It will be something that is established by his own particular choice and his own merit ie if he has the qualifications necessary to be accepted by such an institution.

The new Bill goes a long way towards giving a Black technikon the management autonomy that it must have if it is ultimately to achieve adult status. I must admit that in this respect I had certain misgivings yesterday when, in relation to a different piece of legislation, the hon the Minister of National Education gave us to understand that the status of these technical colleges would be inferior to that of similar institutions for the other ethnic groups. However, I was pleased to hear that this would be reappraised and that it was anticipated that this distinction would disappear when this measure was implemented.

My own experience of technikons is that it is of immense advantage to get students of a particular race or colour into a White technikon. We have employed many of them over the years, we have sent many of these students to these institutions, and I feel that there is tremendous benefit in the interaction of the two races attending the same technikon. We are trying to get a certain set of standards—both technical standards and behavioural standards—accepted as a norm, and this is a good way of achieving this.

The importance of these institutions to the economy is self-evident and I want to dwell on this aspect for just a moment. The original economic development programme foresaw the possibility—in fact it aimed at it—of a 4,5% growth rate in our GDP. In order to achieve and service such a growth in GDP one needs an increase of 3% in technical, engineering and artisan types of employees. When we look at the situation as it exists today, perhaps it does not look too serious because for five years now we have achieved a growth rate of only 1% pa. in our GDP. We have consequently gone through an artificial period when we appeared not to have had this dire need for trained technical people. However, one simply cannot imagine what the state of affairs would have been if our growth rate had been as originally projected and aimed for. Where we would have obtained the technical staff to handle that, I just cannot think, and the impact upon inflation of bidding for the technical labour available would have been absolutely disastrous. When the economy turns we will have to find the skilled people from somewhere, and consequently I am pleased to hear the hon the Minister saying that he appreciates that more of these institutions have to be established in the near future. I am particularly pleased to hear him say what he is doing about Port Elizabeth because that is my home town and it is a situation I know very well. I know that the only significant areas of employment there are the technical areas. It is a manufacturing town and the facility which he described concerns the use of a college there for teaching technikon subjects. That is a constructive step leading towards the establishment of a technikon as soon as this is possible. Obviously the costs are enormous and a figure of R130 million for Mabopane East is a very significant figure. The importance of the utilization of the technikons was something which the hon the Minister stressed. When institutions cost this much, it simply does not allow us to leave them underutilized. In 1983 Mabopane East which, I believe, has a theoretical capacity of about 5 000 if I am not mistaken, had only 1 027 students. I do not believe that any of the White technikons were filled to capacity either. The academic results which the hon the Minister described to us are better when one looks at Mabopane East on its own than when one looks at the four technikons together. However, we are one economy and we should therefore be looking at the four technikons together, and those reults are not satisfactory.

I was interested in the comment of the hon the Minister that the admittance of students is a politically sensitive issue at this stage and that it was possibly unfair to burden councils with this problem at this time. I must admit that that is an angle that I had not properly looked at. In other words, it is something that is desired, it is something that is wanted but it is a responsibility that the hon the Minister believes a council cannot accept at this stage. I actually do not go along with that view but I respect the view held by the hon the Minister. The reason that I do not go along with it is because I believe the earlier one can get the streams of people moving together and working together, the less rigid will their divisions subsequently become. Consequently the less dangerous the emotions and antagonisms will be and the far more likely they are to be welded into a body of students of one institution.

Mr Speaker, we obviously support this Bill and we appreciate the way in which it is being piloted through this House.

Mr Speaker, since we are now discussing the Third Reading of this Bill, I want to say that we support it. I want to express a few thoughts on the Bill. Firstly, I want to point out that if one reflects on the entire development of the history of the education of Black people in Southern Africa from the beginning of the ’fifties, one notices a few things.

One of these is that during the ’fifties when the old NP took over Black education, the hon member who has just spoken and his party’s predecessors were essentially extremely critical of the progress and control of Black education and what was being done for Black education. The Bill is excellent proof that as far as the recognition of the diversity in Southern Africa, as well as the Black people in their particular diversity are concerned, the fundamental principles that were initially laid down in respect of the education of Black people have progressed very well in Southern Africa in every field, in such a way that it is one aspect we can show to the entire world and to Africa and say that despite everything that has been said about what the White man in South Africa has done, this particular achievement has been attained.

The second point is that I think it has become necessary to say that there have been a large number of Whites who were well trained academically at our universities and our techers’ colleges and who have devoted their lives to the education of Black people in this country over many years. At this stage I also want to express a word of gratitude. There are a large number of my old university friends from the ’fifties, as well as people from teachers’ colleges, who have entered Black education and who have done particularly fine work, and in a certain sense have perhaps foregone many things because they did not go and teach their own people in their own cultural environment, but went to teach the Black people. I should like to express a word of gratitude for that.

The third point I want to raise—and in my opinion it is important—is that at the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading, as well as during the Committee Stage, the hon the Minister referred very slightingly to the CP, to me personally, and particularly to the hon leader of the CP. Since 1948 there have been people who find themselves in the CP today who have devoted their political and public life to the education and instruction of Black people. I do not wish to mention Dr Verwoerd’s name at this stage, but I am thinking of a man like Mr Daan de Wet Nel. I also think of people like the hon members for Lichtenburg and Waterberg who were taken up in the Cabinet by the present Government under the administration of the hon the Prime Minister as people who were regarded as being competent enough and who saw fit to take responsibility as the political head of Black education.

The hon the Minister and I will cross swords on a number of matters many times in the future. I have stated my standpoint clearly to the hon the Minister as regards his political views. It does not matter what the hon the Minister thinks of that, and I must say the feeling is mutual. However, I want to point out to him that he occupies a very sensitive post in South Africa as far as these matters are concerned. I have perhaps had much more experience than the hon the Minister thinks, not only in respect of the study of Black people, but also in respect of associating with them and in respect of matters that affect them. Neither I nor other hon members of the CP have ever acted in such a way in our public appearances that we have left the impression that we begrudge the Black people education in all fields and in all facets which afford the Black people the most up to date education. The hon the Minister is pre-eminently the Minister who creates an atmosphere in South Africa in his speeches with regard to the hon member for Waterberg, in which the CP and the leader of the CP are presented as being people who harbour hatred and malice in respect of Black people. The hon the Minister has a very sensitive portfolio, and I feel very sorry for him in this regard, in the sense that it is a difficult post. We will do nothing on our part to make his task and responsibility as a White responsible for Black education more difficult.

