Order! I should like to make the following announcement in this House.

During the adjournment Mr A Van Breda, the Chief Whip of Parliament, Mr G P C De Kock, Deputy Secretary, and I visited parliamentary institutions in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy as well as the European Parliament in Strasbourg to acquaint ourselves with new developments in the field of parliamentary procedure and practice.

I also visited the Congress in the USA.

The other members of the delegation and I were cordially received in all the countries visited. Useful and penetrating discussions were held with office-bearers and senior officials.

I am satisfied that the visit achieved its purpose and was definitely to the benefit of Parliament.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 24 June 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, dated 24 June 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I am rising at the start of this debate to make a brief announcement. On 18 May 1987 Minister A L Schlebusch, Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with administration and broadcasting services, made an announcement on a general salary adjustment of 12,5% in the public sector. He also mentioned that during the course of the year limited adjustments would be considered for specific professional categories on a priority basis.

I now have the pleasure of announcing that on 1 November 1987 limited adjustments will be made in regard to specific occupational categories in education. In the first instance these adjustments envisage the elimination, in education, of all remaining disparities in salary between men and women in level 2 posts and posts above that level. Differences in salary scales have already been eliminated in level 2 posts and posts above that level. As a result of the differences in salary scales between men and women in level 1 posts, however, there are still certain disparities in salary in level 2 posts and posts above that level. The Appropriation makes it possible to eliminate this discrepancy completely and to pay equal salaries to men and women in level 2 posts and posts above that level from 1 November 1987.

Besides the problem area I have just referred to, several others have been pinpointed in education, for example unsatisfactory norm ratios at various occupational levels, the remuneration of underqualified educators, possible deficiencies in the salaries of educators, compared with salaries in other sectors, and disparities in salary, in level 1 posts, between male and female educators.

The extent of the amount made available makes it impossible to deal fully and simultaneously with all the shortcomings. Priorities in regard to the above-mentioned shortcomings will therefore have to be determined. As it is I have requested the relevant advisory bodies to advise me on this matter. All interested parties in education serve on these advisory bodies. At a later stage I shall be in a position to indicate which problem areas are to be eliminated on 1 November 1987.

The overall additional amount to be spent on educators in the next financial year is R700 million. Of this, R114 million will be used for improvements in specific occupational categories and the rest for the general salary increase of 12,5%.

As a result of the overall economic climate and other limiting factors there cannot be an upward adjustment of the appropriation so as to deal with all the problem areas. Educators, however, will obtain quite a reasonable percentage of the overall amount voted.

I want to confirm once more that the Government has great appreciation for the extremely important work done by educators. I trust that these improvements in conditions of service will contribute towards ensuring that education continues to attract its rightful share of the available high-level manpower in the country.

If the chief spokesmen on education have not received a copy of this announcement in time, I apologise. There were a few typing errors and the document was only completed just before I rose to speak.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the Director-General and his staff for the great job they have done in the Department of National Education during the past year. The CP rejects, in principle, a government department for education as a general affair, but this does not detract from the fact that Dr Venter and his staff have rendered an excellent service to this department.

Although I am aware of the fact that in the Department of National Education it is far more than mere formal education that is involved, I am going to confine myself to the education policy this afternoon. Before I put a few specific questions to the hon the Minister, I should like to make a few statements about education and, in the light of those questions, level my criticism at the governing party’s education policy.

I firstly believe that education does and should be associated with communicating a certain view of life and with transferring certain values and norms.

Order! Hon members are talking so loudly that I can hardly hear what is being said by the hon member who is speaking.

You are not missing anything.

Order! I am not prepared to proceed with the Committee Stage while all this noise is going on. The hon member for Brits may continue.

When it comes to education in the true sense of the word, it is not merely a matter of augmenting knowledge, but also a question of educating the person as a whole and transmitting a people’s value system which has stood the test of time.

The CP is not ashamed to say that, within the framework of its ethnic policy, it is prepared to stand or fall on the question of Christian national education. Within education this concept merely wishes to indicate that Christian values and a love for what is one’s own should be conveyed in the process of education. That is why we reject the idea of multicultural education for our children. That is an educational approach in which pupils of various peoples, cultures, races and so on are accommodated in the same school and are taught in accordance with uniform syllabuses. We also reject so-called “neutral” education, something which does not really exist, because neutrality also embodies a specific view of life.

Secondly we believe that it is the right and responsibility of every people to determine its own system of education. To work out a system of education in conjunction with other peoples—other peoples having other views of life, other norms and other values—is unacceptable as far as the CP is concerned. If there is one sphere in which the consensus approach cannot work, it is specifically that of education. To place the highest values of one’s people on the altar of consensus so that other peoples can negotiate on those values, is the most flagrant denial of the right of one’s people to be different and to have its own deepest convictions.

As far as the CP is concerned, an own system of education does not mean merely an own affairs department in which, according to what the Government alleges, independent decisions can be taken on most of the facets of White education. As far as we are concerned, it also means that control of White education—yes, even advice on White education—will be in the hands of our own people. It means that the Whites themselves will take decisions, including decisions on the financing of their education, the salaries and the conditions of service of their teaching staff, the professional registration of their teachers and the norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations. What we demand is the right of the Whites to an own system of education in which the Whites will not merely have a say in certain aspects, but a full say in regard to all aspects of White education.

It is interesting that numerous ethnic groups which were previously the victims of multicultural education, are now beginning to insist on separate educational facilities and their own education and training system in regard to which they can make their own decisions. I am thinking, amongst others, of the Moluccans in Holland, the West Indians in Britain, the Basques in Spain, the Laplanders in Sweden and the Turks in Germany. These and many other examples endorse the fact that the Whites in South Africa are not out of step in demanding their own system of education. A separate system of education also embodies, as far as we are concerned, certain other important aspects which I cannot examine in depth this afternoon. A child should be taught in its mother tongue and should receive its education from a teacher belonging to the same race and people. History must be taught to that child, not as general South African history, but illuminated by its own people’s past, a history from which a child may draw strength and inspiration for the future. Without commanding symbols—according to a well-known educationist—education would be neutral, and that is unacceptable.

I want to make a third statement in regard to education. It is the responsibility, but also the privilege, of every people to pay for the provision of its own education. The CP is not indifferent to the dire straits of other peoples.

We do not, however, feel ourselves to be under any obligation, under the policy of power-sharing, to pay for the education of other peoples on a permanent basis. We shall make our contribution, as the NP also did when it still adhered to the policy of separate development, but we shall do so on a voluntary basis so that the standards of White education are not permitted to stagnate or are even lowered in the process.

I now want to put a few questions to the Minister.

First tell us about AWB education. [Interjections.]

Is the hon the Minister, in all honesty, alleging that education is still essentially an own affair when there are mixed bodies making policy decisions in regard to matters such as financing, syllabuses and conditions of service? In the Official Yearbook of the RSA for 1986 it is stated, in regard to educational reform, that educationalists from all communities are, for the first time in South Africa’s history, taking joint decisions—please note taking decisions—on syllabuses, examinations, conditions of service and finance. It is true that these mixed educational bodies are, theoretically speaking, advisory bodies. In practice, however— this is confirmed by the Official Yearbook I have just quoted from—they not only give advice, but also take decisions, thereby exercising control over White education. To the CP, that is an unacceptable situation. The Department of National Education, as the general department of education, has become the gateway to integrated education in the RSA.

I want to put a second question. Last year the hon the Minister announced his 10-year plan in regard to the financing of education. He also said that it would take place in accordance with a certain formula and that he was “nou besig … om in oorleg met sy on-derwyskollegas die finale besonderhede hiervan uit te werk”. On that occasion he also promised that this formula would be made available to all the parties in Parliament.

All they do is make promises.

A full 15 months have now elapsed since that promise was made to the House, and today we should like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is Government policy to base its activities on secret formulas of which neither the other hon members of the House, nor members of the public in general, have any knowledge. [Interjections.] It is not good enough that he has not yet finalised this matter after a period of 15 months. We want to know exactly what this formula entails, because it has a very significant effect on the education of our children.

It has been said that by 1996 the most spectacular progress possible must have been made in the provision of equal education. Knowing the economic laws of this country as we do, spectacular progress in this regard can only take place at the expense of the Whites. This year approximately 40% more has been budgeted for Black education, whilst the Budget for White education has only increased by 8,8%. Today we specifically want to know from the hon the Minister what the implications of such a new financing dispensation are for White education. Are the standards of White education going to be lowered, or are they going to be frozen until the educational standards of the other population groups reach the same level as those of the Whites? Are White parents going to have to pay more for the education of their children, whilst people of colour are granted more State assistance? Are the teacher-pupil ratios in White schools going to be adjusted to those in Black schools, for example? How does this formula effect the training of White teaching staff and also their remuneration package?

The norms and standards for syllabuses are now a general affair, which are not the responsibility of the Department of Education and Culture, but rather that of the general education department, ie National Education. A third question to which we now want an answer is: What precisely does this mean? Does it mean that the norm for the content of syllabuses can, according to this scheme, also be dealt with as a general affair now? Does this consequently mean that this department could now determine that the content of the history syllabus should be general South African history, presenting historical facts in such a way that they do not give offence to other population groups? We should like to have the hon the Minister’s views on this, particularly because of the strong pressure brought to bear recently for the acceptance of this approach in regard to history.

The CP finds such a presentation of history unacceptable. Historical events in the development of a people cannot be glossed over or ignored for the sake of sound relations. Such conduct confuses children when they ultimately discover the true facts and could result in such children questioning their own tradition, and culture. In a Christian-National educational set-up the origins, traditions, development and deeds of heroism of one’s own people ought to be depicted in such a way that children can develop an appreciation and respect for what is unique to their own people. Once they have learnt to have respect for their own peoples past, they will also develop respect for the traditions and cultures of other peoples.

The questions posed here this afternoon live and breath in the hearts and minds of those who represent the CP in this House. They are also alive in the hearts of people, many people, who continued to vote for the NP in the recent election. We ask the hon the Minister to give clear answers to these questions.

Mr Chairman, apparently the hon member for Brits, who has just finished speaking, is now the chief spokesman on National Education for the Official Opposition in this House, and it is a pleasure for me to congratulate him sincerely on that promotion. I trust that in future we shall be able to conduct good and meaningful debates with him on education in general, the success of which is so very important for the future of our country.

I regret to have to say today, however, that in my view the hon member has said nothing new. He focused on the familiar ideological background to his party’s policies. He told us what was unacceptable to them; in fact, the word “unacceptable” is probably the word he used most frequently in that speech of his.

To his credit let me say that his comments on his party’s policy and on the Government were made in a calm, tranquil and friendly fashion. I know the hon member to be a friendly person. I appreciate that fact and I wish him every success.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister to whom I want to extend a very hearty welcome back to South Africa. I understand that it was only yesterday that he returned from his visit. I hope he had a good rest.

I should like to thank him for the announcements he made at the commencement of the debate, particularly his intention to eliminate all remaining disparities in salary between men and women in education in level 2 posts and posts higher than that level. The news is very welcome and also attests to the fact that, as in the past, it is the Government’s intention to honour all its promises and achieve the goals it has set itself.

I was also gratified to learn that the hon the Minister had reconfirmed the Government’s great appreciation for the extremely important work done by the educators of our country. I want to join all the other hon members of this House in associating myself with that. If that is the approach of the Government of the day, one has every faith in the future of education in our country.

Today I actually want to speak about an extremely complex phenomenon which I also know should be handled very carefully, and I am referring to what has happened over the past few months at some of our universities. In a debate such as this, however, we should take cognisance of that, because when all is said and done the State finances approximately 65% of the total expenditure of universities. We therefore have an interest in what happens there.

What happened at the universities? For the sake of convenience let us examine a few examples of what happened close to us here at the University of Cape Town. I want to say at once that I am not singling out this university because I have anything against it. In fact, I want to congratulate the university on the quality of its education and on its research achievements. It can also boast a proud tradition of unprejudiced communication and freedom of expression.

But what happened last year? Its Department of Political Studies invited Dr Connor Cruse O’Brien from Ireland as a visiting professor.

Dr O’Brien is, amongst other things, a fierce critic of the South African Government and an advocate of economic sanctions against South Africa, but at the same time he is an opponent of academic boycotts against South Africa, is opposed to the ANC and has doubts about so-called “peoples’ education”.

For a small group of hotheaded radicals at the university that was too much. Ideas other than their own are not tolerated. Freedom of speech is thrown overboard. They marched on a locale where Dr O’Brien was giving a lecture, came to blows with the officers controlling the campus, broke down the lecture hall door and put a stop to the lecture. That happened on 7 October 1986.

Public reaction was immediate, wide-spread and generally condemnatory. Dr David Welsh, head of the Department of Political Studies, said:

In an editorial on 10 October 1986 the Cape Times said:

However, the university is not taking steps against the culprits. No, the rector informed Dr O’Brien that to continue his lectures could lead to serious violence, whereupon the visiting lecturer agreed to cancel his remaining lectures. It was therefore a question of capitulation. The university authorities intimated that they were not able to maintain order in the face of crude extortion.

I do not have the time to go into the rest of the sad tale, except to say that a commission of enquiry, consisting of well-known left-wing elements outside the University of Cape Town community was appointed, their report only appearing in January 1987, which was almost four months after the incident. The commission adopted an almost apologetic tone towards the students who, incidentally had refused to give evidence before the commission. The commission blamed the overall situation in the country and criticised Dr O’Brien’s way of doing things. They said that stringent punitive measures were not justified.

In reaction to the report Dr Welsh resigned as head of the department. He said he was disgusted by the report. He also said that the University of Cape Town found itself enmeshed in a conflict spiral and that, in effect, no action gave a radical minority a veto right. The university, however, waited a further two months before doing anything. In April four students were rapped over the knuckles and one received an effective fine of R100. No wonder that by that stage further unrest was already building up. The university authorities were presented with certain demands, classes were boycotted, lectures disrupted, stones were thrown at motorists and a lorry was set alight on the campus, to mention only a few examples.

Today I want to issue a warning to the effect that the universities in our country should take serious note of what happened in the late sixties and seventies on campuses in the USA and elsewhere. Student riots in those countries shook whole communities to the very core, because political activism on campuses easily spills over into the broader community.

