I move the amendment as printed—

I think it is quite clear that the persons mentioned in clause 1 are the persons who will constitute the body of educational heads. We are now merely adding that the territory of South-West Africa will be included.

I do not wish to speak to the hon. the Minister’s amendment. I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name—

The hon. the Minister, in his definition of “school” in this Bill, gives us three classes of schools, the first class being those schools maintained, managed and controlled by a government department, either the Central Government or a Provincial Department. Then there is another class of school, the private school, which is not managed, maintained or controlled by any government department, and which is financially independent of any Government Department. That is the second class, but there is a third class which has been included by the hon. the Minister in the definition of “school”. The third class is a school which is not maintained, managed or controlled by a Government Department, but does receive a subsidy from a Government Department, either a Provincial Department or the Central Government.

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. the Minister has made this invidious distinction between a subsidized private school and a private school that is not subsidized. I can illustrate this best by referring to my own province, the Transvaal. In the Transvaal we have Drivate schools which are generally managed by the churches. Some of them receive a subsidy from the Transvaal Province and some do not, but they are all managed by the same authorities; they are all schools belonging to particular religious denominations. If the Transvaal province or any other province in its wisdom wishes to subsidize a private school why should they not do so? Why should the Minister say to that province, “Because you subsidize the school I am going to take it under my wing under the provisions of this Act”? I think it is quite unnecessary. If the hon. the Minister wishes to press his point, what he could do is to say to a Nationalist Party Administration in a province, “You should not subsidize this school.” Such a school would then naturally be outside the purview of the Act. The Transvaal Province has subsidized schools for many years, and up to a certain stage the Transvaal Province said that all private schools could be subsidized. It is a good investment for the province because the parent of the child in a private school pays twice for the education of his child. He pays as a taxpayer and he also pays fees for the education of his child.

Why then does he send him there?

The reason why he sends his child there is not to obtain some special kind of education, but that he wants an education with a strong religious background, which you can only get in an Afrikaans-medium school; you cannot get it in an English-medium school; we are not a homogeneous community. Where people feel they would like to send their children to a private school because the private school has certain advantages over a public school in their estimation, why should we not subsidize that school? The provinces might even say to these schools, “We will not subsidize you at all.” In that case, of course, they would fall outside the scope of this Bill as drafted at present. Sir, I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has made this distinction. I can understand the distinction between a private school and a school maintained, managed and controlled by the Government, but why distinguish between the two types of private schools? Therefore I move the amendment standing in my name.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington has drawn this distinction. There are many State-aided institutions in the country and as soon as State aid is granted, for example for special education and for the education of the cerebral palsied, then the State has control over such an institution. We have to do here with a Bill which, in my opinion, is to the benefit of every child. It would also have been to the benefit of children in private schools, but private schools are not included, as they are financed by parents who feel that those schools should not be subject to State control. Many of the State-aided schools receive very high subsidies, and the State has an interest in them. The hon. member for Kensington is of the opinion that this Bill is quite unnecessary, but I am convinced that this measure is absolutely essential, and if it is essential that the State should have control over an ordinary State school, where the question of subsidies does not enter into the matter, then it is also essential that the State should have control over private schools to which subsidies are paid. If I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, eight of the ten principles on which I insist very strongly will fall away. Those principles will then not be applicable to these subsidized schools. I cannot see how we are doing them any injustice. May I just say to the hon. member for Kensington that in the years when I was a member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal it decided that subsidies would be paid to existing subsidized schools, but that subsidies, for the rest, would be frozen and that new schools would receive no subsidies.

In Natal these subsidized schools have got completely out of hand. The major portion of the appropriation for education which goes to schools, goes to the subsidized schools. That is all the more proof to me that if we do this, we shall exclude many of our schools and pupils from these sound principles which belong here. I think the hon. member for Kensington is actually touching upon an important principle now. Personally I think I should raise a point of order with the Chairman and ask for his ruling as to whether this matter does not in fact affect the principle which was accepted in clause 2 at the Second Reading. I should like to hear what his ruling is.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) may continue in the meantime.

Mr. Chairman, can we go ahead then?

For the time being, yes.

The hon. the Minister has indicated to this House that the test of control as applied by this Government is the question of money. Must we be so mundane? Must we reduce everything to a question of rands and cents? As the hon. member for Kensington pointed out, in the case of the subsidized schools the Government is in fact saving money. The cost of education per child in a subsidized school to the Government or to the Provincial Administration is less than the cost of education per child in a State or a provincial school.

Order! Could the hon. member tell me how many schools fall into this category of subsidized schools? Or can any other hon. member tell me? For example, what proportion of the schools in Natal fall into this category?

There are at least 35 schools that I know of.

With respect, Sir, what has that to do with this case?

I want to know what the effect of this amendment is going to be.

Without figures in front of me, it would be very difficult to assess the number of schools. I suppose one would not be very far out if one were to say that there were about 30 or 35 schools which would be affected.

The hon. member may proceed.

I do not think that there is any need to repeat what I have said. I asked why we should apply this test of monetary contribution to the question of control. I want to say that the subsidized schools in Natal are worried about this question and are extremely perturbed about the control that the Minister will have. I want to quote from a letter received from the headmaster of one of these subsidized schools, where he says:

As the Minister has pointed out, and as we are all aware, paragraphs 2 (1) (a) and (e) do not apply to these schools. We realize that the hon. the Minister has made this concession, but these subsidized schools make a very positive contribution to our education in this country. I am quite certain that even the hon. the Minister will not deny this.

No, I do not deny it.

I think the hon. the Minister will also agree that they provide education of a different nature from that provided by State and Government schools. I know that the whole intention of this Bill is to bring all these schools under one control. But should the parents of South Africa be denied this right to choose to send their children to a school which is in some measure different? Must we have standardization? Is it so utterly important that we must have standardization in this country?

There is another point which is raised by this same headmaster, who refers to clause 2 (1) (h).

That is not under discussion now.

Yes, Sir, I know, but I want to raise this matter while dealing with subsidized schools. This headmaster points out that these schools in Natal could be subjected to control by school boards. I want to say now that the subsidized schools are categorically against control by a school board which will be established for an area. They are against that and I would be grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister what his intention is in this respect.

The hon. member must raise that matter under clause 2.

I think it is pertinent here.

Order! I have considered the hon. Minister’s point of order. I feel that while this is a National Education Bill, it nevertheless excludes private schools. I cannot rule out of order an amendment to exclude further schools. For that reason I must allow discussion on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a very strong appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept this amendment. There are many specific reasons for that. In the first place it is compulsory for the children of South Africa to attend school between certain ages. Some of those children are now being taught and educated by these schools. While we have here a Bill in which this Parliament is laying down certain points of policy, I say that all children in the Republic of South Africa who receive financial assistance out of the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa should be subject to these principles as we are stating them here. If people have objections to these ten points, or if they do not want them, they are free to refuse the subsidy and to become a private school in the full sense of the term, and thus not receive any assistance. Then they will be free of the provisions of this legislation. That is very clear. It is very clear that if we should yield as far as this principle is concerned and accept the amendment, it would mean that public money would be used to circumvent public policy. That we cannot allow. It is in direct conflict with the whole principle. There is another reason, Sir. These schools are already not subject to two of these ten points of policy. These two points relate to the question of the Christian principle as such and the question of the principle of free education. These two points are (a) and (e). According to these two paragraphs these schools are already exempted. Against what can the objection be now? The provision in respect of the Christian character does not apply to these schools. They can create their own Christian or religious character. The hon. member for Kensington said that they had a particular religious character. They are allowed to have that as matters stand at present, because clause 2 (1) (a) does not apply to these schools. For example, a Jewish private school which receives a subsidy can retain its purely Jewish character. Clause 2 (1) (a) does not apply to it. Surely that is clear in the definition. In other words, it has already been excluded. The other eight principles that do apply relate to the broad national education policy. Surely we cannot allow those to be violated? Surely the question of uniformity and the question of parental say and all these other matters, such as co-ordination, cannot be left out of account? It is very clear to me that when these people have real objections to this matter, they can establish a private school in the full sense of the term, for which they themselves pay. Then they can be exempted. As long as public money is used to finance such a school, in whatever form, then the State must have control over the character of that school. I think that reasonableness is displayed in the Minister’s standpoint of not making these two policy provisions applicable, because that would leave another tremendous opening. If we were to accept this amendment it would leave a tremendous opening in so far as all persons who wanted to circumvent this policy would send their children to private subsidized schools. They would pay a small amount and would then be completely free of this policy. Then the entire Education Act would fail in its purpose. That would mean that the people of South Africa would be divided into two groups, namely one group following the national education policy of South Africa and another group following their own policy in a roundabout way and kicking over the traces. We are not prepared to do that. I think we must stand by this unwaveringly and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to stand by these principles.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. the Minister will recall that when our Select Committee sat in 1962, we received evidence from the church schools and from the headmasters and headmistresses of private schools. They were anxious to have a system similar to that of the hon. the Minister. They had no objection to that. I would say they wished to co-operate with the Minister. They also gave us the reasons why there were church schools. I should however like to remind the hon. the Minister that in some countries the Government is prepared to hand over to any religious community its share of the revenue to run their own schools. I can mention such countries if necessary. They say for example, “If you are members of the three Dutch Reformed churches we will give you your share of the revenue to run your own schools”. They will say the same to the Anglican or Catholic community. We do not do that. We believe in a government system but we also take into consideration those people who wish to have a private school that makes such a great contribution to our whole national system of education. We say that if the province wishes to subsidize them, why should we in this Committee say that they shall not. Why should we say that? Supposing the Transvaal Administration were to say, “we are prepared to subsidize that school”. They do not have as much money as they should have; perhaps their staff are not paid as much as in provincial schools, but we like them to exist oecause they are useful and they co-operate.” Why can they not do it. Why should we then in this Parliament stop them doing it? Surely it is a matter for the province to decide. I can understand the hon. the Minister saying he will not subsidize them, but does he not subsidize technical colleges and universities? Whatever the contribution of the university to Education, he is prepared to grant these subsidies. Here in the case of the traditional private schools of South Africa which have been subsidized by the Government, why should we not do it? There are any number of cases of private schools, not only one kind, which are subsidized. I therefore make a plea to the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the appeal by the hon. member for Randfontein to the hon. the Minister, that he should not accept this amendment. The reason for that is that in the provinces these State-aided schools are at present treated as provincial schools, with the difference that they are subsidized and that the ultimate control rests in the board of the school. They have to handle the school’s prescribed work in the same way as a normal provincial school. They are inspected by the provincial school inspectors and they are provincial schools in the full sense of the word and in all respects, except for the fact that they are subsidized and that they may have a character of their own. For that reason I do not see how it can be even feasible at this stage to discriminate in the application of a policy to schools which at present are provincial schools in the full sense of the word, and other schools which are also provincial schools, except that they have a character of their own.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Kensington this. Firstly, he is making a major issue of the fact that the provinces subsidize these schools. I just want to say that all four provinces agreed that subsidized schools should be included. But they struggled to have them exempted from the two principles. Then I come to the second error. Hon. members talked continually about “control by the Minister”. In these matters there is no control by the Minister. These are principles and not control exercised by the Minister. They are sound educational principles which are to be implemented in the training and education of the pupils. Why should the private schools have any difficulties in this regard? As the hon. member for Randfontein said: “Can there be any objection to the remaining eight principles, namely that we are restricting them in any way?” These are the broad national character and all the other ordinary matters that belong with ordinary schools. I really think the hon. member for Kensington did not bear in mind that this is actually an agreed measure with which the provinces who determine the subsidies, are quite satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let pass the remarks made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member said that the subsidized schools are in effect Government schools. Although he took a little longer to say it, he said that in effect their control, management, the way in which they are administered and in every other respect they are Government schools and that they receive a subsidy from the province but that they are really Government schools. He said that there was no difference. Mr. Chairman, of course, that is not true. The hon. member should learn his brief before he makes a speech in this House. Let us take for instance Hilton College which is a subsidized school. Hilton College has nothing in common with the Government schools. St. Anne’s is a subsidized school but it is not a Government school. These subsidized schools are private schools. The private schools having experienced bad times financially in the past, approached the province for subsidies. To a greater or lesser extent they receive a subsidy from the province but they continue as private schools. They have their own old boys’ associations which run their schools. They run their schools in terms of their own rules and special management committees, etc. They tend in the main, as the private schools do, to have continuity in so far as the pupils are concerned—these are pupils whose predecessors went to that school and so forth. That is how it is whether they are boys’ or girls’ schools. There is another kind of school which we find in Natal and that is the aided school. This is the small school which has not yet established itself and in the course of time it will probably become a Government school. That is a different matter altogether. That is possibly what the hon. member was thinking of. The hon. member has made a sweeping statement in regard to subsidized schools. I think it could be quite rightly argued that the financial support given to an aided school is a subsidy in the same way as the financial support given to a private school is a subsidy, particularly for the purposes of this Bill, but to suggest that the subsidized schools in Natal are in name, and only in name, different from Government schools is the most arrant nonsense. He will be laughed to scorn when a report of this statement reaches Natal. It bears no semblance whatever to the truth. He should think carefully before he makes a statement like this.