I briefly want to remind the hon the Minister of all the things he has had to say about the Conservative Party and non-Whites. I want to refer to the speech he made on 9 June 1982. The hon the Minister is aware— between him and me—what the result was of the speech he made. I want to quote from it briefly this evening and then ask the hon the Minister when we disagree in future on fundamental standpoints concerning the situation in South Africa that we should both take note of what we say to one another. The hon the Minister says that the speeches I make and which are recorded in Hansard are not speeches that he would like to have published to the world. But what are the contents of his speeches? I quote from Hansard, col 8867 of Wednesday, 9 June 1982:

The hon the Minister corrected himself afterwards, and he knows why he corrected himself.

It remains true.

What remains true?

What I said there.

On a later occasion the hon the Minister denied what he had said here and made a statement about it. I repeat what the hon the Minister said:

That is the terminology the hon the Minister used at that time. [Interjections.] The language the hon the Minister used does not promote the delicate situation as regards the population we have in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon members can shout if they wish and as the hon the Prime Minister gave the salute … [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister, who has a sensitive portfolio, must be careful that in his terminology regarding the Conservative Party he does not try to transfer the shooting syndrome he might have in his mind to us.

Once again I want to tell the hon the Minister that we support this legislation and that the Conservative Party, with the responsibility it has in this House, and also when we take over control of the future White Chamber, neither Black people, nor Brown people, nor Indians need be afraid that we will withhold from them what is necessary in every sphere for any people with its children and young people to be able to achieve the best for their families and their people in a modern society.

Mr Speaker, I should first of all like to respond to the hon member for Walmer and to thank him for the way in which he described the course of this debate.

With regard to his remarks in connection with the 4,5% GDP, I can assure him that our department is ready to accept that challenge whenever the economy turns in order to provide the necessary skills, provided we can obtain the necessary resources. I must point out, however, in this regard that we as a department also sometimes find that there is a barrier of suspicion when it comes to the promotion of technical and even advanced technical training among Black people. There is a suspicion that we are promoting those fields of study with a view to confining the Black labour force to manual labour and perpetuating their situation of being manual labourers. The private sector certainly, of which the hon member for Walmer himself is a prominent member, can make a significant contribution towards breaking down those barriers and helping us train Black pupils and students for the kinds of jobs which will be created in future. The kinds of jobs that will be created will be, as the hon member correctly pointed out, more technically and highly technically skilled jobs than academically oriented or white collar jobs. I thank him for his contribution. I might add that as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned we intend starting technikon classes on 1 July this year.

I want to clarify one matter so as to make absolutely certain that there can be no misunderstanding. One of my officials drew my attention to the fact that I had said that Mabopane East has already cost R130 million. The second and third phases are in the prosess of construction now and upon completion will have cost R130 million. The capacity of Mabopane East, to which the hon member also referred, will be 3 000 upon completion.

*Now I come to the hon member for Rissik. I want to thank him for his first two remarks. That was a good introduction which, unfortunately, he subsequently spoilt. I want to associate myself with the tribute he paid to many thousands of Whites who, in the 30 years of the department’s existence, have played their part in lecturing and teaching posts at institutions for Black people. It is indeed true that they have had to make certain sacrifices in the sense of not being able to teach and do formative work within their own cultural milieu. On the other hand, however, they are in the privileged position of being at the forefront when it comes to conveying those value systems—for which we believe the Almighty in his supreme wisdom placed us here—to the people of Africa by way of transferring knowledge and by example, thereby making a significant contribution to the development, not only of those people, but also of South Africa and Southern Africa as a whole.

The hon member then accused me of having made a sidelong reference to him and to his hon leader. I merely quoted his hon leader. I did not criticize his hon leader about the legislation he piloted through Parliament at the time. I praised him for it. I am of the opinion that he did so in a very meaningful fashion. I was not using the passages I quoted to criticize his hon leader. If that was how he interpreted it, then he completely missed the mark. I quoted those passages to point to the change in standpoint that has taken place in the ranks of the CP since then. [Interjections.] It is very interesting— one of my hon colleagues pointed this out— that they are not, in actual fact, CP standpoints. The erstwhile HNP used basically the same rhetorie. A very interesting thing happened this afternoon. An hon member showed me an HNP pamphlet of five years ago, and the rhetorie of that propaganda pamphlet is precisely the same rhetorie we had here in the House today. The hon member for Kuruman, in particular, was responsible for quite a bit of it. He could just as well have quoted the HNP pamphlet here. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik mentioned that both he and the CP adopted specific attitudes and acted in specific ways towards Black people. I do not want to comment on that, but I would like to suggest that he find out from the Black people themselves what they think of the CP. I think it would prove to be a revelation to him. These are not ideas that we inculcate in the Black people; they come from things they read and see. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik took the unusual step of offering me some assistance to facilitate my task amongst the Black people. I welcome such help, Sir, and I immediately want to extend a very friendly request to that hon member. He said that their conduct towards Black people was always honourable, that the members of the CP were not racists and that their hearts were in the right place and their attitudes and conduct always proper and correct. I therefore want to ask him to stand up this very evening and repudiate his political bedfellow, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche on the question of his racism. I think he can begin with that. [Interjections.] Is it not Eugène Terre’Blanche who propogates a White national state? Is he not the one who has the same mentality as Nelson Mandela, except for the fact that they are at opposite poles of the spectrum? Mr Speaker, there is no difference between the mentality and approach of Eugène Terre’Blanche and Nelson Mandela. [Interjections.] They both want to use force to bring about change in South Africa. They both have ties with organizations that hide explosives, AK-47’s or whatever in maize fields and elsewhere. That is the man who greets people with a flick of the arm and, foaming at the mouth, urges people to go and dig up their weapons in the maize-lands. [Interjections.] I would appreciate it if the hon member would ask Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche not to say things that are interpreted by the Black people as plans being made to wage war against them. Since Eugène Terre’Blanche and his henchmen are now digging up the maize-lands to get out their explosives and their guns, whom do they want to shoot? On that notorious occasions the hon member’s own leader said he was talking war. It is the hon member for Waterberg who is talking war, Sir. Whom does he want to shoot? [Interjections.] The hon member cannot blame Black people if they begin to think that the CP and their political bedfellows want to shoot them. Or do they want to shoot us? Whom do they want to shoot? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, let me come back to this shooting syndrome. The hon member says that at the time I wrongly accused him and his party, by implication, of suffering from a shooting syndrome. What the hon member quoted is the truth; that is what he told a foreign Parliamentarian.

That is untrue!

Mr Speaker, the hon member must put it in writing for me, and then I shall present it to the person concerned.