A great deal has been written about those riots. I do not have the time to deal with that, but I do want to focus on just a few aspects. Firstly, the apparent motivation of the radicals there was the same as it is here at the moment. The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest, a report published in the USA, states:

The same applies here. Secondly the activism was, in effect, focused on the overthrow of the so-called “establishment” as a whole. S C W Duvenage points this out clearly in his thesis which he submitted to the University of Potchefstroom. One can now compare this to what Azaso had to say in the Cape Times of 30 October 1986 with reference to what happened at Ikeys:

That is how they themselves describe the “establishment” they want to destroy. This also includes the University of Cape Town with its liberal traditions. They say that university should become a “people’s university”.

Those are revolutionary, highly volatile ideas which must almost inevitably lead to revolutionary action. In such circumstances the university authorities dare not take such half-hearted action as they have thus far taken. Events elsewhere are proof of this.

John Searle, a professor in philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley, was himself a student activist in his day. He wrote a book, The Campus War—a Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony, in which he said:

This view is supported by the USA’s presidential report of 1970.

The journal The Futurist of November/December 1986 issued the following warning:

I myself want to issue a warning to the effect that if universities do not put their house in order, they are going to find it very difficult to survive that projected onslaught. Even the kind of social dispensation the University of Cape Town and other universities say they are working towards, would then be seriously threatened.

Mr Chairman, I gladly pursue the point made by the hon member for Stellenbosch on the question of student activism. It may interest hon members to know that I have all the Press cuttings on student activism at our universities over the past year and have made a fairly close study of them. I think there is one point which the hon the Minister should bear in mind when he responds to the speech of the hon member for Stellenbosch. That is that the universities differ very greatly in their approach to this matter. In this regard I may for example praise the conduct of the principal of the University of Natal, Prof Booysen, who together with the university’s senate, council and SRC drafted a memorandum of discipline for that university for the control of incidents such as that mentioned by the hon member for Stellenbosch. I believe, therefore, that the universities themselves should perform that function and I certainly hope that the hon member for Stellenbosch’s plea is not that the hon the Minister does anything in this regard.

Why didn’t you also go to Dakar?

Sir, I hear a noise on my left to which I do not intend to respond.

I don’t think you should either.

A year ago—the hon member for Brits said 15 months ago but I shall give the hon the Minister the benefit of the doubt—when the education debate was last held the hon the Minister made it very clear that there would be a 10-year plan based on a real increase in total education expenditure of at least 4,1% per annum. He also said—and like the hon member for Brits I want to quote his words:

We have not had it yet. We know we have not had it. We have asked quite a lot of questions about that. The problem that we have, however, is that for two years this formula has indeed been applied. We have as our authority for this the hon the Minister of Finance, who said that in the division of the education funds this formula had been applied. I told the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House previously that the time had come to tell some truths.

What has been the real effect of applying the formula? I ask this because it has indeed been applied. We are all aware of that. What can this hon Minister say about the comments of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates, who, in November last year indicated, according to the Press in Natal, that his prepared budget for 1987-88 would be R55 million short because of the application of the formula? This hon Minister will be aware that there was some contretemps in the Press because the Department of Education and Culture: House of Delegates was having to dismiss teachers and had to cut back on its recruitment of teachers for the very reason that its budget would be cut. This hon Minister said there were other reasons. He did quite a bit of ducking and diving at that time. I do think, however, the time has come to ask whether this formula has meant a cut in the education budget of the House of Delegates. Has it meant a cut in the budget requests of the House of Assembly?

What can this hon Minister say about the calculation that at the present rate of inflation plus 4,1% the total education spending by the end of the ten-year period, in 1996, will be, I am told, about R58 billion a year? Is that a reasonable figure? That is the calculation the Press were carrying last week in reply to his answer to me. The real amount—the hon the Minister gave this in his speech last year—in rand terms of 1986 will be R10 billion. That, Sir, I acknowledge. Our line of questioning is based on the inflation rate plus 4,1%.

Let us look at the formula itself. The formula consists of a series of constants multiplied by various factors and then totaled. Among those constants are, for example, the unit cost of teaching staff, the unit cost of supplies and services, the unit cost of media packages, the number of subsidised pupils and a number of other factors. Now that formula, which is not public knowledge, gives rise to all sorts of questions, especially in relation to how those factors were devised and on what the unit costs are based. This is a very important question, Sir. In certain departments the unit cost is very much greater than in other departments. Is there a common calculation of a unit cost; and if so, on what is it based?

Now is the time, we believe, for the hon the Minister to come clean and to tell South Africa what is really going on with this funding formula. However, Sir, we in this party believe that the key to this debate on national education is not finance. We are very pleased that the hon the Minister has committed himself to a plan for a better distribution of funding. We believe that the targeted 10-year period is too long. We do understand, however, that in the provision and in the training of teachers these things cannot be accomplished overnight. The time needed for this is too long. The key to this debate, however, is not finance. It is not even the question of equality. It is the question of legitimacy.

This is the difficulty South Africans have with the concept of own and general affairs. This NP Government has still to come to terms with the fact that for the greater number of South Africans its racial education policy, like its racial political policy, is a total anathema. For many South Africans the very acceptance of the education system is open to question.

The De Lange Report, which everybody quoted so extensively in 1982, 1983 and 1984, is now forgotten. It is completely forgotten. Hon members opposite, the Government and this country must actually read that report again. I should like to read two quotes from it, Sir. The De Lange Report stated:

This is probably more important, Sir—

That is in the De Lange Report. It has stated what the problem is, and this is coupled with the view that, and I quote:

Here reference is being made to educational differentiation:

That is the important point. [Interjections.] It is De Lange who said differentiation based purely on race or colour was contrary to the social and ethical demands for justice.

To the hon member of the NP chirping here on my left let me say that this Nationalist Government has totally ignored these recommendations. It has rejected the fundamental premise of the HSRC Report, and this premise is that education in South Africa will be provided free of racial bias and will be acceptable to all South Africans.

The Nationalist Government must know that the spending of money, however much more money, on entirely racially classified executive education departments will never make the system of racial own and general affairs acceptable. I have heard this hon Minister speak in this House and in other Houses, referring to Belgium and Switzerland as models for the kind of education system that we have. We can either laugh or cry about this, because it is just not true.

The four executive education departments are determined on a racial, a colour, basis only. That is the big difference. Another major aspect is the rigid …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip of the NP.

†The big difference is the determination on a racial basis of the four departments, but there is another aspect, namely the rigid prevention of social mobility among pupils of different colours. In Belgium, as the hon the Minister must be aware, pupils can move between schools if they choose. The school departments are determined on a linguistic and cultural basis, not on a racial one. Here we have the vicious tyranny of a ministerial “diktat” of own affairs stopping children of one school from going to another or those from another racial group from going to a White school.

What was at least an honest alternative was spelt out by my neighbour in Natal, the new hon member for Umhlatuzana, at the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba. He called for an Afrikaans education department linked to the Department of Education and Culture. Hon members should note that this would be an Afrikaans department, not a White one. He also indicated that this could include “mede-Afrikaners”, that is Afrikaans-speaking Coloured persons. At least that was an honest attempt to address the issue of education on a cultural basis, but White education. Black education or particularly that total anathema to the people themselves, Coloured education, is no cultural education at all.

I therefore plead for a stop to this farce. Let us not try to say it is a cultural or language matter. What we have is racially divided education.

This hon the Minister needs to achieve a true breakthrough in human relations. He needs to ensure that where the law actually prevents pupils meeting in the classroom, these laws are changed. It is interesting, however, that there are very few laws, if any, that actually stop children meeting in the classroom. It is the hon the Minister who stops children meeting in the classroom. It is the ministerial “diktat” because he makes the policy; it is not the law.

If the hon the Minister of National Education aspires to high office and would like to be the State President one day—I am sure he would love to be!—we should like him at least to leave his present Ministry with a measure of pride in having succeeded in abolishing these own affairs decrees and lifting any total prohibition on open schools.

Although the hon the Minister may not know this, he is the twentieth Minister responsible for the major education portfolio since 1910. Over all those years, every Minister has been concerned about providing for the status quo and maintaining what is, whether he has been SAP, Nat or UP. Now is the time for this hon Minister to turn to the future; he can do it. Let us glory in our cultural diversity, for we are diverse. Let us be proud that linguistically our country has a multitude of spoken and written tongues, but let us reject colour as the sole determinant of educational differentiation.

We accept and acknowledge that education is ultimately the handmaiden of the political ideology in power, whether legitimate or not. Education is not and can never be neutral. What must be emphasised is that this hon Minister and this Government can change their educational direction. The Government can turn away from racial departments, abolish pass laws and influx control and accept racially mixed marriages. Let us therefore also turn away from racial quotas at the technikons some of which have to be— what a farce!—98% White; shrinking White teachers’ colleges that refuse or are unable to admit teacher trainees of any other colour; schools racially exclusive except for the children of diplomatic staff; racially devised employment practices, according to which one has to be White to teach Zulu at a White school; and the racial administration of education.

Education is a high-risk activity in this country. The Government cannot believe that it can calm the passions unless and until it sets its face against racism in education. That would really be reform.

In the last two minutes that I have left I would like to make a comment to the hon the Minister. He is aware that earlier in this session, in June, I expressed extreme dissatisfaction at the manner in which the salaries of CS educators were determined this year. The hon the Minister is aware of the dispute on the setting of salaries. He was present during that speech and I understand he will be reacting to it today, but I am still pressing him to do so. Will the hon the Minister please react to how he came to set the 12,5% for CS educators this year? There are some very unhappy teachers out there. There are some very unhappy members of the Federal Teachers’ Council sitting in our gallery today who would like to hear the Minister explain very carefully how the 12,5% came to be set.

You are taking a chance!

I certainly hope the Minister will make full use of the opportunity and that at the same time he will make at least passing reference to the desire to have a good and effective negotiating mechanism that the authorities will stick to and not just allow to drop away because an election happens to be coming up.

Concerning the announcement the hon the Minister made regarding the removal of the inequities for women teachers at post level 2, I am glad it has happened. It was an anomaly that the hon the Minister was made aware of and I am glad that it has been removed.

I once again find it unfortunate to see us continuing with the old timetable story. Why must it be 1 November? It is like the question of pensions that we have every year. Why wait till 1 October for the higher pensions to be set? Why wait till 1 November? I certainly hope that the other matters raised by the hon the Minister will be resolved this year.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the argument of the hon member for Pinetown. I want to have a word with him during my speech, but before I come to that, there is something I want to rectify.

It was claimed that I had made a plea for an Afrikaans department of education. Strictly speaking that is not correct. We were given the choice of subjecting ourselves to a Zulu-dominated education department in Natal. In such a case we should prefer to remain associated with the Department of Education and Culture as is the case at present. That is what the argument amounted to. I mention this merely to rectify matters. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the hon member for Pinetown later; he must just be patient.

Before I come to that, I want to make a statement. South Africa’s educational system as it is today, is based on the educational labour, thoughts, research and experience of three quarters of a century. As a result it is characterised by one of the great realities of South Africa, viz the variety and interdependence of its community. It is not a static system and the establishment of the Department of National Education in 1984 is a very important innovation. It is the task of this department to bring about equal opportunities for all population groups and to make the expertise which has been concentrated on this general level available to all education in South Africa.

That is not enough for some people. The revolutionaries, assisted by a climate of pseudo-liberal thoughts in certain non-militant White circles—they are sitting next to us today—are still not satisfied. Their political obsessions compel them to insist on an even greater universality and collectiveness in our educational system. At the same time these people are grieving because we no longer have four White departments of education today, but only one. In Natal they now say that White education is no longer free; that it is controlled by Pretoria. I am talking specifically to the hon members for Pinetown and Durban North. Because Natal’s department of education has been “taken away”, they want to take Pretoria’s away too—almost like naughty children. The question is where it should be taken to, Ulundi or—now I am talking to the hon members for Greytown and Durban-Central—simply to Lusaka or Dakar.

It is not necessary for those of us on this side of the House to allow ourselves to become panic-stricken because of our approach toward either the collectiveness or the own character of our education. It would be better for us—that is what I want to do today—to confine ourselves to the PFP’s education policy. Let us regard it closely and consider their approach to collectiveness.

The KwaZulu-Natal Indaba has many deficiencies—I am referring specifically to the detail of the proposals—but it serves one important positive purpose, and that is that it exposes the PFP’s soul to us as never before. It also tells us what they will get up to with our education in this country.

In July last year, the indaba’s Charter for Human Rights was made known with a great flourish all over the world, and at the same time Dr Worrall’s fall began. The hon member for Berea as the PFP leader in Natal—now I have referred to all the hon members of the PFP in Natal—also regarded this charter as a big breakthrough.

As I shall indicate, the PFP, who until recently presented themselves as being the constitutional saviours of South Africa, did not quite understand their own charter. Sections 1(2) and 8(4), for example, prohibit race or economic status to play a part in the provision of education. In addition, section 15(2) dictates that all existing practices that are in conflict with the charter must be removed within a year.

The indaba education committee had to function within this framework. I should like to quote from the report of the education committee in respect of their findings on compulsory education for everyone in Natal:

[Interjections.] That is not all, however. The Charter of Human Rights also demands manpower parity in all Natal schools, and in this connection hon members must listen carefully to the finding of the education committee:

This could be a traumatic experience for many of our young, idealistic teachers. The education committee therefore envisages the following:

But that is still not the end. Let us look at the PFP education policy. The dictate of the charter in respect of financial parity left the economic committee at a loss. They then recommended an equalisation of spending on education. This would amount to a decrease of 75% in respect of White expenditure on education, 66% in the case of Indians and 50% in the case of Coloureds, and in terms of section 15(2) of the charter, this would take place within a year.

It is no wonder, therefore, that those in the inner circles of the indaba-clique, the so-called “Indaba Steering Committee”, are beginning to shy away from sections 15(2). This was after they had needed us to point out their blunders to them, however. We still render that service to them constantly.