I want to move the amendments standing in my name on page 179 of the Order Paper in a slightly amended form—

and to omit subsection (2).

The first amendment concerns the whole question of parental option, that is to say, the right of the parent to determine, with the validity of law behind him, the medium of instruction of his child. Sir, let me say at once that there is nobody on this side of the House who doubts for one moment that it is good for a child, particularly in the early stages, to be instructed through that medium which he knows best, the child’s “moedertaal” or “huistaal” or mother tongue. Nobody doubts that instruction through the language which the child knows best is the best way of educating the child so that the child may grasp the significance of what he is being taught. Sir, that is not the issue here. The issue here is the sanctity of the home, the sanctity of parental right, the sanctity of the right of the parent to determine how he will have his child instructed. Let us be done once and for all with the kind of speeches that we heard here the other day, in which we heard an endless repetition of the statement by hon. members opposite that they believed that children should be instructed through their mother tongue, or through their “huistaal”. We accept that, but, Sir, how many parents are there who in fact provide that their children should be instructed through a medium which they do not understand? How many such parents are there? My hon. friend, the member for Kensington, says that in all the years during which he was a school inspector he only had one such case, and that case was the case of a child who was completely bilingual. Sir, the hon. the Minister read out a section here today from the Wilks’ Report, a report which is 21 years old.

I was Administrator of Natal at the time that report came back and it was not published for many months. If the hon. the Minister chooses to go into it he will see how wrong he was in the implications of the speech which he made yesterday. What did the hon. the Minister do? He read out a letter from Mr. Wilks, written to him the other day, saying: “We want to emphasize the need to retain the right of the parent to determine the medium of instruction so far as the children of Natal are concerned, i.e. the right of parental choice.” Having read that out, the Minister said: “Look what the same Mr. Wilks said in his report.” Sir, that is a totally fair comparison to draw on that basis but what in fact was it? Sir, we have a classic example in yesterday’s Mercury in a letter written by a man named Mr. Heese. I know Mr. Heese; he was the chairman of a very big public school in Durban. Mr. Heese says: “I have known of a number of cases where the parents of Afrikaans-speaking children have sent them to an English-medium school. They have become backward; they have become frustrated; they have become this and that; they are probably misfits. I have only known of two cases where it has happened to English-speaking children.” Sir, apart from the fact that this is a sad reflection on the ability of Afrikaans-speaking parents to know what is good for their children—and apparently English-speaking parents all know what is good for their children—Mr. Heese does not give a single case. When the report of the Wilks Commission came I went through the evidence. I held up the report; I would not publish it because I wanted to find the evidence upon which it was founded. Upon what was it founded? It was founded on statements like Mr. Heese’s. I called for the papers and went through the evidence and I could not find a single case where an Afrikaans-sneaking child had in any shape or form suffered in his education because a “stupid parent” had decided to put the child in a school where he was to be instructed through the wrong medium. Sir, this is a question of principle and the law.

On this side of the House we say that the principle is that the parent shall decide, and we say that if the law is to come into it and if the law is to take a hand, then the law must say “the parent shall decide”. That must be written into the Statute, but what we have here is a proposal to have a Statute which says “the medium shall be the mother tongue”. This clause provides that the medium of instruction shall be the mother tongue, if it is English or Afrikaans, but what about those multitudes of children to-day whose mother tongue is neither English nor Afrikaans?

There are no such children in South Africa.

Sir, how can we deal with a Bill like this when an hon. member on the Government side says “there are no such children in South Africa”? Here is indeed a stranger in Jerusalem. What is he doing in South Africa?

He is a misfit.

Sir, this is what makes our task so difficult. How do you deal with reality when you get a Member of Parliament saying in cold blood, after due thought, “there is no child in South Africa whose home language is not English or Afrikaans”? It is really quite incredible. No wonder the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side is struck down; he cannot say a word! Sir, we have German children in schools in some of the provinces where we give them very special regard so that they can receive their education through the medium of the mother tongue. It is freely provided although there is no law to say so. Those children are allowed through their mother tongue to learn one or other of the official languages to a state where they can benefit from their schooling. But there are thousands, tens of thousands, of other children whose home language is neither English nor Afrikaans. Where are they being provided for here? You see, Sir, my amendment will deal with these cases because the principle will be the right of the parent to determine the medium of instruction of his child. This is becoming a thorny problem …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, we are in Committee; the hon. member can make his own speech in a moment. The position is that we have all the scores and scores of immigrants whom we are trying to bring to this country. Where do they fit into the picture? What precisely is to be their status in terms of this kind of provision? Or is the hon. the Minister going to take power by regulation to deal with these people?

Having said that, let me turn now to my second amendment and that is to delete subsection (2) of clause 2, which provides—

Sir, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for letting me have the papers concerning the history of this Bill, the first draft and so on. May I say to the hon. the Minister that paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (2) were not in any of the first drafts? This is the kind of thing I objected to in my Second Reading speech. They were not in the first drafts. The Executive Committees in the provinces never had an opportunity of saying that they disagreed with them because they were not there. Sir, I have the papers here which the Minister gave me at lunch time to-day. Paragraph (a) is there but not paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), not the punitive clauses.

And (a) has been changed.

Yes, and (a) has been changed, materially or otherwise, but it is still there. This is the kind of thing that we complain about. Sir, I have never seen this kind of legislation before Parliament—never in mylife—because the Minister says: “The Administrators will carry out my policy,” and if they do not, then he takes all sorts of powers and paragraph (d) makes provision for penalties for a contravention of the regulations or failure to comply with them. Against whom is the Minister going to impose penalties—against the Administrator of the Province or against the Executive Committee? Against whom is he going to impose penalties? You see, Sir, this becomes material because I do not know how this Bill is going to be accepted. I know that there is rising concern throughout the whole of South Africa over it. [Time expired.]

I have gone into the amendment as a whole and it is quite clear to me that it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read at the Second Reading. The principle of mother-tongue instruction has been accepted, and consequently I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on the point of order?

I have given my ruling. It is very clear that clause 2 states that the policy shall be based on the “following principles”. This is one of the major principles in the Bill.

With respect. Sir, I should like to submit that the principle of clause 2 is that the Minister shall determine a policy.

Within a certain framework.

Yes, Sir, within a certain framework which we suggest can be varied or altered. If your ruling is that the principle is not only that the Minister shall determine a policy, but that the House has accepted from paragraph (a) to the end, the Ten Commandments, then I say that this Committee Stage becomes an abortive discussion. I want to suggest very strongly to you, Sir, that you should look at the matter again. The principle of this clause is a determination of the national education policy by the Minister. There are certain guiding principles which we will take into account and which I suggest can be discussed this afternoon. I submit very strongly that you should be good enough to reconsider the decision which you have made, and the ruling which you have given.

It is very clear in the Bill. It states: “within the framework of the following principles.” The hon. member for South Coast also called it the principle of mother-tongue education and of the parent’s choice. I have given my ruling and I am not going to allow any further argument on the point.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I draw your attention to clause 2 (1) (c), which states:

With respect, Sir, the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast incorporates the principle that English or Afrikaans shall be the languages to be used. I submit to you that that was also a principle accepted and, if your ruling stands, that it is equally a ruling that English or Afrikaans shall be the languages to be used, and that therefore discussion on detail within the limits of that principle is permissible in the Committee State. Furthermore, Sir, other speakers will draw attention to a discrepancy between this wording—not the question of the use of English or Afrikaans, but the wording in the clause—and the wording used by the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. That again opens this particular subsection for reconsideration in view of the Minister’s own reply to the Second Reading debate. Therefore I urge that we be allowed to move the amendment and to debate this question.

The Minister’s speech in the Second Reading debate has nothing to do with the clause as far as this Committee is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

I am not going to allow any further discussion on this point of order. I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, I submit that before you give your ruling you must listen to discussion on the point.

I have heard the discussion on this point.

I am speaking of the point of order as to whether we can address you or not. Surely it is only right that you should hear discussion before you give your ruling on a point of order.

I considered the matter before the Committee started. The amendment was on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] I shall allow the hon. member for Transkei to put his point briefly.

Sir, you say that you considered the matter before the Committee started. I submit that you must hear the other side before you give a ruling.

I will hear both sides.

Yes, both sides must be heard. You must hear the side which contends that we can do this. The clause, as it stands, reads:

Shall be.

Yes, if it is English or Afrikaans. Supposing it is both?

Impossible.

It is not impossible that both languages are spoken in a home. Sir, you must know of homes where both languages are spoken. I know of many. In my own family it is done. Therefore you cannot say that one or other of the languages must be spoken in the home. That is not the point. Both languages may be spoken in a home. Surely we are allowed to discuss what happens in a case like that? What happens in a case where both languages are spoken?

Evidently in a case like that the child chooses or the parents choose.

That is the point we want to clarify. The child cannot choose. Surely the child cannot choose. You yourself have said that the child will choose in a case like that. We say it is wrong. The child should not be given the option of choosing. Therefore I think you should allow the House to discuss this matter.

I am not going to allow any further discussion on this point of order.