Mr Speaker, may I please ask a question?

Mr Speaker, the hon member may ask his question at a later stage.

I have previously told this story, but I shall do so again with the greatest of pleasure, because the hon member thinks he is now holding the sword of Damocles over my head. On that specific occasion I was sitting over there when I received the information, at first hand, from someone who was a personal friend of the relevant Parliamentarian and still is. That Parliamentarian expressed to his friend his utmost shock after an interview with the hon member in which the hon member came to light with the statements to which I referred and which the hon member quoted. I refuse to suspect a British Parliamentarian of having come to South Africa and having devised anything like a CP shooting syndrome merely in order to cause trouble in our country. That is absolute nonsense. On the relevant day I was under pressure to complete my speech. The Whip who was sitting beside me said “Sit, sit”, but I wanted to finish saying what I was saying. When I obtained my Hansard, I saw that according to Hansard I had said that I had heard those things from the British Parliamentarian. I then had two choices. I could have changed my Hansard to read that I had heard it via him, or from someone else, and then sent it back. Perhaps they would have accepted it, and then at some or other time the hon member would have stood up and said that that was not what I had said in the House. The honourable thing to do, however, was to approach the Secretary to Parliament and tell him that as formulated in Hansard it was not a correct reflection of the facts, and that he should offer me an opportunity to put the matter in its correct perspective. I took the honourable course, stood up in my bench and said that the way I had been reported in Hansard was incorrect.

That is not the whole truth.

It is the whole truth and is recorded as such in Hansard. I have nothing to hide as far as that is concerned. The truth is that in an interview with the British Parliamentarian the hon member said that it was time the Afrikaner again took up arms and fought for his survival.

That is untrue.

That is not only the kind of language used by the hon member, but also the kind used by his leader. His leader issues threats of war.

You are being frivolous!

The hon member there at the back is saying his leader is frivolous.

No, I am saying you are frivolous.

I am not the one who said I was talking war. I was quoting the hon member’s leader, and now he says I am being frivolous. Where does he get that from? The situation is now too ridiculous for words.

The hon member says that I deal with an extremely sensitive portfolio. I know it, and it is something I have to live with every day. I appreciate the efforts of all those who really want to make a contribution to the department’s functions. When one is dealing with a portfolio such as this, one finds out how sensitive the relations between peoples in South Africa really are. If the hon member and his fellow party members really want to make a contribution, they can begin this evening by repudiating Eugène Terre’Blanche. He abuses policemen of colour by calling them pandours now wearing the same uniforms as the young White men of South Africa. Hon members of the CP must dissociate themselves from that statement or else we shall, for as long as they allow that statement to go unrepudiated, be lumping them all in the same bed. They are indeed their bedfellows, and that is the kind of thing that bedevils relations between the various peoples. If they stand up here and make a sanctimonious fuss about wanting to make a contribution towards defusing the potentially explosive situation in South Africa, they must convert their words into deeds and start repudiating things like that, dissociating themselves from them.

Before giving the hon member an opportunity to put his question, I just want to say that after we had, at every turn, pointed out to the hon member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, in this House that some time or other he would have to do his Christian duty and tell his fellow party members not to use terms of abuse in connection with Black people, Coloureds and Indians, as they do at their congresses without their chairman calling them to order, he eventually said that he had told members of the CP no longer to refer to Black people as “kaffirs”. Eventually we got that much from him. Let us now, in the final analysis, take members of the CP to task for the wide discrepancy that exists between what they profess and what they are prepared to do. Now the hon member may put his question.

Would the hon the Minister agree to the two of us making an appointment with the relevant British Parliamentarian so as to discuss the matter with him personally, since I do understand that he is still in South Africa?

If that individual is prepared to do so, it is no problem as far as I am concerned. I want to conclude, however—and I want to ask the hon member to confirm this—that every word I quoted as having been uttered by that Parliamentarian and by implication ascribed to the hon member, was untrue.

What you have now said …

No, what is recorded in Hansard.

That is untrue.

Is every word I said there untrue?

It is untrue.

Thank you. I am quite prepared to have that interview. I shall ask the relevant person to arrange it for us.

In conclusion I do still want to refer to a scandalous interjection or statement the hon member made, and that is that the Prime Minister, Mr P W Botha, saluted the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Is that what the hon member said? [Interjections.] Is that what he said, yes or no? [Interjections.]

Sir, may I reply?

The hon member may reply to me by way of a question.

The hon member may remain in his seat and reply to the question. [Interjections.]

If you allege that we give a Hitler salute, what I am saying is that the salute that you people give could just as well be the salute of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. [Interjections.]

Never in my life have I come across such a typical example of someone who has such complete disrespect for the truth. That is not what the hon member said a short while ago, and he knows it. Sir, I think it is scandalous for a member of this Parliament, in this House, to accuse our Prime Minister, whilst he is doing epoch-making work abroad, of saluting the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I think it is scandalous, and the people of South Africa will deal with such disloyalty. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! It is evident that there are hon members in the House who do not know what the word “order” means.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Indian education can justly boast of a proud record of achievements. In its present form it can claim to meet to a large extent the needs of the individual, the community and the economic development in the country. No system can, however, claim to be perfect and some of the proposals contained in the Bill before the House are aimed at improving existing measures. Others again reflect some of the dynamic developments within the Indian educational sphere and set the pattern for future development.

In clause 1 of the Bill it is proposed that technical vocational education be included in the definitions of “education” and “special education”. Provision is also made for a definition of “technical college”, being the institution where technical vocational education is offered. During July 1981 it was approved that all non-tertiary education be transferred from the M L Sultan Technikon to the Division of Indian Education with effect from 1 April 1982. Hence, various non-tertiary categories such as the apprentice school, the catering school, the schools for general studies, home economics and physical education and speech, came under the jurisdiction of the Division of Indian Education. These schools formed the first technical college, with the central administrative control vested at the Sastri College. A large variety of full-time and part-time courses are being conducted in these schools. They serve not only the needs of commerce and industry, but also some of the cultural needs of the Indian community.

The facts indicate that there is an ever-increasing demand for technical, vocational, hobby and cultural-enrichment courses. Consequently, the present facilities are being used to their optimum capacity. This, in turn, restricts to some extent the expansion of existing courses and the introduction of new courses. To meet this demand the Division of Indian Education is presently planning a technical college to be erected at Cato Manor. This complex will consist of five schools similar to those at Sastri College with workshops, hostels and certain recreational facilities. Apart from this new technical college, it should also be mentioned that tenders have already been received for the erection of a new technical college at Pietermaritzburg. It is expected that building operations will commence shortly and that this technical college will start functioning with effect from January 1987. Full-time and part-time courses to be offered at this college will be similar to those presently being offered at Sastri College.