I am coming back to education—a Senbank-University of Pretoria economic inquiry which was submitted to the indaba found that the envisaged parities in education could not be realised within 10 years. For that reason I would suggest that the hon member for Yeoville should have exercised stronger discipline over his young indaba Turks. This might have led to greater economic realism, as well as smaller alliance losses on 6 May. I understand his problem nevertheless; one swallow cannot make a summer.

Nevertheless, there is a way of escaping this educational chaos as endorsed by the PFP at the indaba, and that is private schools. Their funds are such a subtle way of keeping undesirable elements at bay. This is an old technique in liberal circles. How wonderful it is to be liberal if one is rich enough not to have to pay to be liberal.

Section 1(2) prohibits racial or economic discrimination, however, and higher fees can easily be construed as economic discrimination in the sphere of education; besides, it is aimed chiefly at Blacks. Essentially, therefore, it is racial discrimination. In terms of the charter, such schools would not qualify for Government subsidies at all. What has happened here, therefore? They were too clever by half.

The hon “oumatjie” from Houghton should have shown more interest in the escapades of her children in Natal. She would have been able to point out these loopholes to them. She has a feeling for this kind of thing, but perhaps she is not quite as interested anymore.

What, therefore, do we have in the educational system as endorsed by the PFP? In a nutshell, pedagogic irresponsibility, economic recklessness and constitutional amateurishness; all this from a party that presented itself as being the potential creator of a new, stable, prosperous South Africa.

May I ask you a question?

I have little time, Sir.

My question now is: How does one save a people with such opponents? It is not difficult.

[Inaudible]

The hon member for Randburg must also tell us some time where he and his kindred spirits stand in connection with education.

†It is not for the hon members on this side of the House to apologise to the PFP for our education policy. It is rather for them to spell out theirs. They were naive enough to try to do this two weeks prior to the election, using the Indaba education proposals as the subtle vehicle. The voters had their say on 6 May. They preferred those who have the courage to defend their rights, as opposed to those who, in their hearts, have already lost what was theirs.

Their political rejection prompted the PFP members to grope for alternatives. Some of them are turning to Lusaka and Dakar for their political education. I advise those hon members to watch out for the hon member for Durban Central, and especially for the hon member for Greytown. He has entered a grey phase, and we expect further amazing things from him. These two hon members are here on borrowed time. They realise it and are looking for alternatives which they have the nerve to call “democratic alternatives”. [Interjections.] Desperation forces them to become political travellers to somewhere or to nowhere, accompanied by a few drifting Afrikaners.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I understood the hon member to call two hon members on this side “political terrorists”. Is that permissible?

Order! I heard him say “political travellers”.

I did say “political travellers”, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Umhla-tuzana for not reacting directly to his speech; I merely want to tell him I think he dealt most effectively with the PFP education policy and the hon member for Pinetown.

Tell us what the NP’s policy is.

Quite a number of thoughts on the standard of education in our country have been exchanged in the present discussion on education. Fears have frequently been expressed, especially by the extreme right-wing parties, that the standard of education in South Africa would supposedly be lowered.

The extreme right-wing parties beat you!

I also observed that fear in the hon member for Brits this afternoon. Unnecessary emotions are being aroused in regard to this matter and as I have already said are being given prominence by those circles in particular. All this is being done in an effort to fan the matter into emotional flames and in so doing to score a few cheap political points.

I should like to give a brief explanation of the Government and NP standpoint this afternoon and then indicate the importance of maintaining high educational standards in our country. I wish to illustrate the importance of doing this internally and internationally in such a way that we do not build up a backlog in the educational field in general and in the academic field in particular.

It is common knowledge that the Government has accepted the principle that equal educational opportunities should be the objective for every inhabitant of the RSA, which obviously includes equal standards of education. The South African Certification Council and the Certification Council for Technikon Education, established by legislation in 1986, are bound by law to ensure that the certificates they issue represent the same standard of education and examination.

When standards of education are discussed it is of importance that we are all aware of what is meant. I sometimes get the impression that people discuss standards of education without ever having arrived at a definition of this word or knowing what it entails. That is why it is beneficial to listen to educationalists and to establish the exact meaning of standards of education.

These educationalists state that standards in education have more than one meaning. The first indicates the level of knowledge and expertise a candidate may be expected to reach regardless of the usefulness or suitability of the education received.

A second meaning is also attached to this concept. Standards in education may also indicate the degree of relevance which educational programmes should have in the light of demands and circumstances prevailing in a specific region.

Standards in education are therefore a topical or current matter and are continuously determined by the demands of the times, circumstances and region. They are also an indication of a series of factors within and outside education which have to be taken into account when objectives of study have to be determined, syllabuses and examinations drawn up and certificates issued. The Government accepts this point of departure in education.

Everyone should know that the world in which he has to apply his knowledge and skills today is becoming more complex and competitive. He has to compete on an equal footing if he wishes to find a place in the labour field. It is also true, however, that a country can only market its products successfully if they excel those of its competitors in quality and price. Consequently it is not only a requirement but also a necessity to maintain standards of training, education and production at a high level in South Africa.

South Africans who have studied at secondary and tertiary institutions abroad have attested on their return that they experienced no problems whatsoever in adjusting to standards of education in the countries in which they received tuition. This is therefore an indication—in fact it proves—that South Africa may be proud of the exceptionally high standards of education that are being maintained in this country. They make us competitive; they keep us abreast of developments in all fields throughout the world.

Although South Africa is in part a Third World Country, standards typical of such countries cannot be accepted. If this were to happen, this country would no longer be able to maintain the quality which enabled it to be competitive in any sphere. This problem can only be overcome if every pupil and student in South Africa is subjected to the attainment of high standards of education and strives for them personally.

In view of the statement I have just made, education cannot demand a lower or so-called softer standard from people from undeveloped or underdeveloped communities either. In personal discussions with responsible leaders in education, especially from Black educational circles, I have been informed—and have heard this from other educational sources too—that they oppose the idea of having to receive a second-rate certificate. On the other hand it is also unfair and unacceptable for the same certificate to represent more than one standard; this would create unfair competition in the labour market and simply mislead the holders and users of certificates.

The Government and the hon the Minister of National Education, who are responsible in terms of Act 76 of 1984 for determining general policy on norms and standards for syllabuses, examination and certification of qualifications, are aware that lowering educational standards in South Africa would not be in anyone’s interests. Some people will obviously find it difficult to comply with high standards. Such people in this country have to be helped in every possible way to develop educationally to the extent that they will ultimately be capable of maintaining those fixed standards and satisfying the demands those standards expect of them.

South Africa wishes to keep on playing a meaningful role in Africa and in a global context, and that is why the goal will have to be increasingly high standards of education— even higher in future than at present.

I want to express the hope that critics of the Government, especially the Official Opposition, will appreciate the Government’s fundamental standpoint in respect of standards of education and that they will not distort the facts and the truth in an attempt to score cheap political points. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and his department are to be commended for the work they are doing in maintaining such a particularly high level of educational standards in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the former hon member for Potgietersrus, who now wishes to be known in the newspapers of the constituency he represented as the MP for Transvaal and who was nominated to this House by one voter, referred in his speech to standards in education, both at home and abroad. I can understand the hon member’s inclination to speak about foreign standards in particular; for some time now he has yearned for a post abroad. [Interjections.] I take it amiss of him, however, for knowing so little about internal standards in education that he could make an entire speech in this House without being aware of the difficulties being experienced in education by the people in the constituency he used to represent.

The hon the Minister of National Education inter alia determines general educational policy regarding norms and standards for the financing of current and capital expenditure on education for all population groups. It is the hon the Minister’s declared objective to determine and apply norms and standards of policy in such a way that equal education opportunities, including education standards, are provided for every inhabitant, regardless of colour, creed, sex, race, culture or ethnic ties, of the National Party’s new undivided, numerically Black-dominated South Africa, in which every inhabitant, according to the hon the State President, will be represented on the basis of equal rights of citizenship and universal franchise by his representatives at the highest legislative and executive level. According to NP policy, this could in fact be the last debate attended by the hon the Minister of National Education in his present capacity. It could happen that on a following occasion Mr John Mavuso, the former ANC member who claims to be the same man today as he was at the time when he was banned under the aegis of the ANC, might be the Minister of National Education, probably supported by Dr Oscar Dhlomo, the Secretary-General of Inkatha, providing he and Mr Mavuso can settle their little differences.

Be that as it may, it is this present hon Minister of National Education who, with PFP support, is pursuing the obsession of classical liberalism of the equalisation of all inhabitants of the country on the basis of equality in education. The CP thinks this is a foolish policy; it is fallacious in principle and not feasible in any case—words of which the hon the Minister is particularly fond.

Equality—in the sphere of education too— can only work if all other things are equal. In South Africa, however, the realities in fact indicate complete inequality. Yes, the realities of South Africa—other favourite words of the hon the Minister’s—indicate that there is a glaring inequality in the numbers of the various population groups, a glaring inequality in the birth rate of the various population groups, and a wide disparity in productivity and fourthly also in contributions to State revenue, from which education has to be financed. I have mentioned four aspects but there are many more.

The hon the Minister is dealing with a contradictio in terminis. [Interjections.]

Oh, they do not understand that! [Interjections.]

He wants to enforce equality artificially while all other things are unequal. [Interjections.] That is why it comes as no surprise that in practice the hon the Minister’s financing policy amounts to yet another total inequality. This year the hon the Minister succeeded in increasing the budget for White education by 8,8%, which means a decrease in real terms, whereas the budget for Black education was increased by 40%. This is all so comprehensible because the hon the Minister is pervaded by the spirit of a Prof De Lange—his leader in a different context—and Mr Frankiin Sonn, the Coloured UDF sympathiser, who agreed in the De Lange Report that here and there the standards of White education were too luxurious and that they could not serve as norms because they were above normal. They would have to be levelled off and educational provision would have to be limited at some point or other.

The hon the Minister asked Parliament for funds intended to make this dogma of equality work. These are also words used by the hon the Minister in a previous debate.

This policy forces the Whites together with other races and people, into one system of education with equal norms and standards of financing, and even of syllabuses. The tragic aspect of this is that the Black state president of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not even in power yet; the hon member for Innesdal has not even arrived in Dakar yet. Nevertheless the Whites are already experiencing the tyranny of the Black majority in the educational field and the redistribution of wealth and income at a sensitive, distinctively ethnic level such as the education of their children.

When the CP comes to power—not if it comes to power—it will reinstate the freedom and right of the Whites to decide every facet of White education alone. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education should not become as hot under the collar as he did on Friday, 12 June, in this House when he said the following and I quote from Hansard, 12 June 1987, col 1437:

That is the point. The hon the Minister no longer feels as strongly as the CP does about the rights and freedoms of the Whites in this country because that hon Minister is a party to the removal of that very freedom. What freedom is it? It is the freedom to be the sole arbiter regarding every facet of White education.

I find it remarkable that the hon the Minister could also have stated on 12 June that he was proud of the standards of White education. I am amazed that the hon the Minister of the Budget, who denies that there is or was such a thing as a White South Africa, has no objection to his colleague’s use of the term “White education”. In any case the hon the Minister of National Education went further and stated that no hon member could indicate that White education had been prejudiced in respect of standards. Surely the hon the Minister does not deny the logic that less money necessarily results in a lowering of standards? Nevertheless the hon the Minister wants South Africa to believe that the increase in the budget for White education, is what it is because the hon the Minister has saved money on White education but the figure for Black education is what it is because the Government has squandered money on that education. Is that the logic the hon the Minister wants us to accept? [Interjections.]

On 16 April 1986, when he announced the ten-year plan, the hon the Minister himself said that he was determined to try to reach a goal of equal educational opportunities within the shortest possible time. Later in reference to rationalisation as one of the influencing factors, he said:

A little further on he said:

With these words the hon the Minister himself accepted a lowering of one kind or another, but at least a levelling off and definite disruption, just as long as it was not too excessive. If one views this logically, levelling off and disruption have to affect standards adversely. If the hon the Minister insists on concrete examples, however, I have to tell him I consider it would be irresponsible of him to wait until a generation of our people’s children had already dropped out and incalculable and unforgivable damage been done before admitting the incontrovertible logic of his own words and of what his fellow advocates of equality had already conceived in the De Lange Report.

If the hon the Minister persists with his attitude, I have to tell him that he is confirming my suspicions that he no longer moves among his people at grass-roots level and is no longer aware of what is happening in practice in White education. I shall provide practical concrete examples. Firstly, it is no secret that school boards throughout the Transvaal are complaining that funds for maintenance are very limited and that the deterioration in facilities, structures and aids simply has to be accepted unless parents are prepared to contribute to the costs. It is as plain as a pikestaff that there is very little, if any, money available to safeguard buildings at primary schools, which are State property, and the children by fencing or the erection of walls. These are simple, elementary matters.

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon NP Whip.

Thirdly, there are even cases of pupils in high school hostels having to make personal payment for electric light bulbs which have fused so that they may have light in those hostels.

Communities of parents have been informed that there will be no funds in the next 10 years for the expansion of preprimary education because authorities regard it as non-compulsory. I know of a case where the parents interested in an existing nursery school have already collected thousands of rands and have land available while all they require are the funds for building. There is no money, however, neither will there be any in the foreseeable future; even an interim application for additional teaching posts has been turned down.

The consequences are serious. This undermining of White educational standards cannot be lightly dismissed; it is a grave matter. The infants of our people are being relegated to the so-called private sector which is not Afrikaans in spirit and character because of stronger financial considerations. These schools do not provide our infants with the typical Afrikaans milieu, care and training in the Afrikaans language. The Suid-Afrikaanse Vrouefederasie cannot do everything. Owing to the high costs of such private nursery schools and the present impoverishment of the White community, our people are unable to afford such schools and are compelled to leave infants in the care of a servant. In this way a new generation of deprived primary school children is being created and the hon the Minister is an accessory to this. What parent will encourage or permit his child to receive preprimary education in such a situation. Reports are already being received from teachers that parents do not wish to send their children to such institutions and in this way the image of education as a career opportunity is being seriously jeopardised.