May I, with respect, ask that Mr. Speaker be called? I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on the point which you are asked to consider? The question is whether or not the amendment which is printed on page 179 of the Order Paper in the name of Mr. D. E. Mitchell is or is not destructive of the principle accepted at the Second Reading. In my submission the principle which was accepted at the Second Reading in relation to clause2 was, as you will see in the rubric, the determination of the national education policy by the Minister. That was the principle. This clause provides that the Minister shall determine such policy in accordance with certain rules and within the framework of certain guides which are then set out in paragraphs (a) to (j) in clause 2 (1). I submit that this Committee is entitled, in dealing with the details of this principle, to amend and alter some of the guiding thoughts which are contained in paragraphs (a) to (j). May I put it to you this way, Sir, that the Committee is entitled, if it wishes, to omit the whole clause from this Bill. If it is entitled to do that, on first principles, I sumbit that it is entitled to bring in any clause of lesser force and consequence than that which is now in the Bill. If in fact it is to be ruled that this particular paragraph, namely paragraph (c), which deals with the mother tongue, is the principle of this clause, how can one then say that for example paragraph (f) is not also the principle and that the co-ordination of syllabuses on a national basis is not also a principle, or that the conditions of service and salary scales is not a principle? If that is to be the ruling, then in my submission one would not be able to move any amendment to this clause at all in the Committee Stage because every single word and every single guide from (a) to (j) must then necessarily be held to be a principle accepted at second reading because that is the Bill as passed at second reading. My submission is that to hold that that is so would be to make futile a Committee Stage debate, the very object of which is to examine the details and to change the printed word in that clause. There is no other opportunity to do so. There is no other opportunity for this House, in Committee or otherwise, to do so except in Committee of the whole House. My submission is that the ruling which has been given by the Chairman is too restrictive to be a proper construction of the rules of this House relating to the procedure by which the wording in a Bill may be amended.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the House on the point of order. As this principle stands and as it was accepted at the Second Reading, it states quite clearly “the mother tongue if it is English or Afrikaans”—it is not here a question of “if it is both English and Afrikaans”, or if it is something other than the mother tongue. In the amendment proposed by him the hon. member for South Coast states: “the medium of instruction shall be Afrikaans or English as the parent may elect”. The parent gets the option. Here it is said that the decisive factor is the mother tongue, if it is one of these. Then it is added—and that is stated very clearly because that is the principle and that was accepted at the Second Reading—“with gradual equitable adjustment to this principle of any existing practice at variance therewith”. To clarify the point of order, I want to put it this way, that all the Administrators are at the moment affording persons whose mother tongue is neither Afrikaans nor English, namely foreigners, an opportunity to learn both languages. Amongst others, such a school was established in Pretoria by the Transvaal Education Department. I contend that if we changed this principle we would destroy the entire principle of mother tongue, because it is then a matter of parental choice to choose English or Afrikaans as the mother tongue of a child. It is in fact the intention to prevent that. The language to be chosen is the mother tongue of the child and the mother tongue is the language the child understands best.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on the point of order and submit with respect that the argument which the hon. the Minister has just put to you is in fact a justification of the claim which we on this side of the House have made that this is a matter requiring discussion and possible amendment. The Minister has himself now stated that a committee is sitting on this very question of children whose language is neither English nor Afrikaans.

It is already the decision of the Administrators.

Then a decision concerning children who are neither English-nor Afrikaans-speaking has been taken.

This principle has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker, with respect our submission is that this clause deals with the language to be used in schools, whether the language shall be English or Afrikaans. The clause states that it shall be the mother tongue. I submit that there is no definition in this Bill as to what mother-tongue education is. The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast makes this clear. It accepts that English or Afrikaans shall be the language used but it determines which of those languages shall be used and that determination shall be by the parent. The point made is that if a child is bilingual and uses both English and Afrikaans this Bill does not define which of those languages shall be used and imposed upon the child. The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast answers that blank in this Bill by providing which shall be the mother tongue in such a case. If the amendment is not accepted, then we are legislating and leaving a complete blank as far as all bilingual children in South Africa are concerned, a blank which we submit requires debate and clarification. We therefore, with respect, submit that the question of which language shall be used—whilst we accept the principle of English and Afrikaans—and the detail of how it shall be applied are matters for discussion and possible amendment by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to S.O. 58 which states that: “The principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in committee, but only its details.” The hon. member for Durban (North) carefully refrained from quoting the exact words of clause 2 (1) and I wish to read this:

The hon. member carefully avoided the use of the word “principles”. It is clearly stated here that the Minister may from time to time determine the general policy within the framework of “the following principles”. These principles are then enumerated in the Bill. This principle is clearly stated in clause 2 (1) (c):

It is therefore clear that this is a principle within the framework of which the Minister must determine the general policy. This principle was accepted at the Second Reading. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is therefore quite correct. He may discuss the details. There is no objection to that but there may not be an amendment. That was the position here. The amendment was ruled out of order, not the discussion. There cannot be an amendment to change the principles because that would entail the discussion of the principle, if you wish to amend that principle. It therefore clearly cannot be allowed although a discussion of the details is permissible, the details mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He said that paragraph (c) is not clear. He can refer to that. He argued the point about when home language is neither English nor Afrikaans but some other language, to which the hon. the Minister replied. He is entitled to mention that and to attack the clarity of this paragraph or any difficulties he experiences with regard to this paragraph. He cannot however attack the principle by moving an amendment which will affect the principle.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with greatest respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Omaruru. He has attempted to utilize the word “principle” as it appears in this clause in a context quite out of its meaning and purpose. May I with respect, Sir, draw your attention to the title of this Bill, which reads as follows—

I think that reading that title with clause 2, the principle which is approved and which we cannot here debate or amend, is that the Minister after consultation with the Administrators and with the council which is provided for in this Bill, shall determine the general policy which is to be pursued in regard to education. The framework, under which he will take certain matters into consideration, is what is linked to the word “principle”. It is not the principle of a Bill. Surely we can say to the hon. the Minister that as regards his framework of determining a national policy, which is a sacred duty which now rests upon the Minister, and in determining that national policy we think his framework should be changed some way or other. That is what we say. We do not say that the Minister can be deprived of his right to determine the policy, unless the whole clause is negatived. I suggest that the hon. member for Omaruru was stretching his legal argument a little far in suggesting that the use of the word “principle” in this clause was in the sense envisaged in rule 58 of the rules of this House. It is not a basic principle which is at issue.

An appeal has been made to me in regard to a ruling by the Chairman on an amendment moved in Committee of the whole House by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), i.e., to substitute the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in schools by parental choice: I have considered all the arguments which have now been adduced and I have also studied the amendment. The question of mother-tongue instruction was extensively argued during the Second Reading Debate and that was definitely a principle of the Bill accepted at the Second Reading. In my opinion the amendment, if adopted, will be destructive of that principle, and I accordingly uphold the ruling given by the Chairman of Committees.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us clarification, as I presume I may do, of what is meant by clause 2 (1) (c), the provision dealing with mother-tongue instruction. The latter part of the paragraph reads as follows—

In other words, this clause says that the practice will be adjusted to the principle. Let us see what the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech, explaining this point. I should like to have some clarification on this. The Minister taid—

In one case the principle is to be adjusted to present practice, and in the other case the practice is to be adjusted to the principle. The Minister was not consistent in his Second Reading Speech. In other words, we say this principle which the Minister follows is not being observed at present. The clause is quite different from what the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech. I should like the Minister to tell us what these principles of his mean.

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters which I raised with the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate on this particular point, but I did not receive an answer from him in his reply then. I wonder if he would perhaps help the Committee by explaining how he intends to decide in which medium children who come from fully bilingual homes are to be educated. I quoted a figure which appears in an article written by Dr. Ernest Malherbe, one of the country’s leading educationists, in which he estimated that something like 34 per cent of homes in South Africa are in fact fully bilingual. There are a growing number of marriages in this country between English-speaking women and Afrikaans-speaking men, or vice versa, and, as is to be expected, the desire will be in marriages of that kind that the children should be brought up to be equally proficient and competent in both the official languages. What is to be the yardstick in cases where children switch quite easily from one language to the other without any difficulty whatsoever and there is no detectable superiority of one language over the other? That is the first point on which I should like clarification.

The second point is the question of the immigrant child. I mentioned this in the Second Reading debate and there has been no answer so far. There are thousands of families coming to this country now with young children of school-going age. Those children speak neither of the two official languages. Somebody has to decide in which medium those children have to be educated. According to this Bill it is not going to be the parents who are going to decide. I want to know, therefore, what yardstick, at least, is going to be used, even if I know who is not going to make the decision.

I wonder, Sir, whether it would be competent for me to move an amendment at this stage to clause 2 (1) (a) of this Bill, inserting a proviso. The amendment reads as follows—

1. (i) No doctrine or dogma peculiar to any religious denomination or sect shall be taught during school hours in any such school, and
2. (ii) no religious instruction shall be given during school hours in any such school by any person other than a teacher on the staff of such school.

I believe that this is the wording, with a few minor changes which are not relevant, in the Natal Education Ordinance. I think that it would be a very good thing to insert this in clause 2, after subsection (1), in order to set at rest all the suspicions which have been voiced in earlier stages of this debate, that it is the intention of the Government to impose what is known as Christian National education on the schools. I think that if the Minister is prepared to accept this amendment, which, as I say, is based on the wording of the Natal Education Ordinance, it would go a long way and do a great deal to offset any of the suspicions which have been aroused, not by the Minister so much as by the long history which precedes the introduction of this measure. This measure is nothing new in this country. As I said before, we have had it in the Transvaal for a very long time. But there is no doubt that the whole history of education and educational policy as emanated from the original document put out by the F.A.K. and the Christian National Education organization has done a great deal to arouse the suspicions in the minds of very many people in this country. Therefore I wish to move this amendment, and I ask the hon. the Minister to clarify the two points I raised regarding mother-tongue education.

I want to address a very friendly warning as well as a very friendly request to the Committee. If we are going to have this kind of detailed questions we shall sit here for weeks and ask what the Minister is going to do here or there. [Interjections.] Please give me a chance. Surely the hon. member for Durban (North) knows he should first have an opportunity to hear what I have to say? Hon. members are now contravening the Act itself, which has been accepted in principle so far. Clause 2 (1) provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Administrators and the council, from time to time determine the general policy which is to be pursued in respect of education in schools, within the frame-work of the following principles. I now want to address a warning. I am not going to reply to any of those questions, because I am not the only one who decides on the matter. I shall listen to what hon. members have to say and I shall ask my officials to make a note of all the points they raise. [Interjections.] That is reasonable. What right have I got to get up here and to say that I am going to apply the mother-tongue education policy in such and such a manner? The mother-tongue education policy is applied in various ways. In the Transvaal and the Free State the mother tongue is defined as the language the child can speak best. [Interjection.] In the Cape Province the position is different. The hon. member for Green Point knows much more about that than the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. The hon. member for Green Point gave a fine exposition of the language ordinance of the Cape Province, and he maintained that it is a system that works very well. The hon. members from Natal gave an exposition of the Natal language ordinance and how the matter was being handled there, and they advanced a very strong plea for that system. Surely it is unreasonable to expect the Minister at this stage to reply to all these questions? In that case I may just as well abandon all consultations and I need not ask the Administrator or the Advisory Council what they think is the best method of doing all these things. If we are going to have all this detail we shall get nowhere. I am not going to fall into any traps here by compromising in advance the people I have to consult later because I have said certain things here. Surely that is an unreasonable thing to expect from me? If necessary, I can get up and give my personal opinion about any particular matter. Take this amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. I do not even know whether the Chairman will accept it. She now tries to get me to give a definition of what precisely we understand by the Christian character of education. She may be right in what she says, but it may also be that people who have to advise me will find that it is wrong after they have considered the matter thoroughly. Now there is one thing we must not lose sight of. Once this Act is on the Statute Book, any educational matter, including primary and secondary education and all those things we could not discuss previously, may be discussed in this Parliament, and we shall be able to make any suggestions and express any criticism under the Vote of the Minister, or by way of private motions [Interjections.] No, that will be of great help. But what will we gain by going on like this? I am quite prepared to spend another week on this matter, but I simply cannot see any sense in doing so and therefore I should like to issue a friendly warning to the effect that we shall discuss the merits of these matters if we are in a position to do so, but I simply cannot reply to all these questions. The hon. members asked how many children there are who are equally proficient in both languages—are there hundreds or thousands? What right have they got to make these allegations if they do not have the particulars in front of them? There may be a few cases of mixed marriages between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons where the two languages are used on an equal basis and with the same proficiency, but I maintain that there are very few people who are fully bilingual. They may think they are but there are many Afrikaans-speaking people who, as far as my knowledge of English grammar goes, speak the most shocking English, simply because they insist upon speaking English, and vice versa. Therefore it is good that one should speak one’s mother tongue. The hon. member for East London (City) will not be able to take me in either of the two languages, but I prefer to speak my own language first because it makes my thoughts run much more fluently, and that is also a right one must have. I am not going to quarrel about these things, but this is the whole intention of the Act. After consultation we are going to develop this education policy into something fine and not into something ugly, and hon. members should not be so suspicious. How are we going to develop it? Simply through constant consultations. The hon. members must not accuse me of being discourteous if I refuse to reply to all these details they now want to know and about what the Minister is doing here or there. I shall not do so because I cannot compromise my consultative bodies.