Because of an increased demand for technical classes, particularly by Indian apprentices and certain technicians, part-time technical classes were introduced during January 1984, and these classes are being well supported. In Newcastle, for instance, the department was approached by certain large employers such as Iscor and Venco to introduce part-time technical classes as a matter of urgency for apprentices who were nearing the completion of their apprenticeship contracts before completing their technical studies. These classes commenced on 1 September 1983 and are still being conducted today. Full-time block release classes for apprentices in Newcastle commence with effect from 7 May 1984. Previously first and second year apprentices had to attend classes in Durban which necessitated their being accommodated in hostels.

Newcastle also sets the example with a new concept in the South African education system. A community learning centre which will offer a wide range of technical, vocational, cultural enrichment, hobby and many other courses is to be established here. This facility will meet the needs of the Indian community and at the same time cater for the needs of commerce and industry. The planning and research for this interesting project is being undertaken jointly by the Division of Indian Education, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Human Sciences Research Council. It is anticipated that the complex will eventually consist of a crêche, a secondary school, a technical college, workshops, hostels and recreational facilities.

The developments in the field of technical vocational training have necessitated the amendments proposed in clauses 1 and 2 in order to give formal effect to the establishment of technical colleges and the education offered by those colleges.

The three teacher training institutions, viz Springfield College of Education, Transvaal College of Education and the Faculty of Education of the University of Durban-Westville have presently approximately 2 700 prospective teachers in training. The institutions, however, also play a vital role in the professional development of regional teacher training centres. These centres are offering short courses based on teacher—assessed needs. With the progression of curriculum development at the teacher training institutions it is obvious that more regional centres for teacher training will have to be planned.

In consultation with the Division of Indian Education the university also plays an important role in professional development by offering diplomas in pre-primary education, library resources management, counselling and special and remedial education.

Consolidation of its programme of in-service educational training and professional development is being planned by the Division of Indian Education. As part of this programme a college of education for further training is planned. This college will offer a range of long and short courses on an on-going basis to enable serving teachers to upgrade their qualifications and to keep abreast with the latest developments in syllabuses in education. It is hoped to start the college at temporary premises within a year or two.

A four-year minimum training period for all its teachers has for a long time been one of the division’s ideals. Arrangements are now being made for the introduction of a four-year teacher education diploma at the two colleges of education. To achieve this ideal, the academic level and status of the colleges of education need to be raised. This entails amongst others the establishment of academic and management advisory and control machinery to assist college management. It also entails co-operation between the University of Durban-Westville and the University of South Africa for the recognition of approved courses completed at the colleges of education.

*Mr Speaker, because of the envisaged extension of the colleges of education it is proposed in clause 3 that college councils and senates be appointed for these colleges. It is also proposed in this clause that legal expression be given to the instruction and training of teachers in co-operation with the University of South Africa and the University of Durban-Westville by giving these two universities representation on the college councils and senates. Furthermore, it is proposed in this particular clause that technical colleges should be served by college councils. This is necessitated by the increasing demand for technical vocational education and the need for effective management of colleges.

Mr Speaker, no community can exist without an effective system of education. A developing community such as ours demands a special contribution from its educational system and its educators. In my exposition of the Bill before the House I pointed to the dynamic progress in Indian education. We can be justly proud of what has been achieved in a relatively short period. I trust that the amending proposals embodied in this Bill will further contribute to the achievement of even greater heights in the field of Indian education.

Mr Speaker, we shall give this Bill our support. As has already been indicated, it makes provision, amongst other things, for a few matters of a merely terminological nature, but also for two matters which do, in my opinion, perhaps deserve further mention. Firstly there is the fact that more specific provision is made for the establishment of technical colleges for the Indian population group in South Africa. This is, of course, partly attributable to the separation of technical education at secondary or vocational level from technical education at the tertiary level. Neither can we in South Africa have any doubt about the fact that more training facilities, particularly for technical vocational training, are vitally necessary. This does not apply merely to Indians, of course, but also to all other race groups.

In connection with the categories of training at present being provided in this regard, the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned that training was also being provided in the catering industry. He mentioned it in his introductory speech. That is a matter that came to my attention recently, and what struck me was the tremendous backlog that there was in South Africa when it came to the training of people in this industry. There is a backlog in training of staff to man hotels and restaurants and to carry out other catering activities. The tourist industry, which to a large extent depends on this catering industry and its activities, is one of our biggest and constantly growing industries. It is an important foreign exchange earner and, what is even more important, it is an industry with a tremendous employment potential. In this industry there are still great possibilities when it comes to job opportunities for people of all races in South Africa, but in spite of that it is an industry that has to depend, for its staff, on a tremendously high percentage of immigrants in order to keep its head above water and keep going. There are even personnel who are not permanently settled in South Africa, but merely come here on a temporary basis.

This state of affairs is largely attributable to the extremely limited and inadequate training facilities that exist for such employees in South Africa. I want to mention that it is my impression that the percentage of immigrants employed in this industry is even higher than in some of the so-called high-tech industries, and in my view that is an alarming state of affairs in a country where we are faced with under-employment.

I therefore want to express the hope that this Bill will contribute towards correcting this situation and that the Government will also, over and above this amendment to the law, give its urgent attention to this shortcoming in our situation.

Secondly the Bill makes provision for the establishment of college councils for technical colleges and colleges of education, and also for the establishment of a senate for colleges of education. These innovations suggest, of course, that there is a tendency towards greater autonomy and a better administrative structure at such colleges, and this is obviously to be welcomed.

In this regard I want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government to ensure, to the extent that such appointments are the Government’s responsibility, that the appointments made to these bodies are meaningful ones. Obviously it must still be determined, by way of proclamation or regulation, whether such people are going to be elected by the staff of such an institution or are going to be appointed directly by the Minister, but to the extent to which the responsibility rests with the Government, I want to express the hope that the appointments that will be made will be meaningful ones.

In the past, when ethnically separated universities and other training institutions, such as technikons and technical colleges, were still an extremely contentious matter, more so than is the case today, the Government inclined towards making appointments that gave one of the impression that the most important consideration was an ideological one rather than of an educational nature, that the Government tended to appoint people it trusted with the implementation of its specific educational policy. This approach did not, of course, help to clear up any problems of credibility which, particularly at the outset, existed at some of these institutions. I want to express the hope that in future people will, in the first place, be appointed from the community to serve in such an institution, and also people from outside who can really make a contribution to the training function of such colleges, rather than having people appointed because of any other consideration.