The best example is the introduction of so-called tuition fees in White education. We should like to know from the hon the Minister when these are going to be introduced. Is it going to happen in January 1988 or after the next election? The hon Minister must not pass the buck because he will be on record in the history of our people as the man who took the lead in scaling down White standards of education.

I should like replies to a few questions from the hon the Minister in conclusion. There is a vacuum in the budgetary system in that the Department of Finance does not make inputs in good time and the teaching fraternity does not have the opportunity to react to and negotiate on them. I should like to know whether the hon the Minister acknowledges the existence of such a vacuum and whether he is prepared to do something about it. Secondly, I should like to know whether the hon the Minister is prepared to furnish figures on exactly how much was pruned from the education budget of each province in comparison with that of the preceding year and also comparative figures for that year. The third question is whether the Government is prepared at this time to institute a comprehensive inquiry into the retention of certain posts as compared with the Public Service and certain comparable posts in the private sector. Another question is why the hon the Minister is not changing the status of the present Superintendent-General of Education to that of Director-General if he considers the so-called development of the autonomy of White education to be such a serious matter.

That has already been done. [Interjections.]

The next question is exactly where the ministerial representatives are going to fit in as far as education is concerned. How will their functions and their position at protocol level compare with those of MECs? A last question is what the Government’s attitude is toward the Alliance of Teachers’ Associations, the ranks of which include Dakarites and which form part of the process of instituting a unitary system of education on a so-called non-racial basis and undermining existing legal educational structures. Does the Government not think it high time to fix criteria for the recognition of teachers’ associations and to apply a little discipline regarding this? Or will the hon the Minister turn the same sympathetic ear to the Alliance of Teachers’ Associations as to certain UDF leaders with whom he negotiates?

Mr Chairman, I heard nothing new from the hon member for Potgietersrus that we did not hear from him at the time of the by-election on 29 April 1984. The things that he, spectre-like, is still saying should have happened, have not yet happened.

What has happened is that you have “rolled” a couple of times.

And you bolted. [Interjections.]

What surprises me is that the hon member is unaware that the title of the Superintendent-General of Education in the Department of Education and Culture is a self-chosen designation for this post. The name was selected by education itself. It is a post equivalent to the one the hon member wants. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, something else that causes me concern is that towards the end of the last part of the session the hon member did not reflect the changed policy of the hon member for Overvaal when he said that the CP did not stand for total partition. What the implication of what the hon member for Overvaal said amounts to, is that the hon member for Potgietersrus will in any event have to explain to this House where he is going to build schools for those Blacks who will remain in the so-called White areas.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time to answer that hon member’s questions now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to know how those hon members are going to draw up their budget in order to make provision for those Blacks in their White heartland as well. It is vague aspects of this nature, and specters that are conjured up in regard to these matters, that result in our being trapped in this kind of futile argument in this House. It gets us nowhere at all.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks and congratulations to the hon the Minister and his department for the tremendous progress they have made with the work of this department, particularly in view of the short period this department has existed in its present form. I refer to the new Department of National Education. This is the umbrella department under which the existing departments fall. These departments represent national education as we have always known it. This is the department that has the task of co-ordinating the various own affairs education departments in the implementation of their policy and the performance of their respective tasks with regard to the various population groups. That is why it is a futile exercise to try and score petty political points in the field of education in this context, and to pollute education, as it were, with arguments that merely attest to political bankruptcy.

Education has a wide-ranging, unique and phenomenal task, which is to identify, establish and develop values of a particular community. Education also has the function of giving substance to the various sciences, unravelling them, establishing the facts involved and linking them to the eternal values presented to us in education. Educators have a difficult enough task carrying on their activities within this framework. In all honesty, I do wish to say that there is one matter I am extremely concerned about. When we speak about the politicisation of management boards, regardless of whether they are those of the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Asians, then we are playing a dangerous game. It is dangerous to play with unfounded perceptions, to try to articulate them and in doing so, to introduce fears and political sophistries into education. We are opposed to this happening in White education. However, it is equally dangerous in Black education. It is dangerous when primary and secondary education stays out of the political issues of the day while in tertiary education the staff use these uncertain political trends to unleash storms.

The perceptions and political activities of the AWB in White education in our country are just as dangerous as those of the People’s Education Movement in Black education in South Africa. It is just as dangerous to speak about an Afrikaner “volkstaat” as it is to speak about Black Power and the establishment of a Black unitary state in South Africa. By playing this game in education we are using our young people, the youth, to fight against one another and to enter a world which could lead to the destruction of our youth. I find it unacceptable that a professor, on the assumption that he has discovered the “truth” on the basis of an untested philosophy of his own, can leave for Dakar to go and test its validity there. I find it unacceptable that universities present courses that have to be followed purely on the basis of the permission of the AET, without the consent of the hon the Minister; fields of study which could be extremely dangerous for the dispensation in our country. I think it is wrong that these courses can be introduced by any means in terms of which the hon the Minister is not involved in the content of these courses.

May I furnish an example of this? And here I associate myself with the hon member for Stellenbosch. We are faced at the moment with what the Cape Times of 29 April 1987 has admitted are, and I quote:

I am concerned about a university principal who says, and I quote him:

I seriously object to the university being aware that it is being advertised that certain lectures will be given on the campus of the university, and I quote from the Weekly Mail of 24 April 1987:

Very important.

I seriously object when it is said, from outside, of a principal of a university such as this that:

It is in this regard that we are concerned about where this is taking us in South Africa. In such a case I think the State has the right to say about such a university or institution: If you do not have control of yourself, I have the right to decide whether I am going to finance your activities or whether I am only going to finance what I deem fit.

The Government is too soft to do that.

I also place a question mark over universities or institutes in universities that adhere to specific schools of thought and, in pursuit of an axiom of the day, trifle with the lives of young people that they should be preparing for their life ahead. I am seriously concerned about the fact that we are in the position that we shall have to make some effort to deal with this kind of thing, and I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister: Should we not earnestly request the authorities at the universities, if they are unable to keep their own house in order, at least to take into account that the State is at present contributing R6 000 per capita because it is its responsibility.

The State cannot keep its own house in order.

I think that we should enter into serious discussions with them about the implications of the failure rate. I seriously think that we should consider …

Lowering standards.

In connection with undergraduate studies—about which I have my own reservations—I wonder whether we should not consider cross-moderation at universities to ensure that we at least establish a certain system of values. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to say by way of introduction that I become frightened when I hear members of the CP speak on education, and I prefer to ignore them. It is hard to believe that they themselves can believe what they say.

As one newly elected to Parliament directly from the ranks of the teaching profession, I want to say that I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I must say, however, that I am very surprised to see just how little time has been allocated to the debate on National Education, particularly in view of the fact that education policy and financing are such important and volatile issues in this country.

I find myself torn between my need to speak on behalf of my former profession and career on the one hand and on the subject of national sport on which I am the PFP spokesman on the other.

I am concerned to note that it seems that the Government continues to place greater emphasis on the own affairs education than it does on general affairs education, and that the former has far more time allocated to it for debate in this House. This is unfortunate for, if we are to develop the important changes to our education structures that we need, including the establishment of a genuine—I stress the word “genuine”—single ministry of education and a single registering body for teachers, the National Education Vote requires far more time. We all know that education remains a highly emotional issue among teachers, parents and pupils in this country, and that the matter of own affairs and general affairs continues to add fuel to the fire as my colleague the hon member for Pinetown has indicated.

As one who was very recently a part of the teaching profession, I want to say briefly what a pity it is that the Government has failed to listen fully to the appeals of the teachers of this country over the past few years for the full recognition of the important role they play in this country and its future and the consequent need on their part for better conditions of service and an improved salary dispensation in particular.

I can recall vividly the excitement in the profession some five or six years ago when there was talk that the Government was going to introduce the so-called “uitlig” principle with regard to the teaching profession, and that the teaching profession itself would be considered separately from the rest of the public service when it came to dealing with conditions of service, again especially salary-related matters. Nothing came of this. Since then I have seen at first hand hundreds of competent young teachers—especially men and breadwinners—leave the profession because of poor salaries. I have listened to disgruntled teachers from all groups in the country express their disappointment and frustration at the way they have been dealt with by consecutive Cabinet Ministers, and I have witnessed a distinct decline in the morale of the teaching profession.

I believe it is unfortunate that this has been heightened by the treatment teachers have received again this year with regard to salary increases. Once again, despite constant appeals from their representatives, they have received no more than the 12,5% received by all public servants in all departments. I am pleased and have noted that, as indicated at the beginning of this debate, the hon the Minister has been able to rectify some minor grievances of teachers and is looking at others. In the end, however, the hon the Minister is well aware of the mood of the teachers in all departments, because we know that he has received many delegations from the Teachers’ Federal Council and other bodies in this regard.

The teaching profession is indeed a profession composed of highly competent, highly qualified people. This must be recognised and salaries and conditions of service must compensate them for the important job they are doing.

I watched with interest the important job the now defunct Federal Council of Teachers did on behalf of White teachers over the years, and I have read with interest the arguments put forward over the past few months by the recently formed Teachers’ Federal Council. Many of those people are, in fact, present here today. The points they make are justified and totally relevant and apply to all teachers in South Africa, certainly not just Whites. The constant reply given by the Government to their requests for improved salary scales is that there is no money, a point the hon the Minister has touched on again today.

I concede that this may well be the case, but as long as we retain the shockingly wasteful own affairs system of education and the resultant duplication of education departments this may well continue to be the case. At the same time I want to say what a pity it is that the TFC is not able to negotiate directly on behalf of all the teachers of this country, but only on behalf of the White teachers, because it has retained its tag as an own affairs body.

The teaching profession deserves to have a registering body, but no registering body of a professional group of people can afford to be drawn up along racial lines. As long as this happens and the teaching profession continues to be divided on the basis of colour I believe the Government will be able to fob off the very real requests and demands of the representative bodies on the grounds that they are representing only a portion of the whole. This may well be what is happening to the Teachers’ Federal Council at the present time in their negotiations with the hon the Minister with regard to salary improvements.

The matter of a single registering body for teachers has been a critical one for several years and it has brought conflict and dissension into the ranks of the profession, not only between different population groups, but also within individual own affairs departments. Most teachers in this country believe in the merits of a registering body—a teachers’ federal council that will be there to protect their interests and fight for their rights. Few people, however, are interested in the concept of a registering body which has only the discipline of teachers as its major function. It is an enormous pity that when the Teachers’ Federal Council was formed a year ago it was constituted along racial lines and that a truly non-racial teachers’ registration body was not established immediately. Unfortunately this body has now been labled a “Whites only” body and this is making its role in the negotiation of a possible non-racial body an extremely difficult one.

That a racial body was established has now created further obstacles in the development of a single non-racial body, and the discontent, frustration and lack of trust that many teacher organisations have experienced for many years with regard to their lack of opportunity to negotiate professionally with the Government has been heightened further. If we are to have the abhorrent system of own affairs education with conditions of service of staff being retained as a general affairs matter, a single professional body has to exist in order to negotiate those conditions of service on behalf of all teachers and educators. Separate bodies for separate groups makes no sense at all.

In this regard I ask the hon the Minister to do all in his power to assist in the development of a single registering body for all teachers in this country so that we no longer have a system whereby we have a registering body for Whites only, but in actual fact a registering body for all teachers.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to respond to the hon member for Durban North save to say that it is a fallacy to think that all problems in the field of education will be solved once we have established one single education department …

Nobody says that.

It will be a very good start.

… and we introduce a system of so-called non-racial education. Some political aspirations may be achieved, but problems in the field of education will not necessarily be solved.

*I should prefer to use this opportunity to say something in general about universities and the university sphere. If one looks at the world of technological wonders we are living in today, it is astonishing to realise that this entire world can be traced back to a specific event in Western Europe centuries ago, when the people of the time rediscovered the capacity of adopting an analytical and thinking approach to their environment. Over the centuries we have found time and again that when major scientific breakthroughs have been made—I refer to scientific breakthroughs in the field of the natural and social sciences—they have time and again had a ripple effect on the development, particularly the technological development, of the entire community. I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to the academics and the scientists of all time, but also those working in South Africa today. It is true that many academics and scientists venture into spheres where they do not belong, but it is equally true that the great silent majority of academics are doing work of inestimable value for South Africa and the community. I want to pay this tribute specifically at a time when universities are in a phase of reorientation with regard to their function and task.

It is unfortunately the case that for approximately the past decade, universities have been administered on the basis of a philosophy of growth and that we have seen an enormous population explosion at universities. This has not always been a healthy development. There are a number of causes of this phenomenon. On the one hand there was the subsidy formula that was very much oriented towards numbers, while on the other there was pressure on universities to produce occupationally qualified students, with a consequent diversification of fields of study and applied fields of study. It is also the case that in South Africa the population places a particular premium on tertiary education.

However, universities are undergoing a process of reorientation. I should like to refer to the extremely detailed enquiries conducted in recent times: the Van Wyk de Vries Commission of 1974 and the departmental enquiries known as Sanso 110 of 1982, Sanso 108 of 1983 and Sanso 116 of 1985. It is gratifying that the Committee of University Heads, too, is at present engaged in a major investigation of the philosophical foundations and practical functions of universities.

I believe that universities will have to make a fresh effort to confine their activities to the limits of their function. The approach adopted in respect of the spectrum of courses and degrees presented will have to be given rational consideration. In-depth consideration will have to be given to the admission requirements set for students. Students who do not have the ability or the will to share in the wonderful world of science do not belong at universities, just as students who regard universities as a place for stone-throwers and people who commit violence do not belong there. As far as the State is concerned it will be necessary to take a closer look, within the context of this reorientation that is taking place within universities themselves, at the full implementation of the subsidy formula.

I also believe that consideration will have to be given to restoring the leadership position of the academic—and here I want to make a special plea for the highest post in academia, that of the professorate. In all the investigations to which I have referred it is accepted that the academics are the leaders in the academic and scientific spheres in South Africa. I believe that concrete effect should be given to this situation and that it should also be reflected in the remuneration package that is offered them. It is true that universities are free to remunerate their staff as they see fit, but in practice very little is achieved. I believe that an occupation-specific maintenance investigation ought to be launched into the position of academics, and professors in particular, in terms of which the State and the universities unite to seek ways and means to keep outstanding and responsible people at universities in that particular position of authority and leadership. Like the press and the church, the university is an institution without which the heritage of Western civilisation cannot be sustained. What is happening at universities is of importance not only for the universities but for the community, and for those important values that are sustained in a community.