I have considered the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. I am sorry I cannot accept it, as it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

I must say it is surprising to hear the hon. the Minister give a warning to the Committee that we could go on for weeks and that he cannot answer all the questions that we are putting here.

That is not what I said.

He said he was prepared to go on for weeks, but he is not prepared to compromise the various Committees he is setting up. He puts his hands up in the air. This should perhaps indicate to the hon. the Minister that he should abandon the proceedings here and let everyone have a jolly good look at this. That is exactly what his trouble is. No one has seen this Bill. He must not be surprised if we ask a lot of questions about it. The first time we saw this Bill was just a little over a week ago. The public has not seen it yet, except the favoured few who have been lucky enough to get copies of the Bill. How on earth does he think we are able to debate a matter like this, with the sort of notice we have had, and this being such an important matter? That is really the point. But the Minister must not tell this Committee that he cannot really answer these questions because he might compromise some body that he is going to set up and consult. Sir, what does this clause do? It gives to this Minister all the powers in the book so far as policy is concerned. All he is obliged to do is to consult with the bodies he has mentioned. He is not bound by their advice. But the Minister must have something in his mind. Surely we are entitled in this Committee to ask the Minister what he has in mind in respect of each and every one of the items and of the guiding principles, of what the hon. member for Kensington calls the ten commandments, which are set out here. If this Minister has nothing in his mind as to what he wants to do, why did he put them in? Why did he use those words? What is wrong with the Christian character of the education of this country? What is wrong with the national character of it? Let him tell us, and if he cannot tell us, why does he want it in this Bill now? We are entitled to know. We are entitled to know it and the Minister owes it to us to tell us.

I will give you my reasons for it. I am not going to solve your problems now. I have consultative bodies to consult.

Sir, the ruling is that the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast is not in order so far as parental choice is concerned, but are there not some parents who are going to get a different sort of choice to the choice given to other parents, quite apart from the fully bilingual people. What about the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who went to a school the medium of instruction of which was German for the first four standards and thereafter English? Does the hon. member for Unhlatuzana consider that he was not educated properly? Will he get up and say so? What happens to people like that whose home language, for example, is German? What happens to immigrants whose home language is German, Italian or Greek? Do parents have a choice in that regard? Is the position that if you are rich enough or if your home language is not English or Afrikaans, then you have a parental right which you do not have if your home language is English or Afrikaans? Is that not the position? Will the hon. the Minister tell us why it is that that position must exist and whether he has anything in mind in respect of those persons who do not fall within the purview of this?

Sir, this goes much further than that. Here we have what could be a direct interference in religion. It is certainly indirect interference to begin with. If I am of a certain denomination and I live in a certain town and I want my child to go to a certain institution which is of my denomination and I wish my child to go there because there is a Chapel there and special religious training is given in that institution, I may be forbidden to send my child there. This interferes with my religious choice, because I must, if I am English-speaking, send my child to an English-speaking institution and he must have his instruction through the medium of English. What happens if the only religious institutions in that area, in fact, give their instruction in Afrikaans? Is this not exactly what can happen here? Will the hon. the Minister tell us how he is going to avoid that situation and if he is going to make exceptions to the rule in the same way that he is going to make exceptions, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, in relation to fee-paying schools, which I am not going to deal with here because that is going to be dealt with in another amendment. Sir, these are the inconsistencies and we want to know from the hon. the Minister what he is going to do. It does not help us or the parent or anyone else for the hon. the Minister to get up and say that he wants these powers, that he wants to be guided in certain matters but that he does not know what he thinks about them until such time as he has consulted a body that he is going to appoint. Sir, it does not make sense. It is not like this hon. Minister not to know what he wants. It is not like the hon. the Minister to come along and say that he insists on certain powers and then to introduce a Bill in the circumstances in which this Bill was introduced, as a matter of urgency and secrecy, unless he knows what he is going to do with those powers. No, the hon. the Minister will have to do better than that. I hope he will get up and give us some indication as to what is in his mind, and what he thinks is going to be in his mind when this Bill has been passed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall speak as slowly as possible to enable the hon. member for Durban (North) to follow me properly. What I said was that I was not prepared at this stage to go into the details of the general policy to be followed in respect of education in schools within the framework of the ten principles contained in this clause, until such time as I have obtained information in that regard. I said it would be unreasonable for me to do so until such time as they have advised me. I did not ask the Education Advisory Council to draw up legislation for me which embodies these ten principles. The Education Advisory Council, after consultation with all the professional people, and after I had consulted the Administrators, decided that these ten main points constituted the framework within which the education policy was to be developed. The hon. member for Durban (North) is a lawyer. [Interjection.] I shall come to the question of the Christian character of education. There is nothing sinister in the words “Christian character”. Sir, an hon. member on this side of the House described this Bill as the Magna Charta of education. [Laughter.] The hon. member may laugh about it, but in a Magna Charta one often finds a summary of one’s confession of faith. In this Bill we are making a confession of faith in respect of education. We believe that education should have a Christian character. Supposing I receive a complaint that some sectional belief is being preached at a certain school or that only Calvinism, for example, is being preached at that school and that there are certain parents who object against it, or that some creed or other which is absolutely foreign to the Christian religion is being preached under the guise of religion, what would be my duty in that case? It would not be my duty to determine whether the complaint was justified or not. It would be my duty to have the complaint investigated and after I had had the matter investigated in order to determine whether it was a justified complaint or not I would ask the Education Advisory Council: “What is your interpretaion of Christian character?” After consulting the Education Advisory Council one would refer the matter to the Administrators and ask them whether they agreed with the advice given by the Education Advisory Council, and one would use the services of any professional body to advise one whether the Christian character was really being preserved in the life of the people if we acted in a certain way. That is why I say that this Bill is a Magna Charta. The principles are set out here and this is neither the time nor the place to decide what is understood by “Christian.” This is neither the time nor the place to ask: “Are the people belonging to my church not going to be penalized; are my ideologies going to triumph?” I went out of my way yesterday to read to you twice what I understand by “Christian”. We will get nowhere by going into the details of the policy now; I feel I dare not do that and I want to ask hon. members who are lawyers and who have enough common sense whether this attitude I am adopting is an unreasonable one? Surely, it is not an unreasonable attitude. I cannot do that and afterwards say to the people who have to advise me that I have placed them before a fait accompli in these discussions; that I have said in advance in this debate that the principle of mother-tongue education will be applied in this or that way; that we shall give the parents the right to exercise a choice in the case of children who are fully bilingual; that we shall act this way in this case and that way in that case, because then this Bill would not have been necessary; then we could have introduced a Bill with only one clause laying down that the Minister has the power to determine the entire policy as he likes.

That is precisely what you want.

I shall commit myself to the advice of my advisory bodies, and I feel very sorry for hon. members of the Opposition if they are suspicious and say that I am not going to take any notice of the advice given to me by my advisers. That is their concern. I feel morally bound first to consult my advisers about the details of anything which has to be worked out within the framework of the ten principles contained in this clause.

The hon. the Minister said that he could have had a one-clause Bill. But what he really means is that this is a one-clause Bill with a lot of padding, because he has taken all the power of a dictator over education into his own hands. All these things the hon. the Minister so blithely says, inter alia that he will voluntarily accept advice and guidance, is pure fluff and the hon. the Minister knows that. It does not mean a thing. He is not obliged to accept the advice of any single body; he is not even obliged to wait for an answer. Consultation as far as the Minister is concerned can mean sending them a letter informing them what he as the Minister intends doing. That means that he has consulted them. So, consultation is meaningless and it is meaningless in terms of the power which the Minister has in this Bill. He is a total dictator of education in terms of the powers in this Bill. Mr. Chairman, I should like to seek your guidance on a point of procedure. I know that the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. that part dealing with mother tongue, has been ruled out of order but I presume that the second part of his amendment, i.e. proposing the deletion of clause 2 (2), is in order?

Order! The second part of the amendment of the hon. member is also out of order.

On a point of order, Sir, the first part of the hon. member’s amendment dealing with mother tongue instruction has been ruled out of order. That was the only aspect that was being discussed by the House. This amendment was to clause 2 (1) (c). It was ruled out of order because the amendment conflicted with the principle of mother tongue education. But, with respect, that part of his amendment proposing the deletion of clause 2 (2) was not in dispute. It was not discussed as a point of order.

Order! The ruling was specifically that both amendments would be treated as one and as such ruled out of order.

But clause 2 (2) has nothing to do with the principles of education. It deals with the powers of the Minister, a matter which I now want to discuss further. In the circumstances I should like to move as an amendment—

Order! That has already been ruled out of order.

I thought it was ruled out of order because it was part of the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. In the circumstances I now move it separately and entirely divorced from the amendment which has been ruled out of order.

Order! This amendment has been ruled out of order because it too is destructive of the principle contained in this clause.

With respect, Sir, sub-section (2) of clause 2 does not deal with principles at all. It deals with the powers of the Minister. Therefore I should like to take a point of order on this issue. Clause 2 deals with regulations and the steps Administrators should take to carry out the policy, the Minister’s powers in respect of regulations and the issuing of directives, the overruling of provincial powers by ministerial edict and the provision of a sanction, a punishment, to be inflicted on any province which goes against the Minister’s will. I submit, with respect, that this is not a principle of this Bill. The principles, we were told, were these ten points, aspects to which the Minister has bound himself. The Minister said that these ten points were the points to which he bound himself.

Those are not the only principles. [Interjections.]

I submit that the deletion of subsection (2) would not be destructive of the principle of the Bill in that the objective of this clause can be carried out through the committee of heads and through existing machinery—in other words, without the existence of sub-clause (2) of this clause. If deleted, it would not destroy the principle of the Bill in that every objective of the Bill could still be carried out through the remaining machinery provided for in the Bill. Therefore, seeing that it is not destructive as far as carrying out the provisions of this Bill is concerned I submit that this committee should be able to delete this subsection.

In terms of subsection (1) of clause 2 “the Minister may … from time to time determine the general policy which is to be pursued in respect of education in schools …” Subsection (2) of clause 2 for its part deals with the carrying out of this policy. For instance—

1. (a) the Administrators shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry into effect the policy so determined by the Minister.

In other words, without subsection (2) the whole Bill falls away and becomes ineffective, totally ineffective. The hon. member is by his amendment seeking to destroy the entire basis of the Bill and not merely the principle contained in that subsection. Accordingly I submit that his amendment should be ruled out of order.

Order! The amendment has already been ruled out or order and, consequently, I ask hon. members to abide by that ruling.

May I now continue with my speech and if you give me permission to continue will you regard it as a continuation of my speech which was interrupted by a point or order or will you regard this as a separate speech?

This will be a separate speech. The hon. member may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by straight away accusing the hon. the Minister of having misled the province of Natal in so far as subsection (2) of clause 2 is concerned, i.e. that subsection which cannot be deleted from the Bill. I submit that this particular subsection appeared in print for the first time in the Bill which is now before the House.

That is quite correct.