†I should further like to urge the hon the Deputy Minister in particular and the Government generally to consult very widely before issuing regulations or making appointments in terms of the Bill.

Finally I should like to make just a few remarks regarding the racially segregated nature of the education institutions dealt with in this Bill in particular and also education institutions in general because this Bill is the last in a series of Bills on the Order Paper, dealing with matters of education. Much has been said over the last few days about segregation in education. In the field of technical education particularly and in the technical field generally the negative effects of racial segregation are more harmful than on the average in other institutions. This is mainly because in a way this type of education has been left behind by comparison with the developments in other educational institutions, such as developments at universities, technikons to a lesser extent and schools where it has been fast and dramatic, certainly faster than in technical colleges and technikons. Therefore, by comparison the facilities for technical education, whether on a tertiary or secondary level, are few and far between. I therefore appeal to the Government to be as flexible as possible in the admission of students and pupils to such institutions across the colour-bar.

I want to refer to an example. With only one technikon and one technical college for Indians in this country, and both of them situated in Natal, it is obviously difficult for a student or prospective Indian student from Transvaal or the Cape to study there. Similarly, it would be extremely difficult for Coloured students from Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State to attend a technikon or technical college in the Cape. The hon the Minister of Education and Training, in discussing the previous Bill, gave us some insight into the position regarding Black technikons.

It means that such a student can no longer be a day student. He is now forced to obtain accommodation away from his home, and this is very often an extremely important consideration in the case of the less privileged people in this country who often live on the basis of an extended family system. They live at home as long as they can possibly afford it and as along as they can be accommodated. It is extremely important for them to be able to study or to conduct their activities from their home base and not to be forced to spend money or a portion of their budget on accommodation away from home. Such a student or prospective student is in addition forced to incur transport costs, and such a person’s study budget becomes inflated as a result of these considerations to such an extent that he or she very often has no choice but to abandon his or her plans to study at such an institution.

In the discussion on the previous Bill, the hon the Minister of Education and Training argued that one has to establish educational institutions where this is justified by demand. He mentioned the instance in Port Elizabeth where at this very moment he does not believe there is enough justification for a Black technikon, but possibly in years to come such a need could be justified. In other words, he argued that they have to be justified economically. That is a very sound argument and I agree with the Minister. However, this argument can never be reconciled with apartheid in education. There is now at least one technikon and at least one technical college in every major urban centre in South Africa. However, because they are racially segregated, their value to the communities which they serve is severely diminished. They are of no value to students of a race group to which such an institution is not open. To a significant and increasing extent these institutions offer extramural study facilities; in other words students can further their education while they are earning a living. This method of study will become increasingly popular because of the high cost of education and because of the need on the part of students to maintain themselves. In some cases there is a need for students to be able to support or to make some contribution to the support and maintenance of their families, parents and other children in their homes. This need for extramural education can never be met as long as such educational institutions remain racially segregated and unless these facilities are duplicated and in fact multiplied for every race group in every major urban area, and possibly even in some of the smaller centres. This is a luxury which this country simply cannot afford. Apartheid violates some of the most basic aspects of education and, thank heavens, education also will violate apartheid increasingly, and completely eventually.

When I listened to the hon the Minister of Education and Training during the discussion on the previous Bill he actually upset me a little, although he is someone I normally enjoy listening to, when he boasted in defending himself against hon members of the CP. He boasted the fact that the admission policy of his Government—the admission of Coloured or White students to a Black university—compared to that of his predecessor, who is now a member of the CP, is as strict and inflexible as it was a number of years ago. He mentioned one particular almost outrageous example where eight White students applied to enter for a course which is offered by no other university in this country, but at a Black university, but were refused. [Interjections.] I must say that I was not impressed with that argument. I believe that is certainly not a cause for pride. One can only express the hope that in time to come the Government will relent and take a completely different view of this situation that we face at the moment. If that is not the case one must assume that in spite of other indications of a more flexible attitude on the part of the Government, when it comes to educational matters it takes great pains to prove that it is ad idem with the attitude of the CP. As I have indicated, this is no cause for pride. I certainly hope that the hon the Deputy Minister and his department will take a very different and a much more flexible and pragmatic attitude. Since this kind of legislation will in future be dealt with by the other Houses of the future Parliament one can only trust that this policy will be changed completely and drastically and that the fullest opportunity will be allowed for everybody to study at the institution geographically most convenient to them, and where admission is granted on merit rather than on the basis of the colour of a person’s skin.

Mr Speaker, apart from a few important aspects, I agree to a very large extent with what the hon member said. I could almost say that I find it a pleasure to speak after him this evening, since it seems as though the right Van der Merwe came to the fore in him for a change this evening.

As regards the appointments to councils, as aspect the hon member also mentioned, I want to say that when a government is in power, its policy must be carried out. It is quite obvious that when a government appoints people it will appoint people who are not necessarily its supporters, but who would definitely see to it that its policy is carried out.

When the hon member spoke of technical colleges, he neglected to take certain things into account. When one speaks of institutions that are truly community-orientated—it has nothing to do with racism or apartheid— one is speaking of technical colleges. They are, in fact, community orientated. The technical college in Kurgersdorp, for example, is there for the people of Krugersdorp. It does not fit in in Johannesburg. That is how community-orientated a technical college is. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with apartheid or racism. Where this side of the House and I disagree with the hon member is precisely in respect of the fact that education is an own affairs. That is the difference. He wants to wish certain things away, and that cannot happen. In terms of our policy, this simply cannot happen because it is primarily an own affair, although there must, of course, be gates between every camp. There must also be sufficient gates. I am not saying that we must place it in separate compartments, but basically and primarily, education is an own affair.

When we discuss this legislation, we must take careful note of the legislation itself and we should not see it against the background of the Government’s total approach to education. By this I mean that the Government regards education as a major priority. I just want to refer to a few matters that have already been dealt with during this session, although I do not intend discussing them. On 31 January, two days after the opening of Parliament, for example, we see on the Order Paper, Order of the Day No 8, Education and Heraldry Laws Amendment Bill, and Order of the Day No 9, South African Teacher’s Council for Whites Amendment Bill. A week later, on 7 February, we find under the Notices of Motion the following motion of the hon member for Virginia, which I should like to quote because there are important aspects in the motion which are also contained in this legislation:

1. (1) the principles for the provision of education;
2. (2) the standpoints on matters of principle that serve as points of departure; and
3. (3) the decision of the Government, in the knowledge that the implementation thereof will lead to equal education opportunities for all, by means of which—
4. (a) the potential of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa can be realized;
5. (b) economic growth in the Republic of South Africa can be promoted; and
6. (c) the quality of life of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa can be improved.