We must recognise that the task of a university is not merely to provide students with certain answers. It is not even a matter of teaching students to seek answers. The real task of a university is to teach students to discover for themselves the relevant questions of the day.

Mr Chairman, to begin with, permit me to react very briefly to the statement by the hon the Minister relating to the salary improvements announced here. We on this side of the House were not, of course—as he himself indicated—in a position to examine the matter in depth, but at first glance, improvements are at issue here and it is our standpoint that where there are salary improvements of this nature for the teaching profession, that needs them so desperately, they are to be welcomed by this side of the House.

Secondly, I wish to react very briefly to the interjection made by the hon the Minister to the effect that this constituted criticism of my colleague, the hon member for Potgietersrus, namely that the superintendent-general was in fact the same, or was placed in the same position, as the director-general. My question in this regard is whether the hon the Minister stands by his standpoint, that is to say whether this is the case, because this side of the House wants a positive answer to the question whether this rank in the department is the same as that of a director-general as far as protocol, rank and status are concerned. It seems to me that this is not self-evident. In my opinion the hon the Minister owes this committee an answer to the question whether the impression he created is in fact in line with the facts.

I should like to use the very brief time at my disposal to bring to the attention of this House a matter which, according to this side of the House, is a very important one. It is true that the Department of National Education is responsible for university tuition, university staff and university educators as such. Now this side of the House asks this very important question: Is it in accordance with the policy of this department that educators should form part of a deputation to Dakar to negotiate with an illegal, banned terrorist organisation, that they should then return and piously take their place in the classrooms, and that they then in fact provide tuition in those very subjects, relevant aspects of which were dealt with in Dakar? The question is—this side of the House is serious about this question—whether it is not time for universities, university control bodies and university authorities to appreciate the importance of this state of affairs. When I say this, I myself am of the opinion that a very considerable degree of freedom of academic choice should be accorded university staff, but not so much freedom that we can live in a country where, if the Government has prohibited an organisation in terms of the Internal Security Act, we can then shut our eyes to the fact that the kind of thing I have mentioned can take place.

This side of the House also wishes to know what the position is of a taxpaying parent whose children are students in the class of such university lecturers, and whether they simply have to accept that they can convey their ideas to students in this way. [Interjection.] The hon member can make an interjection if he wishes, but by doing so he does not detract from the truth of what I am saying. [Interjections.]

If we look at the list of Dakarites, we see the names of several university staff members. I do not wish to mention the names here, because I wish to honour the principle that one does not attack a person where he does not have the opportunity to defend himself. Those in question are not here to defend themselves. However, we ask the Government this question: Why have they as yet failed to react to this important facet? We are in the position that we do not know whether the Government is in earnest about the fact that the ANC is still a banned organisation. Is the real answer perhaps that the Government does not wish to react to this important matter and express its opposition to the university lecturers who visited Dakar because they are very cautious about the Blacks perhaps not liking the Government’s standpoint, with the result that participation in the National Statutory Council may be jeopardised?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg has not uttered a single word that was relevant to the discussion of this Vote. He cleverly linked this matter to the visit to Dakar, and without speaking about it myself, I just wish to ask him and his party one or two questions in reaction to the subject he touched on, namely whether he and his party approve of the conduct of the AWB … [Interjections.] Do they approve of the conduct of the AWB when they take the law into their own hands? [Interjections.]

Order!

There is considerable sensitivity among those hon members when one merely mentions the AWB. [Interjections.] It is as if one had set a cat among the pigeons. [Interjections.] I do not wish to dwell on this subject any further since there will certainly be an opportunity to debate it. I do just wish to refer briefly to what the hon member for Potgietersrus had to say in this debate. Listening to him, it was clear to me that he does not really understand what is going on in education and in national education. He touched on matters which have nothing to do with the discussion of this Vote but which fall under the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. In addition, he used terminology that made it very clear that he should rather have remained a lawyer.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is it not a reflection on the Chair if it is now being said for the second or third time that points have been made that are not relevant to this debate?

Order! The hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should be much obliged if hon members who do not as yet have much experience in this House would refrain from taking points of order which are merely a waste of time. [Interjections.]

I wish to react to what the hon members for Pinetown and Durban North said when they referred to the South African system of education and once again raised their old theme of casting suspicion on the entire system of general and own affairs, something which in my opinion serves no one’s interests. Then too, I wish to indicate today, with reference to systems in other countries, that the system of education in South Africa is neither as strange nor as bad as the opposition parties in this House make it out to be; they make out that it is a system designed and devised by the South African Government with the specific purpose of maintaining the so-called model of apartheid. That is simply untrue, since if one looks at the system of education in other countries it is quite clear that South Africa’s system is neither strange nor unique, nor does it entail anything bad. [Interjections.] I think that one can infer from the hon member’s interjections that he knows this, …

Is there free association?

… but it does appear that there is an element of willfulness in his constant efforts to cast suspicion on the Government’s policy. If he knows all these things, then surely it is simply willfulness on his part, and he is doing it simply to score a political debating point. He knows what the voters have decided and will again decide in future about that party and the way they act—not in the interests of South Africa, but for the sake of their own party-political interests.

Throughout the world education and training has always been primarily the task of the parent, the community and the church. For example, in the USA too, the following appears in a report:

It is the case in South Africa as well that education and training is still primarily the duty and task of the church and the parent community. In other words, it is a continuation of the community in which that child lives. If, then, it is true that we do not accord recognition to that, as the PFP wants us to do, then in my opinion this results in a conflict in the child between what he has to learn at school and his community, that is not a continuation of what he absorbs in his parental home, his community and his neighbourhood.

And if the head of the church is Bishop Tutu?

It is clear to me that that hon member does not yet understand the situation. Education is an own affair in which the Whites decide on matters concerning them. If that hon member would only give me the chance to make my speech and would only listen to it, I should indicate to him that it is not only in South Africa that there are different departments and different Ministers for the various population groups or cultural groups. For example, it is the case in the United Kingdom as well that there is no general Minister who has a say over the entire system of education of the whole United Kingdom. There is a Minister for Scotland, a Minister for Wales, a Minister for Northern Ireland, etc.

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Accordingly, education in England is often referred to as a national system that is administered at local level. Education in England has been in the hands of the local authorities since 1902, but they receive the greater part of their finance from the central government. Surely that is exactly how we have applied the system in South Africa. Provision is also made for a general department that will deal with the financing and maintain the standards. When it comes to implementation in education …

Then it is the racial principle that applies.

That party is so obsessed by race that they basically read race and colour into everything the NP Government does. Such a principle can work wonderfully elsewhere in the world, but as soon as we apply it in South Africa—and I have tried to indicate that the system we have here is not a strange and unique one—then it is an evil system because then it is this Government that is employing it. The standpoint of the PFP and the CP is that every system employed by this side of the House must entail something bad, because they do not want to admit …

Yes, that is right.

Therefore that hon member is admitting it. Therefore he will never give credit for anything. Therefore that hon member and I are scarcely able to conduct a debate with one another. Nor should I very much like to conduct a debate specifically with the hon member for Greytown. [Interjections.] That is why the hon member for Greytown now prefers to conduct his debates at other, remote places. [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much talking in the House.

Another very interesting development in both the USA and the United Kingdom is the discovery that education cannot be fragmented to too great an extent and only be dealt with at the lowest level, but that standards must also be set and certification done so that the certificates of one department are not inferior to those of another. Surely, then, it is quite clear that the system introduced by the South African Government in regard to education in South Africa satisfies the requirements of the educational realities. [Interjections.] It satisfies the requirements set when it is scientifically proven that the pursuance of education in general should also be standardised. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside has made it very clear that South Africa’s system of education, which makes provision for both own and general affairs, is not foreign to systems in other countries, and compares very well with them. However the hon member will excuse me for not elaborating on that because in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to draw hon members’ attention to an extremely important aspect of the activities of the Department of National Education, namely its educational task, as well as the research services it provides, against the background of its broad cultural purpose and its auxiliary technical services.

Hon members are aware that this is a general affairs department that devotes its energies to developing the spiritual, intellectual and physical potential of our population. In order to perform its cultural task and the auxiliary technical services it provides, the department provides various declared institutions with considerable financial support. In this regard I refer to certain libraries, museums and even zoos. In addition it provides several semi independent institutions with financial support and in this way an effort is made to help preserve and promote our culture, to develop cultural links with the outside world and to render educational and research services to our country as a whole.

In these times there is a great deal of emphasis on the material welfare of our society. It is true that material welfare is very important, and I certainly do not seek to deny that. However, in our pursuit of material welfare the spiritual and intellectual welfare of our population should not be neglected. That is why we on this side of the House are gratified by the comprehensive work being done in this regard by the department, as is evident from the department’s annual report.

What is particularly striking is the fact that the declared institutions and the semi-independent bodies not only preserve our cultural heritage; the majority of these institutions also carry out research in educational services for the benefit of our society. In this regard I refer in particular to the important work being done by our two national libraries, one of which is in Pretoria and the other in Cape Town.

I refer, too, to the work of the National Monuments Council and that of the South African Bibliographical and Information Network (Sabinet), which, while still a youthful organisation, has already done a great deal of important work. I refer, too, to the regional performing arts councils of which there are four in our country. I refer to the work of the Human Sciences Research Council, the Africa Institute, the Government Archives and the science planning service.

The annual report of the department presents an impressive picture of the extensive work being done in this field. This is further confirmed by the amounts for which provision is being made in the budget. It is illuminating to note that the amounts requested for the cultural functions and auxiliary technical services of the department, namely R116,548 million, represent 88,4% of the total amount called for in the budget. The hon the Minister should be congratulated on this state of affairs. In my opinion this House should also place on record its gratitude for the valuable work being done by the department and its associated bodies in this regard.

The cultural heritage of a society, if it is preserved, utilised and developed, ennoble that society. Therefore I think that its value in the long term is greater than mere material welfare. The South African nation consists of various peoples, each with its own cultural heritage, and even if these different cultural groups differ considerably from one another, we as South Africans, White and Black, are part of Africa. In this regard the Republic of South Africa has a unique cultural heritage that must be cherished for the sake of all.

However it is true that a generation may not only live on the heritage it has received but, through its creative ideas and work, must develop afresh a heritage of its own to leave to later generations. It is my conviction that the Government is trying to make its contribution in this regard, within the limits of its financial resources. This Budget attests to that.

One would of course like to see more finance being made available, particularly for educational and research services. However, we are checked by the reality that one has to cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. Therefore the contributions made by our cultural organisations and associations, private conservation bodies and educational and research services at universities must be welcomed and further encouraged. These organisations and bodies render South Africa an invaluable service in that they afford the infrastructures for the creation of new heritages, as well as new research and information resources.

I could mention several examples of agencies and bodies doing commendable work in this regard. However, I shall confine myself to referring to one only, namely the work of the Institute for Contemporary History, or Inch, as it is also known, at the University of the Free State. This institute has done pioneering work in the collection of material relating to South Africa’s unique political past.

As active politicians, hon members will no doubt be interested to hear that Inch already has more than 700 collections relating to prominent politicians, political parties and political movements, cultural organisations and individuals. This institute also accommodates a unique collection of political pamphlets and photographs, as well as a valuable audio archive.

Another source of information about South Africa’s contemporary issues is Inch’s computerised newspaper and periodical cuttings collection. Although this cuttings collection was initially established with a view to the institute’s own research requirements, it soon became evident that there was a need for such a system at the national level as well. Accordingly it was decided to make this cuttings service available countrywide so that this unique research and information resource could be utilised at the national level.

In this way Inch makes a unique contribution in the fields of preservation, research and the provision of information. This is evident from the fact that not only Government institutions but also universities, research bodies, libraries, political parties and private individuals, both here and abroad, avail themselves of the service provided by Inch. One would be justified in concluding that the services of Inch are utilised far beyond the borders of the OFS. Moreover, Inch also has an autonomous research division which has already published a number of standard works on South Africa’s colourful political past.

May I say by way of conclusion that since Inch, in view of the unique nature and extent of its activities, is at present the only body of its kind in South Africa, we should regard it as being of national importance. May I, in all humility, put it to the hon the Minister for his consideration that his department should examine the possibility of providing Inch with tangible support, financially and otherwise, and if possible, reinforcing and developing it in the national interest in this way.

Mr Chairman, may I also, through you, appeal to hon members to give serious consideration to donating the material that they as politicians have collected over the years to Inch rather than allowing it to be lost. In this way we shall all become fellow workers in the creation of new cultural heritages and sources of research and information, without which the South Africa of tomorrow will be poorer if we as politicians neglect our duty in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I want to spend the second part of my participation in this debate in talking about sport. There are several points that I wish to raise. Firstly, I want to say what a pity it is that the Government has again decided that it has no jurisdiction over the sporting policies of schools both individually and collectively.

This attitude has certainly resulted in rather disastrous affairs such as the Menlo Park affair earlier this year. These affairs add to further racial disharmony and bring us further discredit overseas. Some people will of course claim that the Menlo Park affair was sensationalised and others will say that the Menlo Park school committee had the right to make its own decision and stick to it without Government interference. However, the fact remains that a schoolboy athlete was barred from attending a national school athletics meeting on the basis that he was Black. The Government chose not to get involved in spite of its continual insistence that apartheid should not exist in sport. The Government claimed that the whole Menlo Park affair was an issue beyond its control. It was a very real pity that the Government chose not to get involved for by doing so it lent credibility to the decision of the Menlo Park school committee.

I urge the hon the Minister to let the Government look again at its policy concerning school sport. Own affairs education is enough of a tragedy without compounding the tragedy by allowing Menlo Park type incidents to occur. All that is happening is the entrenchment in the minds of many of the concept of separateness based on colour.

I was particularly pleased to see that a number of pupils chose not to attend the meeting because a Black runner had been barred. It was heartening to see that there are many young people in this country who believe in the concept of fair play just as much off the sportsfield as on it.