So the Minister admits that the Bill which was submitted to the Administrators of the provinces, the Bill to which they were asked to agree, did not include this provision allowing the Minister to make regulations overruling provinces, to issue any directive in respect of any matter whatsoever and to punish any province which fails to carry out his policy. These incredible powers have been inserted in this Bill without reference to the provinces, therefore behind their backs, and yet the Minister has the nerve to tell us that he has had agreement on this Bill, that the Executive Committees of the provinces accepted this Bill. In his Second Reading speech he quoted from letters he alleged he received from Natal to try and indicate that except for two or more, what he called, minor matters Natal accepted this Bill. He said “this Bill” and not “this Bill excluding that portion of it which I slipped in through the back door without reference to the provinces”. He slipped this in quietly in the hope that nobody would notice it. But now suddenly it has become a principle of the Bill. As a matter of fact, you, Mr. Chairman, have just ruled that this is a fundamental principle of the Bill, a principle whose deletion would be fatal to the Bill—in other words, a fundamental principle of this Bill was inserted by the hon. the Minister behind the backs of those people with whom he alleged he had been consulting. I believe that that is an act of bad faith towards those persons with whom he was negotiating and an act which the hon. the Minister cannot justify, an act, furthermore, which destroys the entire basis of his argument that this was, to a large extent, an agreed measure. Here I have the Bill which the hon. the Minister kindly made available to the hon. member for South Coast, and which was given to the Executive on the 26th September. He quoted from a letter from the Administrator of Natal, dated 18th October, referring to this Bill. It said:

This was the letter the Minister quoted, and he went on to say that Natal, except for mother tongue and fee paying and one or two technical matters, accepted the Bill. I tell him that it is not true. It is not true and the Minister knows it is not true, because this was not … [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Durban (Point) entitled to say that the Minister knows that this is not true?

Will the hon. member please withdraw those words, namely that the Minister knows that it is not true.

I withdraw the words that the Minister knows it is not true. I say that the Minister made a statement in this House that the Executive Committee of Natal had accepted provisions which he had never put before them and what the Minister knew was that he had not put those provisions before them—or he ought to have known it. In other words, the Minister knows and he accepts that he knew that he had not put these powers to Natal, these powers which completely destroy the control of every province over its own education. These are powers which completely and totally negate all legislative and administrative control which to-day vests in the provincial councils, a Bill which in fact destroys provincial control of education, because, in terms of clause 2 (2) (c)—

In other words, Sir, by direction—not even by a gazetted regulation, but merely by a ministerial direction, the Minister can overrule or in fact in practice repeal or amend the legislation of any province as well as its regulations. In one single clause he has completely emasculated all control as far as it applies to education in the provinces. This is fundamental to the very concept of the South Africa Act. It is in conflict with the very system of our government. He has removed the power of control of education from Natal through a back door without consultation and then stood up in this House and said that he had agreement for this measure. I submit that he not only has no agreement on this point, but he knows he has no agreement on this matter.

Order! The hon. member is accusing the Minister of something. He should withdraw that.

With respect, Sir, I am stating that the Minister knows he has no agreement on this point with Natal.

The hon. member is in effect telling us that the Minister was telling an untruth on purpose to the House.

I am trying to state a fact.

The hon. member must withdraw the insinuation.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member has made no insinuation or anything of the kind. He has said that the Minister claimed that he had discussed this Bill with the various Provincial Administrations, particularly the Administration and the executive of Natal. He says that it is not so. The Minister knows that he did not discuss it with the Administration of Natal. The Minister himself by interjection said that it was so. He said that he had not discussed this Bill because of the provisons which the hon. member has read out. In my submission the hon. member is entitled to say that the Minister knew, when he made that statement, that these three clauses had been introduced into the Bill after the Bill had been to the Administrators and after the Administrators had commented on it. The Minister was not entitled to say: I have discussed this Bill which is before Parliament with the Administrators and I have their approval for it. He admitted just now by interjection that those three clauses were not in the Bill that he submitted to the Administrators. There is no insinuation, Sir.

I just want to put this point to the hon. member. Did he insinuate that the Minister told the House that he had agreement while he knew that he did not have it?

No, Sir. My statement was that the Minister stated that he had agreement when he knew that he had in fact not even put this to the provinces.

Does the hon. member insinuate by that that the hon. the Minister told an untruth to the House?

Yes, Sir. It was an untruth. I do not say that it was a lie or a deliberate lie. I say it was untrue. The Minister admitted it.

The hon. member may proceed, but I want to hear the Minister on the same subject when the hon. member sits down.

Sir, I will later submit, when we come to another clause, that this is not the only example. There is another change in this Bill of fundamental importance, a change which I submit would be ruled out of order if we tried to amend it, because it would amend a principle, which is different from the Bill which was put before the Administrations. It is an important change. We are now being asked to vote for a clause which contains provisions which have not yet received the support or even the consideration of the so-called educational experts to whom the Minister kept referring as the people who were guiding him. The Minister said that the advice he had been receiving was from the top level of educationists and from the experts in the provinces. If that is so, why did the Minister not get their advice on this matter? Why did he slip this into the Bill without referring it to the people on whose advice he states he has drawn up this Bill? He has not drawn it up on their advice. Here is the advice of the National Education Advisory Board, the original draft, which he calls the layman’s Bill. That is what they advised. That is what they suggested to him. That is what was put to the provinces, not this Bill which is before us in Parliament. This is not the advice he got from his advisory council, nor is it the Bill or the principles which were supported by the provinces—the provinces who are going to suffer under this power. It is the provinces who have to carry out this Bill and who are going to pay for it. It is the provinces on whom a sanction is placed. The Minister, in terms of this clause, can fine an Administrator or a member of the executive committee. He can send a member of the provincial executive committee or the complete executive committee to gaol if they refuse to carry out his directives. He has taken this incredible power, this power not only to direct, but to punish, and made it a fundamental principle of the Bill without any consultation whatsoever. [Time expired.]

First of all I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the accusation that he made an untrue statement

With respect, Sir, you will probably permit me to put the case as I see it. I can see why the hon. member for Durban (Point) is dismayed. I can understand the reason for his dismay. He condemned himself by making that speech, because—and I admit it—there was no question of clause 2 (2) having been referred by me to the Administrators or having been recommended to me. Clause 2 (2) was inserted after the opening of Parliament when the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Durban (Point) were putting the wind up the people of Natal and started making this a political matter. They started stirring up that whole area. That is the sentence the hon. member for Durban (Point) passed on himself. This was his hope: Lay down ten pious principles. We shall fight them tooth and nail, but the Administrators should not be forced to implement them, because then they will remain a dead letter. Then the executive committee will simply say: “We are not going to do that.”

Having consulted virtually every authority about what principles are to be applied and what other things are to be done in order to give effect to these principles—because the function of the rest of the Bill is merely to give effect to them—what objection can any right-minded person raise to a clause being added in which it is being provided that these people, the Administrators, will be obliged to implement these statutory provisions? Is this something which has to be referred back to the people in order to ask them whether they are satisfied with it? Surely, that is an inconceivable position. The rights of these people are not being disregarded simply because they are not being consulted. That is not disregard at all. If a Judge convicts a person, does he ask the accused what punishment he should impose or does he simply mete out punishment? If an Administrator together with his executive committee obeys the law of the land, the Minister may—in terms of the clause—after he has consulted them and done all the other things, determine the general policy within the framework of these ten principles as prescribed in clause 2 (1). Clause 2 (2) (a) reads as follows—

Why should I consult people and tell them to do this or that? After all, I had finished consulting them before I determined what was to be done. It is only being provided now that certain people should take the necessary steps to carry this policy into effect. Paragraph (b) reads as follows—

Why is the hon. member for Durban (Point) so dismayed? Does he know in advance that Natal would not have carried those principles into effect? Does he know in advance that Natal would have sabotaged them? Is he afraid that Natal’s executive committee will be forced by means of this provision to do so? If that is the case, I am doubly delighted that this provision was inserted in January, after all the fuss that was made in Natal, after all the scare-mongering and after all the suspicion that was roused there. I want to tell the hon. member that I am doing this with the full responsibility which has been entrusted to me.

When I had this legislation drafted, it was only after consultation that I inserted this important principle which is absolutely indispensable, absolutely essential: otherwise this entire piece of legislation would have been emasculated as regards these principles in the event of wilful resistance being encountered, something I hope will not happen. One need not be alarmed if there are bodies which are planning to contravene the Act or not to comply with it. Hon. members need not be concerned about that. There is a law which provides that if one commits murder, one is hanged. If one steals, one goes to prison. There is a law which provides that if one is guilty of immorality. one goes to prison. Well, I do not mind those laws, because I do not perpetrate those evils. If the Administrators carry out this policy, they need not be afraid of anything. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) gave the show away; he is afraid, because he knows that Natal did not intend to carry this measure into effect in the event of their being told to do so. I do not consider it necessary, nor do I now consider that it is necessary for me now, to have consulted any person. I have to see to it that my legislation is a practical piece of legislation which can be carried into effect. As regards the principles and all those things, consultation was essential. In that respect I did not lift a finger.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 2 (1) (c). My amendment is based on words which were used by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. My amendment reads as follows—

The whole subsection will then read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to call your attention to the fact that both you and Mr. Speaker have already given a ruling in regard to the whole of clause 2 and its subsections, namely that we should see the national education policy as being bound up with these principles, and that all amendments in respect of this clause amount to nothing but weakening or undermining this principle. That is what the ruling amounts to. If we allowed this sort of thing, we would be debating ad infinitum. [Interjection.] The difference is that the hon. member listens but does not have the brains to understand what I am saying. I am asking, therefore, that we should comply with this ruling, otherwise we shall be getting one amendment after the other and each of them amounts to interference with the principles as embodied in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on subsection 2 (1) (c) as printed in the Bill. I wish to draw attention to a problem which I have, a problem which I think exists in the Cape Province, and that is that, as I read the paragraph (c), mother-tongue education shall be applied inevitably in every province. It must eventually be applied. I think that the Minister can accept that the words, “with gradual equitable adjustment to this principle” means that, in time, every province must conform to mother-tongue education in the schools up to Std. X—I refer to schools under the control of the provinces.

If that is so—and I think this is a correct interpretation of this subsection—then I find some difficulty in following and accepting the laudatory comments which have been made by the Minister about the system which applies to the Cape Province. Because, the system, which he says is a very good one and which has functioned well in the Cape Province …

As you have said.

Yes, it functions very well. If that is so, I can see no reason why we should now face the compulsion of an inevitable change from that system to mother-tongue education. Because, Sir, that is implicit in the clause.

But you have mother-tongue education in the Cape Province.

Yes, but it is not compulsory mother-tongue education. The medium of instruction does not have to be the pupil’s mother tongue. I want to say to the Minister that I find myself in some difficulty in this matter, because on the Minister’s side of the House there sits the Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs, as well as the hon. members for Parow, Paarl, Moorreesburg and Malmesbury, who in 1956, according to the minutes which I have here of the Cape Provincial Council, voted against compulsory mother-tongue education. The Cape Provincial Ordinance provides that up to Std. 8 there is mother-tongue education …

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Brits has raised a point of order on the amendment to which this hon. member is speaking now.

Order! I am considering the question and in the meantime I have allowed the debate to continue.

From Std. 6 to Std. 8, if the child is equally proficient in both languages, the parent chooses, and in Stds. 9 and 10 the parent chooses. It has been a significant factor that not one of the five hon. members of this House whose names I mentioned have participated in this debate. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not have regard to what he said in his own speech, and that is that this move to mother-tongue education will not be enforced upon the Cape Province, it is against the principle and the practice which has worked so well. In terms of the section, I think that will happen. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, I think that latitude is allowed to the hon. the Minister not to interfere with what has worked so well in this province.