If we look at the Order Paper of a few days ago, viz 4 June, we see Order of the Day No 2, National Policy for General Education Affairs Bill; Order of the Day No 3, Universities, National Education Policy and Technikons Amendment Bill; Order of the Day No 6, Technikons (Education and Training) Amendment Bill, and Order of the Day No 9, Indians Education Amendment Bill, ie the Bill before us at present. Further legislation on education appeared on today’s Order Paper.

What I am trying to indicate is that this legislation forms part of the Government’s extreme earnestness as regards education and that it undoubtedly receives major priority. If I were to say that education is probably one of the most important priorities, members would not argue with me, and if I say that there is no more important priority than education, no one ought to argue with me either.

We should also assess this legislation regarding education for Indians on the basis of the guidelines and standards we are establishing, and we must ask ourselves whether legislation complies with those standards. I do not want to repeat the 11 important principles stipulated in the National Policy for General Education Affairs Bill, but I just want to quote the first two principles, viz:

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us attempts to carry into effect in a practical way the principles that are being set out. One of the fine, and probably one of the most important, aspects of this—as the hon member for Green Point said—is that it affects technical colleges. As motivation for the legislation the following is stated in the long title:

If we continue to read through the Bill— something I do not want to do now—we see that formal provision is made for technical colleges for Indians. A relatively complete history of this was set out by the hon the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech. Clause 1(d) has a bearing on this and reads as follows:

I should like to quote what is provided in section 3(l)(a) of the principal Act. I happen to have only the English version here. It concerns the establishment, erection and maintenance of schools, and it reads as follows:

1. (a) establish, erect and maintain colleges of education, secondary schools, primary schools, agricultural schools, vocational schools, special schools, preprimary schools and homes;

No mention is made of technical schools here, and in terms of the provision in the Bill, the words “technical colleges” are now being added to this definition.

To me, personally, these technical colleges for Indians are very important. It has already been said in another debate that there is a great need for technical colleges today. It is right and fitting and essential that urgent attention be given to this matter as far as Indian education is concerned as well. We must assess this Bill in terms of the standards being laid down and our policies. In this regard I want to refer to the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the Republic of South Africa, 1983. On the question of formal and non-formal education, as regards technical colleges as well, inter alia, the following is stated on page 19 of the White Paper:

The institutions referred to here, are subregional education institutions, employer and employee organizations, cultural bodies and other similar groups. In other words, the intention is that there will be devolution of the management and powers of technical colleges to the community. Hence the introduction of councils for technical colleges for Indians.

I should like to quote from paragraph 6.2(e)(ii) on the same page as follows:

Paragraph (aa) deals with Coloureds, whilst paragraph (bb) reads as follows:

The hon the Minister referred to this in his Second Reading speech as well. He even spoke of a “new concept in the educational system” when he referred to the latter aspect. Subparagraph (iii) leads as follows:

In turn, this refers to the lack of accommodation and the use of schools, for example, for the presentation of technical classes.

This brings me to a further aspect, viz the question of quality and standards or, as it is stated in the first principle:

Once again we can gain clarity from the White Paper. On page 28 it states:

attaining equality as regards quality. Now it is very interesting that the question of norms and standards and the question of quality are not the same. If minimum norms and standards are therefore laid down—I shall come back to this in a moment—it is not necessarily the same as quality. On page 28 of the White Paper one reads:

This is the point I wanted to make in view of the speech of the hon member for Green Point. The community is a tremendously strong decisive factor in education. If what I say is true—and it is true—then it is doubly true in the case of technical colleges since, as I have said, the technical college is the very institution which is primarily and directly not only ethnically oriented, but community oriented.

One now asks oneself: What is the position with regard to the Indian division of the department? What is the position with regard to the Indian community? What role do they play? Do they comply with what I have just read? My reply to that is: Yes, we can be proud of what is being achieved in the Indian community and of what the Indian community itself is doing. In paragraph (c) on page 43 of the White Paper, one reads:

It is then said that because there are already students in training who do not have those qualifications, it does not work quite like that at present, but that this will be the case. It goes on to say:

The point I want to make is the one the hon the Deputy Minister also made in his Second Reading speech. He spoke of “a four-year minimum training period”. I have just indicated that the minimum duration of training laid down by the Government is three years.

That, then, is as far as general training is concerned. What happens in the Indian community? What are we trying to achieve with the Bill before us at present? Hon members will understand that there is a better link now between education colleges and universities for the very purpose of achieving the goal of a higher standard as the minimum standard. The hon the Deputy Minister also said:

What is taking place at present, therefore? I do not know whether my information is quite correct, but I think that at present only the Transvaal Education Department is maintaining those high standards by introducing a minimum of four years. We are in the process of implementing this in respect of Indian education as well.

To conclude, I want to say that if a principal should leave a school or college, or if he knows that he is going to leave that school or college in three or six months’ time, he could adopt various attitudes. For example, he could say: I may as well rest now; another person is going to take over anyway. I now want to draw a parallel as regards this matter, since we are dealing with the own affairs of the Indians this evening. In approximately three or six months’ time this own affair, that of Indian education, will be transferred directly to the Indian House. We are therefore now in the position of that principal who can decide that he is going to hand over to someone else in six months’ time anyway, or he can say that he must try to do his best until the end. The latter is what we are doing. However, that principal could also ask himself what he will be handing over to the new principal. The hon the Deputy Minister commenced his speech as follows:

He concluded with these words:

I conclude by saying that we can proudly hand over this Division of Indian Education to the Indian House. We are proud of what we have achieved, we are proud of what the Indian Community itself has achieved, and we are fully confident that with legislation like this as an instrument, and with the willpower we and the community have, we will reach great heights and achieve even greater success.

Mr Speaker, there are only two short remarks I want to make about what the hon member Dr Vilonel had to say. He commenced by saying that when he listened to the hon member for Green Point he was listening to the right Van der Merwe. I can quite understand that, since I think the hon member Dr Vilonel is fundamentally much closer to the hon member for Green Point than to me.

The hon member also used the word “community-oriented”, if I remember correctly, in two ways. In the first instance, when using that word, he referred to Johannesburg and Krugersdorp. I therefore gained the impression that the hon member Dr Vilonel is intimating in that sense that the urban community with its diversity of groups of people who live there is a particular community and that the particular city with its diversity of groups of people living there should be rendered suitable to serve a particular community-oriented purpose. If that is not the case, I accept that the hon member did not mean it that way.