As long as the Government refuses to interfere in school sport policies and allow Menlo Park type incidents to occur and to go unchecked, we as a nation will remain in isolation in international sport. It was interesting to read the comments made by the chairman of the South African Sports Federation on 25 February 1987 when he said the following:

I regret that this Government is not saying that it is sorry and it is not saying that the mistakes that have been made will not happen again. Consequently we find ourselves at this stage on the brink of receiving yet another rebel tour to this country rather than a fully national team representing a country with the full permission of its government.

As we did last year with the New Zealand rebel tour, the PFP wishes the organisers of and the players on this tour well.However, we must at all times remind ourselves why we are only able to receive rebel tours. It is in fact a direct result of Government policy over many years.

I have every sympathy with the organisers of sport in this country who are forced by the isolation we experience to organise rebel tours. These people have gone far to remove discrimination in the sport for which they are responsible and to gain acceptance and recognition by international bodies. However, it is a sad reality that until the Government is prepared to move, recognition will not be granted.

We all know that the establishment of a truly democratic non-racial South Africa is the only way in which we will again be permitted to enter real international sport again. Sadly, that seems to be a long way off and Menlo Park type affairs help to ensure it.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to what the hon member for Durban North said. I just want to say that having listened to speakers from both the PFP and the CP, I am unavoidably reminded of a wise comment once made by Dwight Eisenhower. He said:

It is very clear to me that many of today’s contributions are clear evidence of this.

Any business undertaking is very much aware of the fact that consideration must always be given to the profit motive and that in order to achieve that goal there are three very definite matters that have to be considered. The first is the determination of market needs. Secondly the product must be adapted to those needs and, thirdly, the market must be given convincing proof of the excellence of the product and also of the manner in which it will satisfy the client’s needs. I want to dwell, in particular, on the last-mentioned facet, that of the marketing of the product. For this I crave the committee’s indulgence.

Quite a number of years’ experience in marketing has led me to wonder why we do not pay more attention to the marketing of our educational system too. Hon members know that in previous years it was accepted that what the Government did was correct. At present, however, the situation has changed completely. Times have changed and there has also been a time-shift. The whole strategy in regard to education has become problematic, particularly in the sense that people cherish their own perceptions about the things they want to believe. This timeshift has taken place as a result of the individualisation of society and therefore creates problems for us. The legitimising of State action must therefore be obtained through marketing.

Anyone who does a little research amongst members of the general public is soon made aware of the abysmal ignorance of the man in the street. What is even more disquieting is the complete misconception one frequently encounters within the system too, amongst people who are members of the profession itself. There is also the utter confusion in political circles, and here I am again referring to accusations by certain hon members, amongst others the hon member for Pinetown.

Here I should like to quote what was said in Die Mondstuk:

This can eventually lead to education in the Republic of South Africa being in danger of falling victim to the old but nevertheless true adage: Unknown, unloved. A better job should therefore be done of marketing education with a view to eliminating the misconceptions and consequently the hostility towards the system. A strategy for doing so will, however, have to be designed. This can only be done successfully on the basis of the psychology of perception. This is a science with opinion-forming as its basis. What is meant here is that one wants to change the opinions and observations, i.e. the perceptions, of people about certain facts, thereby influencing their attitudes and decisions. In the discussion with a Minister of an overseas country, Prof Wiehahn learnt the following, amongst other things:

Here two aspects emerge. The first is that facts are not really the issue. When leading businessmen advertise their products, they do not necessarily focus their attention on the facts, but rather on perceptions, with a view to selling the products. It has also been found, amongst other things, that only 25% of one’s perceptions about facts accord with the actual facts themselves.

Secondly, the role of the media is very relevant in this regard. In a discussion by a Mr Koos Steyn of the TED with Die Vaderland he said, amongst other things:

This immediately brings me to another statement, i.e. that of Prof H O Maree in his chairman’s address at the general meeting of the TED. I think all hon members can agree with what he says here:

With a view to achieving legitimacy, it is clear to me that we must immediately adopt a strategy of marketing the educational dispensation of the RSA for those who make use of this system with a view to achieving legitimacy. Although there is no short-term profit for the State in actual rands and cents, in the long term it would cost the country millions of rands if the existing dispensation were not properly and fully utilised owing to incorrect perceptions, particularly on the part of those people of colour who made use of the system. And the greatest possible losses are also manifested in the burning down of schools and the destruction of other fixed assets.

Education should be marketed by way of a well-considered and pro-active strategy. Word logistics will have to be given thorough consideration. Particularly in the Republic of South Africa, with its diversity, specific words frequently have divergent meanings for different people. Another important fact in connection with the psychology of perception is that it is fruitless to try to counteract certain perceptions by supplying facts. According to Prof Wiehahn perceptions can only be changed through the creation of counterperceptions and a counter-perception is only changed by subtle, well-considered strategies. It is therefore essential for us to take note, at an authoritative level, of the psychology of perception and its implementation as a fine art, and of having high-level studies carried out in this regard, and also of having this implemented in the marketing of education in the Republic of South Africa.

The survival of our country is going to be determined by the way in which education is marketed for the consumer here.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful to the hon member for Kempton Park for having brought this important matter to our attention. It is not to say that when something is self-evident, it should not be marketed. We are therefore very grateful to her for the ideas she expressed here.

It has, for quite some time, been the policy that men and women should receive the same remuneration in education. For certain sound and practical reasons it has unfortunately not yet been possible to give effect to this or have it implemented in practice. Women in education have not, however, reacted favourably to this discrimination against them; so much so that one has already heard them saying that they wanted to establish their own organisation to rectify this matter for them. Their professionalism and their approach to their profession have, however, prevented them from taking such a step.

When one takes note of the training of women in education, certain things are clear. She pays the same class fees as does a man. She pays the same boarding as does a man, and in the academic sphere she must achieve the same standards as does a man in order to complete a course successfully. She must compete for a post on the same terms as a man and she has to contend with the same number of pupils in classes. On the sports field she also holds her own, just as well as a man does. We on this side of the House want to pay all due homage to the hon the Minister for his announcement here today, for the first step they have taken, that of achieving parity between the salary notches of women, in level 2 posts and higher, and those to which men’s notches are being adjusted. This step affects a very large portion of the female population in education, representing approximately 11 700 women who are affected. The majority of them are in level 1 posts, ie 70%. Thus far I am only referring to the Whites because I do not have the other figures available. There are approximately 27 500 women in level 1 posts and 80% of them are in primary schools.

The hon the Minister has also said that he is going to request the professional bodies for teachers to make their contributions towards correcting matters for level 1 posts, and I know that they are also ready and waiting to do so. I also hope they are going to do so quickly and that they will come to light with the proposals for doing so.

The administration boards of schools will now, however, also have to give positive attention to the promotion of women, and some corrective steps will have to be taken, because there are not many women in the promotion posts. The administration boards will also have to realise that as in the case of men, women are also promotable, not because they are women, but on the basis of their qualifications, competence and achievements. We do want to address the women too, however, and tell them that up to now they have not presented themselves in any large numbers for these promotion posts, and we should like to appeal to them to do so, not only in view of their qualifications, achievements and competence, but also on the basis of their numerical representation.

We also want to put a question to the hon the Minister. Is it not possible to give these professional bodies which are going to deal with this matter, which are going to furnish this contribution, a specific time in which to comply with these proposals or contributions so that with the very next appropriation we can take the second step and give all those women the correct adjustment too?

In my opinion, by Christmas the hon the Minister is going to be a very important person as far as this 30% or 11 700 women are concerned, because on Christmas they are going to have their situation rectified. That is why we want to thank him sincerely once again for these steps he has announced, and may he obtain enough money next year to take the following corrective step.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to thank all hon members who participated in the debate sincerely for the responsible way in which they, in general, participated in the debate, and also for their contributions. All the speeches testified to a thorough study having been made, to hard work, and I should like to tell hon members that we shall also make a thorough study of what they said when there is time to read their Hansard.

Wherever I am unable, in my replies in respect of relevant matters, to react fully to all questions, to all important contributions, I shall also try to supplement what I have said in writing.

I should also like to extend my very sincere congratulations to the new official spokesman of the various parties—in the NP, the hon member for Stellenbosch, and the CP the hon member for Brits.

The hon member for Stellenbosch now also occupies the important position of chairman of the standing committee on this portfolio, and I should like to wish him everything of the best with the major new responsibility that has been placed on his shoulders.

I should also like to associate myself with the words of praise, gratitude and appreciation which were directed from all sides of the Committee to the Director-General and his staff in the Department of National Education. If one were to make an analysis of the numbers of people running this department at the level of officials, it would not appear to be a large department, but I can assure hon members that the quality and magnitude of the work produced by this team is truly impressive and that there is a quality to their work that is truly admirable and worth emulating. I should like to extend my thanks and appreciation to them in public for the good work they are doing in the best interests of education and culture in South Africa, to the extent to which it falls under them.

I should like to begin by reacting to the speech made by the hon member for Stellenbosch. The hon members for Pinetown, Losberg and Brentwood brought important facets of the problems of unrest and radicalism at some of our universities into prominence. The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to the half-hearted steps taken by some university authorities against unacceptable actions on the part of students and lecturers, some of which were dangerous to the State. The hon member for Brentwood associated himself with that. The hon member for Losberg covered the same ground, while the hon member for Pinetown himself conceded, reading between the lines, that he was also concerned, although he did want to hide behind what was being done here and there. He did not have the courage to defend what is happening at some universities.

I defended Natal.

It is not only members who are upset and concerned about what is happening at some of our campuses. I want to give you the assurance that there is a spontaneous reaction over a tremendously wide front—from the public as well—which reflects a deep concern, particularly on the part of parents, about influences to which their children are at present being exposed at some of our tertiary institutions. Some of my colleagues and I who are involved in the direct control of specific education departments are being inundated with letters containing representations in which this concern is being expressed and meeting with a response and in which we are being assured that it would be welcomed if the Government were to take steps.

This concern is felt over a wider front than merely among interested parents. We all took cognisance of the interesting debate between academics on the one hand who defended what was happening at some university campuses and responsible senior editors of newspapers on the other, who do not support this Government but who expressed their deep concern about what was happening at those institutions which were of so much importance to the English-speaking sector of our population in their cultural life and in their existence as a specific interest group within our overall population structure.

If one analyses that debate taking place between editors and concerned citizens on the one hand and the academics who defend what is happening at some campuses on the other, I must say that one is disappointed with the logistical and factual errors which emerge in the defence of situations which are really unacceptable.

†This Government has a great respect for the universities and the academic profession as such. The Government has demonstrated this respect in numerous ways over the years. We want to maintain the autonomy of the universities and we have actually succeeded in doing so over many years. We believe that academic autonomy is conducive to academic excellence but, like any autonomy, academic autonomy is not absolute. If the Government concludes that academic autonomy is being upheld to the disadvantage of the country as a whole, we will not hesitate to act.

As I see it the problem has several facets. Firstly there is the unrest itself. Unrest interrupts the academic programme, places pressure on academic standards, infringes upon the rights of those who want to study and elevates disruptive academic nobodies to people with a cause. It shatters the academic atmosphere, impedes the freedom of speech, goes hand in hand with intimidation, heightens conflict and ill-feeling and contributes to a general climate of lawlessness.

For my purposes today I want to stress the effect which unrest and boycotts at universities have on academic standards. As it is, it is already very difficult to maintain high academic standards in an environment where the education of some groups is still in a certain sense of the word in a largely developing phase. Unrest, however, with the disruption of the academic calendar and the atmosphere of intimidation it inspires, makes it all the more difficult, and the important point that I would like to make, is that when the academic standards of an institution of higher education are adversely affected, the taxpayers’ money is being wasted.

I want to make it very clear today that the Government has an obligation towards higher education which it will maintain, but it also has an obligation to the taxpayer to see that universities do not receive funds that would actually be misused for ulterior motives.

A second worrying aspect of behaviour at certain universities concerns what I would like to call the anti-State activities that some administrations do not seem to be able to control effectively. I stress the fact that I am speaking of anti-State and not of anti Government activities. There is a world of difference between the two. [Interjections.] We know what the hardline radicals involved in the revolutionary onslaught are up to. They should not interpret our tolerance until now for the sake of academic freedom as a sign of weakness. The Government is carefully monitoring the situation at universities.

*We have already held in-depth talks with some universities. I want to give hon members the assurance that we are not sitting still. The entire subject is at present receiving in-depth attention, and when I say “in-depth attention” I want to emphasize the word ‘in-depth”. If we become convinced that action has to be taken, we shall not hesitate to do so within the framework of what I have stated and also within the framework of legislation passed some time ago by this Parliament.

In regard to this matter I should like to emphasize that we should take great pains to ensure that the essence of the university is not affected in any way. Other hon speakers referred to the important role of the university in the life of a country. I want to give hon members the assurance that in our consultations and deliberations in future, we shall continue to bear this objective in mind. We must ensure, however, that when we are working with public money, and when such a high percentage of expenditure in respect of each student and lecturer is financed by public money, it is utilised within the framework of the laws of this country. It must not be utilised in such a way that everything that is important to all those who seek peace in this country is overthrown and this country is subjected to a bloody revolution.

I should also like to react to all the other hon members on this side of the House who made a contribution. In my opinion the hon member for Umhlatuzana effectively ripped off the mask of the PFP when it comes to their arguments and reasoning in regard to education.

During the course of my speech I shall refer to the matters to which the hon member Dr Golden and the hon member for Brentwood referred.

The hon member for Sundays River made a very sound contribution on the role and value of the university, and more specifically put questions in regard to the full funding of the subsidy formula for universities and pleaded for improved remuneration for the professors so that the universities could proceed with their important task.

As regards the question of full funding of the subsidy formula, I want to assure him that we are doing the best we can, within what is possible in terms of the available means at our disposal. We should like to make more generous provision for commendable matters. On the other hand we believe, too, that surely there is also scope at some universities, and also among universities, for the selfgeneration of more funds through rationalisation and the elimination of unnecessary duplication, and I am delighted to hear that the universities themselves, according to information supplied to me, are giving in-depth attention to the question whether savings cannot in fact be effected through rationalisation, without sacrificing standards. However, he may be assured of our sympathetic consideration for achieving the highest possible contribution year after year.