Arising out of the point raised by the hon. member for Brits, I just want to say that I have considered the amendment, and to my mind it does not effect a radical change in the principle contained in this subsection, although it is a little vague in certain respects. I shall therefore allow it.

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment, and I do not think that it is very fair of the hon. member for Kensington, who is an old Parliamentarian, to take advantage of words I used in my reply to the Second Reading Debate and to say that they are the exact words of the Minister. Hon. members know that when we speak here we assume that a word to the wise is enough, and I did not refer to a new principle. Then I would have said that I do not agree with (b) and (c), and that this or that was the way I felt it should be adjusted and altered, as the hon. member for Kensington is trying to do now. It is obvious that I am standing by the wording as it is printed here, because here we quite rightly have a different method. This subsection will have a totally different meaning if this amendment is accepted and if these are my words—I myself did not check on this, but I am taking the hon. member for Kensington’s word that this is the case, that I said that we would take the mother tongue, if it is Afrikaans or English, and that the medium of instruction would then be adjusted equitably to the existing practice. But that is totally different in meaning from the wording in this subsection—with gradual equitable adjustment to this principle, namely mother-tongue instruction, of any existing practice at variance therewith. I did not discuss the matter fully at all. I admit that. That is quite wrong. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) is probably one of the most fallible people here and he should rather keep quiet. I want to admit openly that that sentence of mine was incomplete, and if that had been my intention I would have declared myself willing to consider a different wording for this subsection in the Committee Stage. If the hon. member for Kensington moves this amendment on its own feet and if he does not hide behind the fact that I used certain words in my reply to the Second Reading, then I have no fault to find with it. It is for that reason that I am merely stating that I am not prepared to accept this amendment, because that was not what was implied by my words when I replied to the Second Reading.

I want to pass on to what appears on the Order Paper, and that is the amendment in clause 2 (1) (e). This subclause deals with free education in the schools which come under the purview of this Bill. Attention has been drawn at an earlier stage of the debate to the fact that there are a large number of established schools in the various provinces known as fee-paying schools, in which there is a system of voluntary levies which are imposed with the consent of the Administrator on the recommendation of a school committee. There are a number of them, both English- and Afrikaans-medium high schools, where the parents by accepting a voluntary levy are able to contribute to additional facilities and benefits for the schools concerned. It is not in the strict sense a fee, but may be regarded as such in a general colloquial way. But it is used, for instance, to provide additional playing-field facilities and for the maintenance of special equipment, for cinematograph equipment or musical equipment in the school and also to build up, as has been done in a number of schools, an enlarged library. There is one school in East London, the Clarendon Girls’ High School, which by means of a levy of this sort, although it is an English-medium school, was able to build a library of double the normal size and to have an Afrikaans and an English section which houses a very creditable collection of books. I hope that the Minister will accept a proviso to this principle which is enunciated in (e). My amendment is really in two sections on the Order Paper and I therefore move—

I would like to reply to a few points made by hon. members from Natal during this debate. The hon. member for Durban (North) tried to make a point by asking what is wrong with the present Christian character and the national basis of education in the Natal schools. He asked that to-day during the Committee Stage. [Interjection.]

Order!

I would like to point out that this Bill is not an imposition of totally new principles on all educational matters in every province, because in the same way as mother-tongue instruction is at the moment the law in the Transvaal and the Free State, this clause does not impose a new regulation on those provinces. It is merely a consolidation of a general principle, to be applied to all schools. The mere fact that it says in this clause that educational schools shall have a Christian character does not imply that this Government is not satisfied with the Christian character of the schools in Natal at the moment. It is not the imposition of a new principle; it consolidates it.

There is a further aspect I also want to deal with, which was also raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). He asked me to clarify what my position was and stated that I attended a school where German was the medium of instruction in the first four classes. That is quite correct. When I went to school at the age of six years I could not speak a word of English or Afrikaans. I could only speak German and Zulu. In Natal there existed private schools, church schools, with German as the medium of instruction; subsequently those schools were taken over either in part or wholly by the province, and an agreement was made that the medium of instruction in the first few classes could be German, to assist the children to acquire knowledge. That agreement is still binding and it is not affected by this Bill in any way. This Bill does not in any way undermine that agreement. In fact, the particular clause says that the mother tongue, if it is English or Afrikaans, shall be the medium of instruction. It does not apply in cases where the mother tongue is other than English or Afrikaans, nor does it apply in the case where the mother tongue is such that the child is fully bilingual. The Minister has indicated that that will be an arrangement made after consultation with the respective provinces. [Interjections.] What I am querying at this stage is the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton accepting the estimate made by Dr. E. G. Malherbe that approximately 35 per cent of the children are completely bilingual. I deny that. It is considerably less, and I know that because I have done extensive canvassing and visited thousands of people in my constituency during the election. I found very few completely bilingual homes in the sense that both languages were regularly spoken. [Interjection.]

I would like to come back to my own position. In Natal there are certain schools, like the one I attended, where English becomes the medium of instruction after Std. I, because Wartburg is situated in the southern part of Natal and the first official language which is acquired by those children in their normal contact with the community is English. It is obvious that one cannot make this exception until matric for children who do not speak either official language. At some stage an official language must be introduced as the medium of instruction. That is why in some cases, in schools in the southern part of Natal, where the community speaks mostly English, English becomes the medium of instruction. In other schools where the medium of conversation of the community tends to be Afrikaans, Afrikaans becomes the medium of instruction in those schools. That is in line with the principle that an official language shall be the medium of instruction, and some provision is made for those who are not yet in a position to learn through the medium of an official language. That is an equitable arrangement and there is nothing wrong with it.

Do the children suffer at all?

I do not say that they suffer, but I say they would be better off if they were allowed to study through the medium of their mother-tongue right through. But we accept that in South Africa English and Afrikaans are the official languages, and that is why we also accept that the special arrangement cannot be proceeded with right up to Matric. It is an educationally accepted principle right throughout the world that mother-tongue instruction is the best for any child.

I would also like to deal with one further aspect raised by the hon. member for Point, when he waxed eloquent about the imposition of subclause (2). This subclause has become necessary. The ten subclauses embodying the principles of education had been agreed upon, also by the members of the Executive Committee in Natal, as the hon. member for Point said, except for the compulsory mother-tongue instruction and except for the fee-paying schools and two other technical clauses. After there had been agreement on the basic principles of the Bill and on the basic policy issues, then it became evident, because the hon. member for South Coast intervened and tried to make political capital out of it, that this subsection had to be inserted.

I will go further and say that when the Wilkes Commission in 1946 proposed on the grounds of educational principles, that the law be amended to provide for compulsory mothertongue instruction, the hon. member for South Coast as Administrator thought that for political reasons that recommendation should not be carried out and that there should be parental choice. [Time expired.]

Before I call upon the next speaker, I want to remind hon. members of the provisions of Rule 58, which lays down that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee but only its details. Up till now I have allowed considerable latitude in the discussion of this clause. I do not want a re-hash of the Second Reading debate and I must ask hon. members to observe the provisions of Rule 58.

Sir, I am glad to have this unsolicited evidence from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana as to the excellence and the liberality of the system in Natal which provides for the German children in Natal to have instruction through the medium of their own mother-tongue for the first three or four years, of which he is the shining example, as I am sure everybody will agree. This is a tribute to the system that we have had in Natal. This tribute does not come from me; it comes from an hon. member on that side of the House who contradicted another member on his own side who had said that there were no children in South Africa whose mothertongue was not English or Afrikaans. Here the hon. member for Umhlatuzana comes along and says: “My mother-tongue was neither English nor Afrikaans.” He says his mothertongue was German and Zulu. We did not send him to a Zulu school, Mr. Chairman.

No, I did not say so.

The hon. member’s parents were given parental choice and they chose to send him to a Government school where he would have the right to be educated through the medium of German, and that is quite right. But the hon. member is wrong when he says that there was an agreement. There was no agreement. The hon. member must go into the history of it; there was no agreement.

There was an agreement.

Can the hon. member quote the agreement?

I will speak again.

Can the hon. member give us the date of the agreement?

There is an agreement that a school like Wartburg shall be able to appoint a German-speaking headmaster. Whether it is stated in writing in any constitution or not is immaterial but there is an agreement.

Order!

Sir, there was no such agreement. The Ordinance in Natal is quite clear. By what is called “administrative relaxations” certain provisions are made not only in regard to Wartburg but in regard to other schools where German-speaking children are instructed during the first few years through the medium of German. It is an administrative relaxation. The hon. member has been most dogmatic in certain statements that he has made and he has been wrong. Sir, I want to come to the statement which he made recently and which appeared in the Natal Mercury of last Saturday, the 25th of this month. The hon. member apparently gave an interview here in Cape Town to a reporter representing the Mercury and this is what he is reported to have said—

“Fee-paying schools will not be affected by this Bill”—

Sir, well may the hon. the Minister look puzzled! The Minister shrugs his shoulders and shakes his head from which I gather that he means that he knows nothing about it or that he never gave any such authority. Sir, this is front-page news, so I ask the hon. the Minister categorically. Did he give authority to the hon. member to make this statement?

I will reply to that.

No, I want to know whether the hon. the Minister gave his authority.

The hon. member will explain.

Surely the hon. the Minister knows whether he gave the hon. member authority to make this statement.

I know nothing about the whole matter.

Sir, that cuts the whole thing short. The hon. the Minister says, “I know nothing about the whole thing”. The position is quite clear now. I am not going to pursue this any further. I had quite a lot to say about the man on whom the Minister had sought to place his mantle of authority for the purpose of giving policy decisions to the world, but I shall not pursue it; I am satisfied with the Minister’s announcement. What then are we to make of an hon. member who comes and usurps the authority of the Minister by name to make a statement like that which is completely wrong, which is completely without foundation? Of course this Bill applies to these schools. The hon. member then sets out in this article to name them; he says—

I suppose that is in Bloemfontein; my sons went there—

Mr. Chairman, could anything be completely more wide of the mark, and more dissociated from the truth in every aspect? You see, Sir, except for paragraphs (a) and (e) of clause 2 (1), all the paragraphs of subclause (1) refer to subsidized schools as well as Government schools in the usual sense of the term. If these schools are subsidized schools, if they are schools which receive a grant—and some of them certainly do—then, of course, they come under the provisions of this measure and in any case they come under the provisions of this measure for certain purposes, apart from those which are referred to in those particular paragraphs. I do not know what the hon. member thought he was trying to do and I do not know why he tried to usurp the authority of the Minister. Sir, confusion is worse confounded in Natal now that that front-page news has appeared in the Mercury in big headlines. I have had telegrams from the Executive Committee asking me to try to get clarification. I will give them clarification; I will simply send them a copy of that portion of my speech in which the Minister denies any knowledge of this whole matter. I will send them a telegram to say that the Minister says he knows nothing at all about the whole thing and they can then take that to the Administrator. The Administrator is beginning to wonder too how he is being treated in this matter. Sir, we on this side have made a special plea for the fee-paying schools. May I for the purpose of the record say that in ordinary educational circles, in official circles, a fee-paying school is a Government school where the parents themselves voluntarily choose to pay certain fees.

Not voluntarily.

Sir, if the hon. member will sit in this House for a few years and listen he will learn something. Whether a school receives a subsidy or not, if it is a private school and the parents pay fees, then we call it a private school; church schools, although the parents pay fees, are not called fee-paying schools; they are private schools.

Whether they receive a subsidy or not?