If you go and look at Hansard tomorrow morning, you will see the difference.

If the hon member says that that is not what he meant, I accept it. I agree with him that that Bill is community-oriented, and with that terminology we mean for the Indian community in South Africa. Therefore, in that respect I agree with the hon member and consequently I have no problem with him.

I want to tell the hon member for Green Point that I think he dealt with this matter very well this evening, yet he referred to the early years of Indian education and said that there was a high degree of scepticism concerning the initial ideas of the old NP. I want to point out that we have a great deal of gratitude and appreciation for the vision a man like the late Dr Verwoerd had at the end of the ’fifties and the beginning of the ’sixties when he recognized the Indian community and also recognized this community as a particular ethnic and cultural community in respect of his planning for Southern Africa. If one reads the debates of those years, one finds that it was in fact educationists and politicians who advocated the fundamental idea which the hon member still advocates today, which, to a large extent was responsible for the scepticism, not only on the part of the outside world, but also on the part of the Indian community itself, towards these institutions that were established at that time. What we say with regard to the Indian community, we could say with regard to education institutions for the other population groups in South Africa. However, I think that since the beginning of the ’sixties we have in any case succeeded to a large extent in pointing to a certain quality, even with people who adhere to the political views of the hon member for Green Point. We have pointed out that there is a diversity of cultural communities in South Africa and that even if one gives them basic recognition, one can make a great deal of progress, in respect of the education of that particular community as well. As far as that is concerned, we have a great deal of appreciation for what has been achieved in South Africa in respect of Indian education.

Mr Speaker, I also just want to make this point: The hon the Deputy Minister will recall that I was chairman of the Indian Affairs study group of the governing party for many years and since we are responsible for the Indians and their education, we do not always want to create the impression that it is only the Whites who do everything for them. However, the fact is that the Indian community has made very good use of those facilities that have been created for them. The appreciation we wish to express is for the fact that these education institutions for Indians have been thoroughly accepted and utilized by the majority of the members of the Indian community. A very fine educational service has been rendered by the Indians to their community and, in a broader context, also to the set-up in South Africa. I think we ought to have special appreciation for this.

Mr Speaker, the CP accepts the principle of the Bill, as set out for us by the hon the Deputy Minister. I trust that it will provide a basis, irrespective of the fact that we disagree with the Government’s whole political approach. I think this Bill is continuing to built on a very sound basis which we laid more than two decades ago. I trust that the Indian community will continue to build on the sound work they, too, have done for themselves in this regard.

Mr Speaker, as has already been mentioned, this is another in a series of Bills indicating the Government’s keen interest in upgrading technical education for all communities throughout South Africa. We are grateful for this because this has been one of the weaker spots in the structure of the South African scene in that we just have not had adequate facilities for training in various technical spheres. To a very great extent, we have relied on immigrants for technical expertise. We have of course had a certain amount of training, but it has certainly been inadequate.

I would go further and say that the importance which is now being attached to technical education and training, although belated, is in fact a very important fact indeed, because I fear that for too long our educational system has encouraged people to believe that one must only go for professionalism and that the technical occupations are somewhat demeaning or inferior. As such, we have to a very large degree discouraged many people of all our communities from being interested in the technical side of things. Therefore, this interest that the Government is showing today in expanding, to a very large degree; the technical facilities in South Africa, is not only very important but is overdue, and we in these benches are certainly very happy to see it happen.

One can spend a great deal of time—in fact, I have noticed that in this House the more we are in agreement with somebody the more time we seem to spend on telling one another just that—on discussing the merits of this Bill. Generally speaking I think we all agree that this is a good Bill, that it is necessary and that it must be proceeded with. However, I should like to make just one point for the benefit of the hon member for Green Point.

The hon member for Green Point remarked that excessive segregation in this connection was harmful. I think the hon member for Green Point is perfectly well aware of the fact that we in this party are also of the opinion that tertiary education certainly should be an open and flexible thing. However, I do want to make the point that as far as this particular field is concerned, dealing again with the Indian community and particularly in Natal, I think it is desirable to ensure that the Indians get first bite at the cherry as far as their own institutions are concerned. If there is one thing that is obvious and well known it is that the Indian community is very conscious of the advantages of education and training. They are one of the few communities that have dipped their hands deeply into their pockets to pay for their own educational and training facilities when the State, the province and other organizations could or would not pay for them. The position is that there are a large number of Indians who will be able to derive benefit from this legislation, and I would hate to feel that simply in order to comply with the concept of an institution being open to members of communities other than the Indian community, certain Indians were not given maximum opportunity.

I say therefore, Sir, that it must be borne in mind that there is no great love lost— there is certainly great fear—between the Blacks and the Indians, and particularly in Natal. We who live there have seen this on two or three occasions when there has been certain unpleasantness. Those of us who employ both Indians and Blacks in the various trades know that there is a certain advantage to be gained by training them in different groups. We have found this in my own line of business. We have found it to be very, very necessary.

Mr Speaker, as I said before, we do waste a great deal of time in agreeing with each other, and I do not want to do that now. I want to content myself by saying that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, in the course of the day we had fairly tempestuous debates, and I want to assure hon members that I do not intend to disturb things at this late stage of the evening.

The legislation before us has been thoroughly explained by hon members. This legislation is in the interests of a specific community and is legislation that I believe will mean a great deal to that community in future. For that reason I firstly want to express my sincere thanks for the support given to this legislation by the various parties. I also want to thank the hon member for Green Point who supported the legislation on behalf of his party.

The hon member for Green Point emphasized the importance of the catering industry which will also specifically come into its own in the technical college. It is a fact that we do have a great need for these people in South Africa, particularly as regards our tourist industry, as the hon member emphasized.

The hon member said that when appointments were made to the various councils, they should be meaningful ones. I want to assure the hon member that this will indeed be the case. He said that in the past appointments were not always made on merit. I can give him the assurance that the appointments will be made with a view to serving the community and that the people appointed will be people who can make a contribution. The hon member also said that we should be more “flexible and pragmatic”. Before the University of the Western Cape received its autonomy, it was my task to approve applications from students from other population groups for admission to that university. We always took into consideration that there were Indian students in Cape Town and its environs who found it very difficult to study at Durban-Westville. From time to time we admitted those students to that university.