As far as individuals and ranks at universities are concerned, a very high degree of autonomy has been allocated to universities, and the basic responsibility of determining salaries rests with the university council, within certain stated frameworks. I want to concede at once that it is true that with limited funds universities do in fact have limitations to their ability to exercise this power fully, and the two problems go hand in hand. We are sympathetic to some of these problems and are trying to do our best, but we are going through a difficult phase. We cannot simply say that the State must give more.

Consequently I want to advocate that the initiatives that are at present being taken by the universities to carry out a really penetrating self-study and to ask whether they themselves, through co-operation where that is geographically possible, through joint utilisation of very expensive facilities, through a revision of courses, etc, without sacrifice of standards, can make a contribution to a new stimulus and to the development of further momentum. We on our part will try to the best of our ability to meet the fair requirements of the universities.

I want to thank the hon member for Sunnyside for his interesting elucidation of the principle of decentralised and differentiated control over education, which I thought was enlightening and which provided an answer to many of the negative arguments raised in this connection by the PFP.

The hon member Bloemfontein East provided an excellent and broad perspective of the full field of activities of the Department of National Education, and I want to thank him for doing so. In regard to his representations concerning Inch I think he should rather, as a result of the work classification, talk to my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, but I also undertake to do a bit of consultation with my colleague. However, I cannot arouse any expectations in this connection here.

The hon member for Kempton Park laid a finger on something which is in my opinion a crucial problem of our society, namely distorted perceptions, also in the field of education. I want to agree with her that the answer lies in marketing, in information and in correctly bringing home and conveying the truth, as opposed to the distorted perception. I think nothing illustrated her point better than the debate being conducted from the opposition side; except that in their case I have a suspicion that with them it is not so much a problem of distorted perceptions as perceptions presented in a willfully distorted way, which they would like to convey to the electorate.

That is why they are part of our problem, because if we contrast the ideas put forward from the two sides, it is clear that everyone, when levelling criticism, was at pains to make their ideological view the point of departure and the criterion; regardless of what the voters said on 6 May. Everything that was not in accordance with their ideological views was wrong and harmful and everything that was in accordance with their views, could be agreed with.

We cannot continue in this way to negate the will and judgment of the electorate. We receive a mandate, and if we are democrats, we must accept that the country, between now and the next election, must be governed within the ambit of that mandate. [Interjections.] In that case the hon members should rather do their duty of assessing our performance according to our administration of that policy the voters told us to implement, and they should try less assiduously to fight the election all over again. Save that for the next election, which could come soon. [Interjections.]

Before I come to the hon members of the CP I finally want to convey my thanks to the hon member for Koedoespoort. He was a good spokesman on behalf of the fairer sex as regards the disparity which still exists on post level 1. It is a fact, however, that owing to the number of people involved, one can only give attention to that problem in a year in which there is a really generous provision of funds. With the funds that can be made available this year—the provision is as ample as possible within the framework of the country’s means—it is an extremely difficult task to do something meaningful on post level 1. I thank him nevertheless for the thanks he expressed, and for the moving plea he made on behalf of that important element in education, women. Without them we really cannot manage in education. They play a key role there and we shall attempt to address the essential policy we have already adopted, namely to eliminate that remaining disparity, in a meaningful way as soon as possible.

As the first speaker of the CP the hon member for Brits tried, quite correctly, I think, to present the basic views of the CP on education. To the extent to which he presented the general standpoints of principle, namely that education must be ethnically and culturally orientated, I am pleased to see that on this point at least the CP still remains loyal to the policy they supported when they were still members of the NP. In that regard there is very little, if any, difference between us. However, he then spoilt a relatively pure point of departure by exaggerating it, as they are inclined to exaggerate everything.

Exaggerated is the way in which you are going to lose at the next election!

What is he saying? He said that in this country, in which the hon member for Overvaal conceded that there would always be members of other population groups simultaneously employed in the same labour market, there must be no co-ordination between the various education control systems. According to him we must have completely autonomous education departments, with each one issuing its certificates just as it likes …

What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

… with each one, without … [Interjections.] Who asked what was wrong with that? Oh, the hon member at the back there! I was right in thinking I really could not ascribe it to the hon member for Lichtenburg. For a moment it did sound like his voice. When he was the Minister in control of Black education, he did not argue in the way the hon member for Brits is doing. Then he did not, like the hon member for Brits say: “No, do not give any money from the Central Exchequer for Black education. Obtain all the money for Black education from the Blacks”. No, he then bargained very effectively, because he was quite a good Minister of Black Education for more funds from the Central Exchequer because he was convinced—as we all are today—that the salvation of everyone in this country was indissolubly linked to our ability to give everyone in this country the best possible education. At the time he was inspired by a true idealism; not by a desire to destroy, hurt and vilify the NP. At the time he truly impressed us as a colleague with that warmth and dedication with which he told us that more of that money, which today he calls “white money”, should be spent on Black education. [Interjections.]

Today the hon members of the CP no longer adhere to that fundamental standpoint that we should, from the relative abundance we have …

You did not listen very carefully to what the hon member for Brits said.

… must ensure that the standards of those sectors of our population that are lagging behind, must be raised.

You must listen to what the hon member for Brits said.

No, Sir, the hon member for Brits said he thought every people should pay for its own education. [Interjections.] Of course he said that. The hon member for Lichtenburg should not flinch from what was said when he gets hurt.

I am not flinching from anything!

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis asked why there could not simply be a number of fully autonomous departments. The answer is that the schoolleavers, those produced by the various education departments, are going to work in the same labour market. Does he want a situation such as the one which is developing in America, in which education certificates are eventually not worth the paper on which they are printed, or does he want an objective standard to be laid down, not necessarily for the Republic of South Africa only, but subsequently, we hope, for other independent countries in Southern Africa as well, with whom we are at present negotiating. These standards will ensure, in this region, that those participating in the same labour market maintain the same standards and that an employer knows that when a certificate says a person has passed Std 8, 9 or 10, that certificate certifies an acceptable standard, one on which he can rely. [Interjections.] When they were still with us they did not say, to the extent to which the Matriculation Board had that function, that the board was harmful and threatened the autonomy of the Whites. They participated in it. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg was head of a department which played its full part, every year when the matriculation results were considered, in determining a joint standard for education.

They are now trying to raise petty political issues …

As you are now doing!

No, Sir, I am simply exposing the petty political issues. That is what I am doing. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to listen to a stream of comments every time the hon the Minister makes a statement. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Without co-ordination in respect of the matters singled out in the Constitution as matters in respect of which there are definite, direct and inevitable areas of contact which are of importance to everyone throughout the entire spectrum, viz norms and standards for financing, certification and minimum syllabus contents—with each department being able to enrich its own syllabus and add what it likes—and the fact that the teaching profession, as with all other professions in South Africa, should be dealt with as an entirety in so far as registration and remuneration is concerned, there would be chaos in this country. We must therefore effect that co-ordination. Every cent spent for the sake of better education is a cent invested in a safe future for everyone in South Africa—including the Whites. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Potgietersrus referred derogatorily to other disparities within the realities. He said there was a gap between the level of productivity of the Whites and that of the Blacks, although he did not specifically mention Whites and Blacks. By implication he referred derogatorily to the ways in which the Black people are lagging behind. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that if we do not help them to close those gaps, this country cannot generate sufficient prosperity to afford their solution or anyone else’s for that matter. [Interjections.] How does one bridge a gap in productivity? It is done by means of training and education, and the hon member says we must hold back and say: Go and look after yourselves! Pay for your own education!

You know that is not correct.

I know it is true because I listened to the hon member, and I can go and read his Hansard again. Anyone can do so.

Please do so.

That is why I want to say that the future of everyone in this country depends on our success or our failure to bring and to keep education for everyone up to a high level, up to an acceptable level and up to an internationally competitive level. When we talk about spending more money on education and when we talk about striving for equal educational opportunities and equal provision of education, we are not in any way advocating, nor would we dare allow, existing high standards that have already been achieved to be detracted from in any way.

Idle words!

They are not idle words. The hon member’s insinuation that this side of the House plans to reduce White education to what it calls mere Third World standards, is devoid of all truth. [Interjections.] It is devoid of all truth! Year after passing year will expose the falsity of this charge. [Interjections.]

Standards dare not be lowered. The hon member Dr Golden dealt with this subject very effectively, and I want to thank him sincerely for doing so. He indicated why South Africa, indeed why no country, can afford this.

Naturally it is also important to give a definition of standards. In the examples the hon member for Potgietersrus quoted, he did not refer to standards but to additional new facilities; new directions in which we should move.

Maintenance costs!

The standard of education has to do with the quality of education; with facilities. [Interjections.] However one can attain an even higher standard than we have attained—even with less money—through the functional utilisation of money, productivity, thorough planning and effective rationalisation.

We have no intention of depriving White education of anything, but what we are in fact advocating is that each department, including every education department, should utilise public money functionally and see how far it can go with the least money without sacrificing standards and effectiveness. This my hon colleague is doing with great success, and today I want to pay tribute to him and his department, who are controlling White education, in respect of effective rationalisation without detracting in any way whatsoever from standards.

The CP must stop its gossip-mongering about this question of our approach to education. [Interjections.] They want to politicise it. We are dealing here with a problem which is greater than their endeavours to come into power, and greater than our endeavours to remain in power. It is greater than the endeavours of any little party or any major party. We are dealing with the crucial problem of our country, the crucial problem of a large sector of our population, that is struggling with the same problems the rest of Africa and other undeveloped areas in the world are struggling with.

Our statesmanship as well as that of the hon members as official opposition leaders will be gauged by our ability, as regards this important matter, to rise above petty politics and to make a material contribution to dealing effectively with this major problem we are struggling with.

The acrimoniousness of the hon member for Potgietersrus is surpassed only by his arrogance. Consequently I do not want to spend much time on him. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is only one way of bridging the inequalities in proliferation, productivity, contributions to the Exchequer and all the other matters the hon member is able to mention, and that is by means of education, good education and better education, as well as training, good training and better training. This is an educational fact, and if he wants to indulge in gossip-mongering about the fact that this is precisely what we want to do, he is proving that he has no vision for the future. [Interjections.] He will still learn that angry young men come to grief very quickly in this place. [Interjections.]

You like being personal, don’t you!

No, I am simply being personal in return because you were so acrimonious about your predecessors.

Shame!

Feel what it feels like! [Interjections.]

Another brother’s keeper!

The hon member put a great many questions to me, most of which are not within my jurisdiction. He spoke so rapidly that I could not jot everything down, but I could at least remember and identify two important ones. The hon member asked whether the organised profession had had enough time to furnish comprehensive motivation for an inquiry into the improvement of the conditions of service for educators. The normal input procedures were followed.

That is not what I said!

The organised profession was involved in this process—not only on the part of the Whites, but also of the other groups. The matter was discussed on various occasions by the Minister of National Education and the organised profession.

Today I want to thank the organised profession. We do not always agree on all matters. They have a mandate from their members and they state the case of their members in a responsible way, and today I want to thank him for the responsible way in which they act and in which we conducted our negotiations and dialogue. Now and again the gloves are taken off, but our basic concern and theirs— this is why the dialogue went smoothly—is the interests of education. Insofar as education must flourish if we want to succeed with our objectives in education, the interests of the teaching profession are of the same crucial importance.

The hon member may rest assured that the doors are open and that every opportunity has been and is being afforded the organised profession to state its case repeatedly. Here I should like to associate myself with an observation made by the hon member for Pinetown. We are giving in-depth attention to certain proposals from certain sectors of the organised educational profession, that we have before us at present. I am holding talks on this matter with my colleagues in education, and this matter is receiving urgent attention.

The hon member for Potgietersrus also asked when a comprehensive vocationally specific enquiry into the service dispensation of educators was going to be launched. In this connection I want to tell him that an attempt is being made to ensure that the educator’s profession does not fall too far behind relative to other sectors. It can happen, and it has already happened. However, we are in fact trying to ensure that educators share in general salary adjustments by means of adjustments such as those I announced here this afternoon. By means of more regular but smaller vocationally specific enquiries for educators we want to ensure that no large and comprehensive degree of leeway is built up over a period of many years. The ideal is that vocationally specific adjustments of the magnitude of those made in 1981 will no longer be necessary.

I also requested the advisory bodies that advise me, in the enquiry of which I furnished the details at the beginning of the debate, to give particular attention to the facts in regard to the position of educators, relative to comparable professional categories. Consequently the general problems in education are already the subject of a comprehensive enquiry. In this process of negotiation, discussion and enquiry the hon member may rest assured that these matters are receiving urgent attention.

Order! Earlier, when the hon the Minister replied to a question put by the hon member for Potgietersrus, the hon member said: “You know it is not true”. What did the hon member mean by that? Did he mean that the hon the Minister had made an allegation knowing that it was not true?

Mr Chairman, if I remember my words correctly, and I am reasonably certain that I remember them correctly, I used the words “That is not correct”. [Interjections.]

Order! I clearly heard the hon member say: “You know it is not true”, but I concede that I am not certain precisely what the hon member was referring to. If the hon member meant that what the hon the Minister had said was not true, and the hon the Minister knew it, the hon member must withdraw it.

I give the Chair the assurance that that is not what I meant.

Order! I accept the hon member’s word. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The last matter to which the CP referred—particularly the hon member for Brits—was an attempt to sow dissension because there was a mixed advisory body which gave advice on matters of common concern in education.

Do they not also take decisions?

The hon member will simply have to look up the legislation if he wants to ascertain what their full functions are.

These bodies that have been established are advisory bodies. The Universities and Tech-nikons Advisory Council (UTAC) is an advisory body, and in the same way there are other advisory bodies. It is true that members of the various population groups are serving on these bodies, because they have to provide advice on matters affecting everyone. In the South Africa which the CP visualizes, will each people, in their terminology—even the peoples that are not peoples—be separated from one another into watertight compartments? No, they will have to develop areas of contact. They will have to develop joint decision-making mechanisms. The CP standpoint on precisely how such mechanisms should be structured differs from that of the NP. However, they will have to have mixed bodies by the dozens.