Whether they receive a subsidy or not they are called private schools. Although they may receive a subsidy they are called private schools, the church denominational schools, whether for boys or girls. But where they are Government schools and the parents voluntarily choose to pay fees—because there is no rule to compel them and there are a number of pupils there whose parents do not pay fees—then those are called fee-paying schools in common parlance. So you have the ordinary Government school where everything is free, except to the extent that the pupils may have to pay for pencils or books or whatever the case may be, but that is free education; those are Government schools. Then you have the private schools and the private school may get a subsidy; then you have the fee-paying school which is a Government school where the parents choose to pay a certain amount of money. Sir, we have those fee-paying schools and those are the ones that we are seeking to protect. The hon. member for Algoa made a plea here for the fee-paying school and although he did not define it I understand the position to be that his definition would have been the same as mine and that is that they are Government schools because he named a couple of schools in his own constituency that come under this category.

You sent your sons to Grey?

Yes, I sent my own sons to Grey College in Bloemfontein. [Time expired.]

First of all, I would like to deal with that front-page article which appeared in the Natal Mercury.

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion on this matter. I will allow the hon. member only to give his explanation.

The position is that when I saw that article, I realized that I had been incorrectly reported, although not wilfully. I discussed it with the reporter of the Natal Mercury this morning and he has now sent the correct version to his newspaper. The statement that I made was that this Bill did not abolish the system of fee-paying schools, and that is correct. I had authority to make that statement.

Did the Minister authorize you to make that statement?

In Natal, as the hon. member for South Coast has correctly stated, there are seven fee-paying schools, the Durban Boys’ High School, the Durban Girls’ High, The Glenwood High School in Durban and in Pietermaritzburg the Maritzburg College, the Pietermaritzburg Girls’ High School, and then there are two preparatory schools, the Durban Preparatory High School and the other one in Pietermaritzburg. They are full provincial schools but they are fee-paying. The system under which those schools may require the parents of the children attending the schools to pay fees, is being maintained. As the Minister stated in his reply to the Second Reding Debate on Friday and as I correctly told the Natal Mercury reporter, that system is not being altered in any way.

Who pays for the books at these schools?

The books are now being provided free in terms of an amending Ordinance passed last year. In other words, there is already provision for free education and free school books at these schools. For certain other facilities, however, the parents of the children pay certain fees.

Did the Minister authorize you to make this statement?

I discussed this with the Minister and he concurred with me that the position was that those schools would continue on the present basis, namely, that they would be allowed to charge fees and that there would be no interference with the system of fee-paying schools. Then we have other schools which are classified as Government-aided schools. The hon. member for South Coast referred earlier on to various schools which he said were subsidized schools. He referred to Hilton College, which is classified as a Government-aided school. He also referred to St. Anne’s which is most certainly not classified as a subsidized school, but is a private school in terms of Article 26 of Ordinance 23 of 1942. It is on the same basis as the Hermes Academy and as Michaelhouse, Balgowan …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that if we are to talk about every school and where it lies in the country, we shall never finish. The hon. member is entirely off the point.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief and shall take care not to repeat what I said on subsection (3) during the Second Reading Debate. In the preceding subsections the method of procedure by which the Minister will arrive at a decision is prescribed whereas in subsection (3) provision is made that notice of any decision taken by the Minister in terms of subsection (1) shall be given in such manner as he, i.e. the Minister, may deem fit. I submit that this is a bit vague. He is now going to lay down a policy to be followed in education throughout the country to be applied to all schools falling under this particular Bill. Therefore, I suggest that a more definite and stipulated form of notice should be given of the manner he chooses as being a fit and proper manner. Accordingly I wish to move as an amendment—

I accept this amendment but cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment for a certain proviso to be added at the end of paragraph (e) of subsection (1). an amendment which is printed in the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment of which I have given notice and which stands in my name on the Order Paper, namely—

I move this amendment in order to clarify what the hon. the Minister stated in reply to the Second Reading Debate and, particularly, what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana apparently did not say when he issued a statement to the Press. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, realizing the tremendous public feeling in Natal over this issue … [Interjections.] Whatever that may be he ran away pretty hard from it, Mr. Chairman, in order to issue a statement such as he did. He indicated that the fee-paying schools would not be affected. The hon. the Minister said that those schools could continue to charge for anything other than education. But inherent in their right to charge fees is their right to control the admission of students, included in which is the right of acceptance or rejection of students from outside the school’s area. A tradition has been built up over generations, a tradition where fathers send their sons and their sons their sons for generation after generation to these schools and could claim preferential admission. This is one of the privileges which come with the payment of fees for attendance at those schools. So there has been this right attaching to these schools regarding the admission of students, a right which has tended to contribute towards building up the character and the nature of those schools. Well, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that this Bill would not affect the nature and character of those schools. Of course, we should like to accept that assurance and hence the amendment which I have moved, i.e. that the rights and privileges enjoyed by any school which charges fees shall not be forfeited. By this we want to test the hon. the Minister’s undertaking to the effect that these schools are not going to be otherwise destroyed. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has given us an undertaking and all I am doing now is to ask for that undertaking to be incorporated in the Bill. The Minister said it was his policy to allow these schools to continue to charge, except for education. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana for his part said that these schools would not be affected. All I am doing here is to accept that undertaking given by the hon. member and to ask for it to be incorporated in the Bill so that the hon. member can vote for it. I want him to vote for this amendment because all it does is to incorporate in the Bill what he, i.e. the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, told the people of Natal about the effects of this Bill. If, on the other hand, it is not the intention of this Bill to leave these rights with these schools then the hon. the Minister should say so now. He should then now state that he intends abolishing the right of control which goes with the right to collect fees and admission of students, I should like absolute clarity—either these schools are going to be changed and the right to control admission be removed, or their present privileges are going to remain with them. If these privileges are to remain then we should like to see that incorporated in the Bill so that it could be put beyond any shadow of doubt.

In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I think it was not fair of him, i.e. the Minister, to come back and say that the hon. member for Kensington was not being fair towards him because, as he said, it was easy to make a slip of the tongue. But let me say that this was not a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. the Minister. What the hon. the Minister did was to quote from a draft Bill. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Yeoville by way of interjection wanted to confirm that what he had heard was, in fact, correct. Therefore he asked the Minister to repeat what he said and the Minister repeated it. The Minister read word for word from the draft Bill, the Bill which was placed before the provinces for their consideration. It could therefore not have been a slip of the tongue. I have the draft Bill here and what he read stands in this Bill—exactly as he read it. The Bill I am referring to is the so-called “ledewet”—the draft Bill drawn up by the Educational Advisory Committee, the experts. It, therefore, represents the views of the people who know, the views of people in whom the Minister has complete confidence—the views of his advisory committee, a body in which the Minister believes so much. The words the Minister read out were: “Met bil-like aanpassing by die bestaande praktyk”. That is what the Advisory Committee recommended and that is what the hon. the Minister read out in his reply to the Second Reading Debate. All we are doing now is that we are accepting the point of view of the Minister’s own advisory committee and, therefore, also of the Minister himself and moving it as an amendment for incorporation in this Bill. What stands in the Bill at the moment is not that which the Education Advisory Committee recommended in their original draft Bill. Here it is, the “konsep-wetsontwerp” submitted to the Minister, to the provinces and considered by them—the view of the experts. This is what we want and not the view of the Minister. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington—otherwise he must get up and say that his advisory committee does not know what they are talking about, that he is no longer going to listen to them and that he is going to have his own way and not follow that of the experts.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have now two opportunities for the hon. the Minister to improve this measure. The first one is: By accepting this amendment by the hon. member for Kensington, and secondly, by accepting the amendment I have proposed, which will make it clear that fee-paying schools—I am not talking about private schools; I want to make that quite clear—that is to say Government controlled schools, which charge fees and thereby get privileges concerning admission and zoning, shall continue to have those privileges. I hope the hon. the Minister will take this opportunity to accept those two amendments. Then it will not be necessary to have statements made such as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has made. If the amendments are not to be accepted, then let South Africa see what the true intentions and meaning of this clause is in regard to those matters.

Order! The hon. member has moved the amendment printed on the Order Paper. I have considered this amendment. It is destructive of the principle laid down in the Bill as read a Second Time and I am unable to accept the amendment.

On a point of order, Sir, I did not move that fees be charged. I have moved that the rights and privileges be maintained.

One of the rights and privileges is to charge fees. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing on the Order Paper on page 179 in my name. The amendment reads:

Arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Natal (South Coast), it became apparent from the Minister’s assurance that a backbencher of the governing party has made certain statements which do not have the Minister’s authority. But I want the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to support this amendment, which I believe by conscience he is in duty bound to do in the interests of his people in Natal. I believe that we have it here, in his own words. This is not a report of what he said. It is in inverted commas. It is what he actually said to a reporter.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should keep on pursuing the question of that newspaper interview. We have discussed it over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, I am only seeking clarity from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana as to whether, in fact, this is correct. This is what he said:

The hon. member gave an explanation of the matter. We cannot have a debate on what one member said to a newspaper.

The position is that by virtue of the statement I believe a good deal of uncertainty has been created in the minds of the people in Natal.

The hon. member for South Coast told the House. We know it.

I believe, therefore, Sir, that by accepting this amendment supported by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, this uncertainty will be dispelled, because it will indicate that it is in line with the feelings of the people in Natal in regard to fee-paying schools. Therefore I move my amendment.

The amendment moved by the hon. member suggests that fee-paying schools should continue having fees paid. That is destructive of the principle laid down in the Bill as read a Second Time and I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have the statement of the member for Umhlatuzana that the Minister has told him that this is in fact the position, that this is the law as applied by the legislation. So I fail to see how you can rule it out of order if it is his intention to apply it in this manner.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not in the Chair.

Then I think it is time the Minister gets up and makes the position clear.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Green Point first. His amendment to this clause relates to all schools. In his amendment he only uses the word “schools”, that is to say, Government schools as well as any other type of school—even fee-paying schools—which fall under this definition. This is my reply to him: It is an unnecessary amendment, because making levies upon parents or collecting money from parents is not being prohibited. What is in fact a positive order, is that there should be free education and free books and stationery. This applies exactly to the amendments which the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Berea moved and which are printed in the Order Paper. It is these fee-paying schools—which are full-fledged Government schools—which, by means of the payment of such fees, actually place an embargo on those who may be admitted and those who may not. In other words, people who cannot afford to pay the required fees, are not admitted. But now we say that they may charge their fees for any purpose. However, they may not charge fees in respect of education. They may not charge pupils for the usual, prescribed school books, stationery, and so forth. There is a very definite reason for that: It is a Government school and any taxpayer in the country who wishes to send his child there, may claim for himself the same rights as any other taxpayer who sends his child to any other school. However, if they only want to admit a certain type of child, there is a multitude of teaching aids in respect of which they may charge fees. They may say that they want a fixed fee for such things as audio-visual apparatus, film projectors, wall maps and other teaching aids.

It is up to the parents to decide on these matters. In addition there are sports fees—think of all the different kinds of sport—and they may even go as far as to say that they want a recreation hall built, something the Government does not want to give them. If the parents of a school of that type are prepared to pay for these things, there are no objections. This legislation does not prevent them from doing so. They may build a whole sports stadium and lay out sports fields. But what is the objection? Why should we tell these people that they should pay for their education? I think this principle is totally wrong. If no levies are being made at any Government school, why should these schools be made an exception and be told that they may make their levies as before? Then we say: Just turn over a new page and see that you do it that way. The hon. member for Durban (Point), who returned once again to the amendment the hon. member for Kensington had introduced, repeated that wild allegation arising out of what I had read to the House from the recommendation made by the advisory board. That is quite correct.