The hon member for Umbilo rightly pointed out that “the Indian community must have the first bite of the cherry”. That is quite correct. As the hon member for Rissik also remarked, these institutions are community-orientated and must, in the first place, make provision for that specific community. Some hon members will be surprised to learn from those communities themselves that they want it that way.

They do not.

We can disagree about that this evening, but if we were to discuss this, we would find out that each community would like to have institutions that primarily meet its own requirements. I am not saying that communities are unwilling to receive students from other population groups, but it has been my experience, particularly during the past three years, that they would first like to accommodate students from within their own ranks.

I want to thank the hon member Dr Vilonel for his contribution. He emphasized the fact that education is a high priority for the Government. I want to express the hope— and the confidence—that it will always be a very high and important priority for South Africa. The hon member also referred to the various laws and amendments discussed here this year. It is not only the laws and the amendments that strike one, but if one travels through South Africa one notices, in the first place, the educational facilities that have been erected. If one goes a step further and visits those institutions, schools and technical colleges, one discovers the tremendous amount of work done there. I think South Africa can be justifiably proud of what it has already achieved in the field of education, and that applies to all the population groups.

This legislation also makes a further contribution towards meeting those needs of the Indian community.

I also want to thank the hon member for Rissik for his contribution and support on behalf of his party. He expressed the wonderful idea that we should also convey our thanks to the Indian community which had made a large and important contribution over the years. These things were not merely handed to this community on a platter; they themselves also worked for them and also contributed to what they are now fully utilizing. We see that every day. The hon member rightly pointed out that a firm foundation has been laid and that we shall build on it.

I want to thank the hon member for Umbilo for his support and for that of his party.

He emphasized the fact that we are dealing here with the upgrading of technical education. This is in the interests of the Indian community which is concentrated more in Durban and in Natal, and I believe that this community will fully utilize the opportunities thus being created.

For me personally it has been a great and delightful privilege to have dealt with Indian and Coloured education since October, 1980. These are probably some last pieces øf legislation before this House dealing specifically with the education of these communities. In future, in the new dispensation, they will be deciding these matters for themselves. It has been a pleasure to perform this task and I have wonderful and pleasant memories in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The provisions of this Act were put into effect last year with the proclamation of an area, approximately 10 km in width, along the northern boundary of the Republic, as a designated area. With the implementation of the provisions, however, certain shortcomings came to light which were of both a technical and an administrative nature and which are being put right in the proposed amending Bill.

†Although it was a very important consideration it was not the Government’s or the department’s policy that designated areas were to be densely populated at all cost. The main purpose was rather that an economically viable situation on economical farming units should be created with the assistance that is rendered in order that the inhabitants be encouraged to settle in the area. With this in view it was found that the discriminating measures between the applicant for assistance under the scheme who is the owner of other immovable property, and the applicant without such other property, should be removed from the act.

*As a result of the favourable conditions in terms of which assistance is being granted for the development of the area, it could thwart the aims of the Act if land speculation were to take place there. In the amending Bill provision is therefore being made for the Minister to place a restriction on the title deed of the person receiving assistance in terms of the scheme prohibiting him from selling his property within a period of 10 years without the permission of the Minister. If such permission is indeed granted, however, the person must repay to the State those benefits he received in terms of the scheme, except if the Agricultural Credit Board recommends otherwise to the Minister.

A task group consisting of officials of various Government departments requested the Jacobs Committee to carry out an investigation into, and make recommendations on, special agricultural financing measures by the Land and Agricultural Bank in the designated area. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Jacobs Committee, and endorsed by the task group, it is foreseen that further aid measures could be created in the form of the subsidizing of the interest that landowners in the designated area must pay to the Land and Agricultural Bank.

†Similar restrictions with regard to the resale of the properties are, however, applicable as that on the owners of property who recieve assistance in terms of the scheme under the Act. The original aim of the Act was a denser population but due to recent findings that many of the farms within the area are uneconomic units, the emphasis has changed towards a more stable and economically viable agricultural industry within the area and to the stabilization of the existing farms. It is therefore proposed that the name of the Act be amended to be more comprehensive.

I am convinced that the measures proposed in this Bill will be to the benefit of better administration and control within such designated areas as well as the owners of the property therein.

Mr Speaker, when the principal Act was introduced in the House in 1979, the official Opposition supported it. Despite certain reservations we had no real problems with its motive which was, of course, to encourage farmers to settle in and make productive, certain isolated but strategically important farmlands on our far northern borders. We can find no reason for changing our attitude and therefore we will be supporting this amending Bill which seeks to improve the principal Act.

Clause 1 seeks to introduce control over land owned by companies, thus bringing this land into line with that owned by private individuals. Clause 2 eliminates the differentiation which existed between farmers who had land and farmers who had no land. Many of the farmers who are already established have uneconomic units, and these farmers can now make those units viable if they can come into the scheme. This means that a farmer who might have been doomed to sell up can now be rescued and his unit made viable. This clause also removes certain anomalies concerning the payment of interest.

Clause 3 is important because it is designed to discourage speculation by people who might seek to make profits by exploiting the system, and we welcome it.

Clause 4 in short gives the Minister more muscle to promote the purpose of the Act which is to get farmers back onto the land.

Mr Speaker, we have no quarrel with any of these objectives.

It is, however, interesting to try to evaluate the success of the scheme so far. It appears that altogether some 40 farmers have been assisted under the scheme, only half of whom are new farmers. The amount of money involved is approximately R8 million. If one assumes that the 20 farmers who already own land would have left the land had they not been given this assistance, then it is fair to assume that the scheme involves about R200 000 for every farmer who is either kept on the land or encouraged to go back to the land. It is therfore obvious that this is a very costly scheme. Unless vast sums of money are made available it seems that the scheme could be destined to fail over the long term. I would be interested to hear the hon the Deputy Minister’s candid prognosis in regard to this particular problem.

When we talk of the future, further problems begin to loom large on the horizon. For a variety of reasons for which the hon the Deputy Minister is not directly responsible, it seems likely that he is going to be called upon in the very near future to extend the scheme to areas surrounding the homeland states. What has happened is that because of the actions and policies of the Minister of Co-operation and Development, particularly those policies involving consolidation, thousands of farmers now find that they have been turned into border farmers along the new boundaries. Many of these farmers, through no fault of their own, are now experiencing incredible problems. They have problems with stock theft, crop theft, poaching and trespassing. These problems are caused by their new neighbours in their overcrowded and economically unviable homelands. The position of these farmers has become untenable and they are threatening to leave the land in disturbing numbers. I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister is aware of, for example, developments along the Ciskeian border where a domino effect has been created in the Tarkastad district, just to name one particular example.