Who says so?

If there is a river between the CP territory and one of the CP’s independent states, such as that Coloured independent state that they have forced against its will to become independent, and there is a dam on that river, I want to know whether the CP is not going to discuss the utilization of that water with them. In this case the boundary runs down the middle. The CP will have to establish a joint body to exercise control over that river and they will have to develop joint mechanisms, in exactly the same way as they will have to do for education, as in the case of the Certification Council and as in the case of many other establishments in which it is imperative to have an interaction within which people can come together and take joint decisions. After all, they do concede that in the South Africa in which they find themselves there will not be absolute partition. After all, they concede that millions of Blacks will not be able to live in independent states, but in what they call White South Africa.

Who is going to control the education of those Black people? Are they going to have participation and a say, or are they going to be dominated in regard to their education? [Interjections.] That is the crucial question, because the CP cannot say that they are striving for fairness but that the Whites will not give the 4, 5, 8 or 15 million Blacks that are not able to live in their own independent states participation and a say in their own educational matters, but will take decisions on their behalf. Are we going to control their education, appoint their principals and not give them any decision-making role to play? If those schools are situated in their independent White South Africa, surely it becomes joint decision-making and joint bodies have to be developed within which that decision-making can take place. The CP therefore finds itself in a dilemma. [Interjections.] Either they proclaim total partition, which for them would be logical but as everyone can see will not work, or they admit that there cannot be total partition, in which case they will be precisely where all of us find ourselves today, namely faced with the challenge of giving everyone living within the same national boundaries a say in decision-making in a way in which one groups does not dominate the other. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have probably put this question ten times already, but does the hon the Minister not want to give this House an indication of how they will prevent one group from dominating another?

I shall come to that in a moment. I just want to finish making my point. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Brakpan appeared on television during the election—and I think the former hon member for Rissik, Mr Daan van der Merwe as well—and they were forced into a corner by a few questions, they arrived at precisely the same point to which I have now brought them. The hon member for Brakpan will remember that he said: Look, we also want every Black people to live on its own in Soweto as well. But we will not force it to do so, he said, and if it does not want to do so, we shall devise some other plan. And he remembers that he said it, Sir. I saw him on television. [Interjections.] I think that is what we are doing. We are devising that other plan, because it is not possible to have absolute, total partition. The outcome in education must then be the bringing together of people and the sharing of power in such a way that one group does not dominate another. [Interjections.] On the question of how one can ensure that one group does not dominate another, there are various possibilities that can be employed, and I would be out of order if I went into the matter too deeply.

Will you write me a letter on the subject?

But how did we do this in education? First of all by drawing a distinction between what matters there are in education on which the elected leaders of a distinct group decide themselves, and on what matters there will be joint decision-making. [Interjections.] And in education we have reduced the area of joint decision-making to the four points which some hon members mentioned in their speeches and which I mentioned and which I am not going to repeat now. And in respect of all the remaining aspects we have full-fledged self-determination for each population group. [Interjections.] Those hon members are trying to dismiss what I have said because it does not suit their political objectives. They are trying to dismiss the fact that in education par excellence the own affairs concept constitutes the enormous assurance—I almost want to say the complete assurance—that each population group is in control of its own education.

Subject to general laws!

The general laws in respect of education affect only a small demarcated area, namely where there is a need for joint decision-making.

It is not stated in that way in the Constitution.

It is stated in that way there. [Interjections.]

It is not stated in that way.

The hon member must go and have a look. Education is an own affair except for the four points mentioned. [Interjections.]

Subject to general laws!

No, Sir. The hon member is not reading the Constitution correctly in respect of education. He must read it again.

Who provides the money for it?

I want to come to the hon members of the PFP. At least they are still here—we do not know for how long—and while they are here and we are democrats, they are entitled to answers. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Pinetown took me to task because, according to him, the formula had been applied. He then went on to discuss the so-called “secret formula” with which he is apparently fully au fait, so it is not that secret.

You have not released it.

No, I have not released it because—I have stated this repeatedly in replies to questions from the hon member—it has not yet been declared general policy.

Even though it is being applied?

It is used as a framework at this point in time.

I asked about the effect.

He and the hon member for Brits asked me why we were taking so long to produce details of the ten-year plan and of the formula. They know that I have said that I am busy with negotiations. Those negotiations are not only being undertaken with the organised profession. They started as negotiations with my colleagues in the Cabinet and within the framework of the Government structure. They then broadened into negotiations among the various administrations and others outside not directly represented here in Parliament, for example the governments of the national states.

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

Is it concerned with the point I am dealing with now?

It is concerned with the Constitution.

Then the hon member must simply wait until I come to that in a moment. [Interjections.]

Just because you are in a corner now!

The hon member is being very impolite to the hon member for Pinetown now. I am half way through a reply to him, and only now does the hon member for Losberg think of his question.

We have only now come to the Constitution.

One must be faster in parliamentary debates. You cannot ask a question after ten minutes. You must seize the opportunity when it arises.

†I can inform the hon member for Pinetown today that I have now reached the stage where I will—perhaps even within weeks— start negotiating and discussing in depth with the organised teaching profession and thus carry the negotiation process about the formula and the 10-year plan into its next phase. I therefore feel sure that we will be able to be forthcoming within what I am certain will be a fairly short period of time. However, we are dealing with a delicate subject under very difficult economic circumstances and he must realise that the circumstances of the past year or two have had a delaying effect, because what we are busy with is advance 10-year planning within a framework, a time limit and a time scale. It is really alien to all Government planning throughout the world to commit oneself in advance to a specific investment pattern while bearing running expenses in mind. Knowing education as well as he does, that is a difficult facet for which he must have sympathy and understanding.

*I can assure him that we are prepared to begin writing the next chapter, and hopefully we will be able to hold a very thorough in-depth discussion on this matter during the next parliamentary session.

The hon member expressed himself opposed to our kind of differentiation in education. Apparently he is not opposed to decentralisation on a geographic or other basis, but he accused us of differentiating purely on the ground of race in our education system. That is simply not in accordance with the facts. Surely he knows that there is differentiation within White education, and that in large areas of our country we have mother-tongue education. Surely that is not differentiation on the basis of race or colour. Surely he knows that in the Transvaal I cannot send my child to an English medium school if the child does not pass a proficiency test in English which proves that he is as good or better in English as in Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Surely he also knows that there is differentiation in Black education on the basis of population structure. Surely there is not only one Black education department in South Africa; besides the Department of Education and Training …

… in South Africa.

Yes, but KwaZulu is also in South Africa. KwaNdebele and other areas are also in South Africa.

KwaZulu also has White and Indian children. [Interjections.]

The territories have their own education departments and that differentiation is on the basis of a specific need and their ethnicity.

[Inaudible.]

It is not only geographical; it may also be related to their ethnicity. Of course the total realities play a part, but to say that it is purely on the basis of race, is not correct.

Four departments are on a racial basis.

No, I am talking about education differentiation in South Africa.

Order! I was under the impression that the hon member for Pinetown had had his say in this debate. The hon the Minister may continue.

Of course the reality of our population structure must also find expression in practicable and controllable systems. Differentiation on the grounds of culture can be taken to absurd lengths, which may make control and administration impossible. However, I dispute the statement that we differentiate solely on the basis of race.

The policy concerning admission to tertiary institutions and schools is an own affair: The hon member must go and read the Constitution and raise the matter when he has an opportunity to do so, when the votes of the respective departments come up for discussion here.

He also questioned me about salary negotiations and the Federal Teachers’ Council. I also want to give him the assurance that they have been fully informed and that they have kept me fully informed. I did not want to speak to them via the media. Nor do I want to speak to them in public or carry on a conversation. I think the proper way in which we should communicate with one another is to hold our conversation on a basis of mutual respect for one another. That is the style we adopt and to the extent to which existing mechanisms do not meet the needs in this connection, we are prepared to look into the adaptation and development of those mechanisms.

He asked: Why does the increase only apply as from 1 November? I made special provision for the carry-through effect. We could have done this earlier than 1 November, if we had had more money. We could have made it earlier than 1 November, but then we would have been able to do less with the available money. The fact that it is on 1 November must be interpreted, and the entire matter should rather be assessed, against the background of what it will mean in a full financial year. We can achieve little with the actual amount that has been made available in this Budget for occupationally specific dispensations, the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government said, however, that we were prepared to accept a reasonably comprehensive carry-through effect, and that is why it is a decision which should be read over a period of 15 or 18 months, and not merely in the absolutely short term.

Would the hon member for Losberg now ask his question, before I proceed to the next hon member, or has he now forgotten what he wanted to say?

Mr Chairman, with reference to Schedule 1, Item 2 of the Constitution, in terms of which education on all levels is construed as an own affair which in regard to the three categories is subject to a general law, I should like to ascertain how the hon the Minister arrives at the standpoint that this is subjected to a need. As we understood him, he said that there was a need, but a need does not form part of the formulation of the Constitution.

Sir, the hon member did not understand me at all. Whether he does not want to understand me or whether he deliberately misunderstood, I do not know; He will have to settle it with his own conscience. I said that the Constitution as formulated—those categories stand in the Constitution—arose from a need which was identified when the Constitution was drawn up. It expresses the need. For the rest it is completely an own affair. I hope that the hon member understands it now. If he still does not understand it, he will simply have to ask one of the other hon members to explain it to him. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Durban North referred to the question of a registering body and the need for such. I want to give him the assurance that, as we stated in the White Paper on the provision of education, the Government still supports the concept of the establishment of a central registration body for all categories of teaching staff up to the secondary level, as it did at that time.

In reply to a question in the House of Assembly I have already stated the fact that I am striving for the establishment of a single registering body for teachers. I am actively involved in negotiations in this regard, and in general I enjoy support among some of the professional educators. The fact of the matter is, however, that this matter has been left in abeyance to a certain extent because the organised profession was busy with its own initiative in trying to establish some sort of consensus in this regard. It has now become apparent that the need for the establishment of such a body has grown and that we must now start moving on it. A Bill in which provision is made for the establishment, constitution and functions of a registering body is at present being drafted by my department. The Bill will be finalised in collaboration with the interested parties, including the teaching profession. Hopefully we will now be able to make progress in that regard.

A second relevant facet is the question of the certification of teacher training standards. At my request, for some time we investigated the possibility of marrying the two concepts. I asked the question whether a registering body could not also have the function of certifying, because when it registers, it really accepts, and it does make a pronouncement on standards. After proper investigation, discussion and negotiation we have come to the conclusion that we should rather keep the two concepts apart. We are now proceeding with the drafting of such a Bill which will then be submitted to interested parties. After that the Bill will be finalised and be brought before Parliament.

*The hon member for Durban North also raised the question of school sport. One has to choose what one wants. Do you want the Government to interfere in school sport or not? It seems to me that the hon member is saying we have a good policy in that we do not interfere with sport. Our policy of the recognition of the autonomy of sporting bodies is a sound one. I do not believe he has any quarrel with that. He is saying, however, that we should interfere in school sport.

Allow me to make our standpoint a little clearer to him. For the purposes of this debate we are making a distinction between official school sport and junior sport. Official school sport is that part of sport that is practised as an integral part of the education process within the school itself. It was and is still subject to the control of those in control of the school. On that level it is an own affair, and in terms of the Constitution, too. If the hon member is dissatisfied about the freedom of movement allowed by the departments concerned, he should bring the matter to the attention of the departments of those hon Ministers.

This is like Menlo Park.

When it comes to junior sport, however, and it does not form an integral part of the education process or of the activities of the school itself, then—just as in the case of sport in general—it is the standpoint of the Government that we recognise the autonomy of the bodies controlling it, and that we do not interfere, and that they make their decisions within the framework of the laws of the country and are able to regulate their own affairs. There is no other way for us to deal with this matter.

I am surprised that the hon member, since he is the spokesman on sport, was not a little chauvinistic in discussing the injustice and the unfairness to our country that occurs in the field of sport. Organised sport in South Africa has met every requirement set by the international bodies.

And it was futile.

And it was futile; the hon member is correct. [Interjections.] It is completely unfair to our sportsmen. I want us at least to reach consensus on that matter in this House. This unreasonable discrimination against South Africa in respect of sport must be stopped. What is taking place in the world community in respect of South Africa is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

I want to come to the point the hon member for Soutpansberg wanted to raise by means of interjection. The fact that something one does in one’s country because one thinks it is the right thing does not elicit a positive reaction in another country should not prevent one from doing what one thinks is right. [Interjections.] However, what is the hon member trying to insinuate? He is trying to insinuate that we are doing things here in order to please the outside world. This is not the case. [Interjections.] We have to do what is right for South Africa, and that is what we are doing.

We are discussing education at the moment. Are we giving in to international pressure in the field of education? I challenge the hon member to say that. [Interjections.] Or are we resisting international pressure because we believe that what we are doing is right? Although the international community says we should have only one department, we should forget about population and cultural differences, and we should integrate completely, we say no, there must be differentiated self-determination regarding this matter of education. [Interjections.] The hon member’s accusation is therefore proved to be false by what we are doing in the field of education. [Interjections.]

I have 12 principles, and another 12 if you do not like those.

I thought the hon member had only 12; now I hear he has 24.

Hon members did not really succeed in this debate in getting to the root problem of education and in that way making a positive contribution. [Interjections.] Neither the hon the Leader of the CP nor the hon members of the PFP succeeded in that.

Only you did! [Interjections.]

No, I and all the hon members on this side of the House tried to do so.

I want to make a plea for an approach in terms of which we look the fundamental challenges ahead of us in the field of education squarely in the eye. From this forum I want to give the assurance to all parents and young people throughout South Africa that the Government is very much in earnest in looking after their best interests and in bringing about in the shortest possible time a dispensation in education of which everyone in South Africa can be proud and for which everyone in South Africa can be grateful.

When we say we are extending a helping hand in the field of education, we mean it, and there are no ulterior motives. In a systematic, rational and well-planned way we want to convert the great problem with which people are struggling throughout the underdeveloped parts everywhere in the world into a solution and a breakthrough that will bring light and opportunity to all the people of this country.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.