The hon. member for Yeoville made that remark when I had the two Acts in my hand and drew that comparison. But the remark in my speech, to which the hon. member is referring now, is a quite different one. Let us concede that. Now the hon. member knows at least that continuous negotiations took place. When we eventually decided on this one, the executive committee and the contact body asked that this point be formulated in such a way that there might be gradual and equitable adjustment to this principle in respect of any existing practice at variance with it. That was at the request of the person who represented the Natal executive committee. It is evident from the documents I gave the hon. member that consultations took place all the time—this is proved by the changes and alterations which can be seen in those documents. It was being rounded off all the time until it could eventually be submitted to this House in this form. What objections can there be to this? This does in fact merely go to show what a fine and good Minister I am in that I continuously consulted other people and did not simply submit to this House a rash measure which I had not considered properly. That is all it proves. That is why I say that even if that board did say that, I do not accept it because this is the correct formulation.

Are they or are they not going to be deprived of the right of admissionwhich goes hand in hand with the payment of fees?

I cannot say whether it will be any strain on free education. That I cannot say. We shall have to see. But the principle of free education, free books and free stationery will have to be accepted by all schools. I cannot start making exceptions. But we shall see, and if it does not interfere with the said right, we shall most certainly be lenient. However, we cannot make the above-mentioned exception and weaken the Bill by doing so.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his reaction to the amendment which I moved. My difficulty concerns the definition of education. The Bill provides now that there shall be free education, and “education” is defined as “instruction and training provided” at our schools. Much of the money collected is for additional instruction and training, and it is for that reason that I think the hon. the Minister will find—and I am sure that his Department will find—that once this Bill as it now reads becomes law, although the Minister says that the parents can collect their money, it must nevertheless be done under some authority. That authority will disappear unless the Minister accepts the proviso in the Bill that school committees can collect moneys on the approval of the Administrator. I want to draw this matter to the Minister’s notice, and I have no doubt that in due course we will have an amendment to this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, there are three points I should like to raise in regard to clause 2. The first point concerns paragraph (j), which provides that “conditions of service and salary scales of teachers shall be uniform”. I assume that what is meant by that is that they are to be uniform in all four provinces. I should like to have had an assurance—and I think the teaching profession would also like to have had one—that this does not mean that higher standards will be lowered, but that lower standards will be raised so that there may be uniformity through the Republic.

They will always be in groups, according to qualifications. That is the intention.

There are persons with identical qualifications in different provinces in the teaching profession whose incomes nevertheless differ.

That is the intention with this uniformity, namely that there should be no such difference.

They would like to have uniformity—the teachers in the Free State, in the Transvaal and in Natal want to be paid on the same basis. I hope that that assurance can be given.

The second point I want to raise is, I think, of a more serious nature. I hope that both theAfrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people in South Africa will realize how the Minister is giving them a slap in the face by this clause, especially by clause 2 (1) (g). The position in future will be that the immigrant parent, he who is not even a South African citizen, will be free to say whether he wants to send his child to an Afrikaans-or an English-medium school.

Order! I am not going to allow hon. members to discuss the principle. I have already ruled that the principle of mother-tongue education cannot be discussed again. It has been discussed sufficiently.

Is this not one of the details which may be discussed in this case?

No. I have given a ruling that that matter may not be discussed further because it is merely a repetition of the Second Reading Debate.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute that, I …

The point has been made.

It is a good point.

It is the only point that has been made all day. If the hon. member wants to make other points, he may continue with his speech; if not, he must resume his seat.

I have quite a number of other points, Mr. Chairman. In terms of clause 2 (1) (a) the education provided at schools should have a Christian character. That was accepted during the Second Reading Debate and we may not criticize the way it was worded. But what I should like to bring to the notice of this House, and I think this is the only time for doing so, is that the Minister’s interpretation of those words is totally foreign to the interpretation we should have expected. If one analyses the term “Christian character”, it probably means the universally-accepted norm, namely that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself and that one should honour one’s Creator. But the Minister gave what was to me an amazing interpretation to that. I am quoting what he said as it appears in Hansard—

Subsequently the Minister defined “traditional Western culture” as follows—

This statement should be explained further to the country. According to the hon. the Minister we must go back to Jan van Riebeeck. The Western culture on which we must model ourselves, is the one which was planted here by Jan van Riebeeck and which was subsequently built on in South Africa. Other foreign influences which came after Jan van Riebeeck will, according to the Minister’s statement, be evils if they are not adapted to the basic principles of the Western culture which Jan van Riebeeck had brought here. Mr. Chairman, after Jan van Riebeeck the Huguenots came here and later we had the British Settlers with their denominations and their ideas on education. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the German community came here. The Jewish community came to South Africa. At present large immigrant communities are coming to this country. Is that building on Jan van Riebeeck’s culture of 1652, or is it not? According to the Minister that will not be the case. I say that we cannot go back 300 years to Jan van Riebeeck and only build on him. That definition which the Minister gives of these words in his own Bill, is by far and away too narrow a definition. In 1652 the world and science had not yet heard of Isaac Newton, of Charles Darwin; in philosophy they had not yet heard of Emmanuel Kant; in physics they had not yet heard of Einstein or Max Planck or Niels Bohr. They had not yet heard of an atom. In the medical profession they had not yet heard of Lister or Jenner. It was not as a result of building on what Jan van Riebeeck had planted here that we were able to avail ourselves of the talents of these people. These things became available to us as part of the great things and the major advances which had their origins in Western culture and Western civilization and which came to our country from the rest of the world and which was also accepted here. This sounds very obvious, not so? But in spite of this the hon. the Minister says that the traditional Western culture “is not the present one in its decadent and watered-down form, but as we knew it when Jan van Riebeeck arrived here more than 300 years ago as the first bearer of civilization”. The Western culture which Harry the Hottentot saw for the first time here at the foot of Table Mountain is now to form the basis of our future education policy. Sir, I think the hon. the Minister should give us a more detailed explanation of these words of his, otherwise we are entitled to …

Order! The hon. member is now discussing a matter which he should raise at the Second or Third Reading but not here.

This matter was raised by the Minister in his reply.

The Third Reading has still to be taken.

I hope that you will then be in the Chair, Sir. I shall content myself by saying that there are meanings behind some of the words in this clause which fill me with anxiety and which will also fill the ordinary parent in South Africa with anxiety, because the words in this clause do not have the meaning the man in the street will attach to them.

Earlier in the debate the Minister said that this was a framework consisting of the ten points mentioned here. I am astonished at a remark made by the Minister, who is so fluently bilingual, when he said that we did not know how many people there were in this country who were so bilingual that their children did not know what their home language was. I say that there are many.

Order! I have given a ruling that this matter as to what language is the home language, may not be discussed any further. Is the hon. member again discussing it?

I am talking about a category of people for whom provision is not being made within this framework. It does not fall under paragraph (c).

Order! The question of language medium may not be discussed any further. I have already given my ruling, and if the hon. member wants to talk about that, he must resume his seat.

I want to talk about the way it is being applied.

Once the Act has come into operation, the hon. member may discuss that under the Minister’s Vote.

May I not discuss a statement made by the Minister earlier on when he said that he did not want to discuss that detail?

Order! The hon. member is discussing the principle now.

I have been in this House only a short while, but I was amazed this afternoon to hear from the hon. the Minister that he is not prepared to answer any questions on this Bill.

Oh, nonsense! That is not true. I am prepared to answer questions.

I am very glad to hear that assurance, because I have some questionsIwant to put to the Minister. Sir, you ruled me out of order under clause I when I raised the question of school boards and whether these school boards as provided for in clause2(1) (a) would be appointed in areas in which private schools exist and in areas in which subsidized schools exist, and would they have power to control those schools. I raised this point and you, Sir, suggested that I should raise it under this clause. I am very glad to have had the Minister’s assurance that he will answer our questions. I sincerely hope he will. I want to quote the headmaster of one of the subsidized schools in Natal, who says—

Order! Where does the hon. member see anything about private schools in this Bill?

I am asking for clarification.

Private schools are not included in this Bill.

No, but the school boards will have power …

Where does the hon. member see that in the Bill?

On a point of order, Sir, the definition of a school includes any school, whether it is run or controlled by the Government or not, as long as it receives a subsidy, and in most cases private schools receive subsidies.

Order! The Minister has explained that he does not consider that to be a private school. But let us hear the Minister on the point.

I want to explain that the private schools which do not come under this Act, are schools which do not receive subsidies. But any school, a private school or a Government school, which receives a subsidy or is entirely subsidized by the Government, comes under this Act.

While I am talking, allow me to reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He asked me a question. If I consider it to be practicable or desirable to appoint school boards or school committees, I shall consult the bodies in question which are concerned in the matter. Seeing that I have accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, I shall announce in the Government Gazette what decision was taken after consultation. You have granted me these powers in the Second Reading to the effect that I may do certain things whether or not hon. members like them. But the hon. member cannot ask me now what I am going to do or what I am not going to do. I can only say one thing. I am not going to do anything on my own, because I do not consider myself to be competent to do so. I do not think any Minister can consider himself to be competent to determine this personally. Otherwise we would have formulated this differently. I have these bodies which I have to consult, and I shall do so when necessary.

I thank the Minister for what he has said, but he has not really answered the question, which is this:—These school boards, will they have jurisdiction over subsidized schools? That is the point, but I will leave it now and perhaps the Minister can answer later. I want to pass on to my next point.

Clause 2 (1) (f) says that education shall be provided in accordance with the ability and the aptitude and the interest shown by the pupil and the needs of the country. I wonder whether we can get greater clarity from the Minister on these words, “and the needs of the country”. What needs will be taken into consideration? Who will decide the needs of the country? Is this a question of technical versus academic education? Is this going to be applied to channel more students into the O stream or more students into the A stream, depending on the requirements of the country? Whether we need technical or academic personnel in the country? It is said to-day by immigrants, particularly in the engineering sphere, that wherever they go throughout the country they find that 80 per cent of our technical people are immigrants and that 95 per cent of the shops are under the control of an immigrant. Is this a get-out clause for the hon. the Minister to use to channel a greater majority of our children into technical education?

What the hon. member has just said reveals a total lack of knowledge of what really happens. Imagine it, that I should have to force people into a certain field! It is provided here that education shall be provided in accordance with the ability and aptitude of and interest shown, by the pupil, and the needs of the country. The interests of the country will therefore receive due consideration. There are many new courses, for example, which are to be introduced for technical education. Last year the Opposition complained about the short-sightedness of this Government; we were supposedly so inept that we could not plan ahead in order to meet the manpower requirements of the country. We have always taken into account the interests of the country to the best of our ability, and we shall continue to do so. There is nothing sinister behind this; we are not forcing the people in straitjackets. I do not know the vocation of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, nor do I know how far he studied, but it is quite clear that he knows very little about education. I just want to tell the hon. member this: The subject he has raised here is one that should be left to the professional people. The pupil’s aptitude must be ascertained; it must be ascertained whether he has skill of hand or whether he will be better suited to the academic field, because one wants to ensure that square pegs are not driven into round holes. We are going to provide all the necessary facilities to train each one in such a way that he will derive the greatest benefit from his training. It is in the interest of the country to plan ahead and to introduce the required courses in order to meet the country’s needs.

I wish to refer to the first point made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I think he made a very important point indeed. When I moved my amendment to clause 1 in regard to the classification of private schools, I was very anxious to avoid the dilemma in which the hon. the Minister must now find himself, a dilemma which has been referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. We could have decided that there were to be two classes of schools, the first class being Government schools, maintained, managed and controlled by a Government Department and the other class being the private school, but the hon. the Minister has seen fit to insist that a subsidized private school would come within the same net as the Government school. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) wants to know whether these schools will be controlled by school boards. We know that in the Transvaal a school board controls the schools in its area, and here we are going to have private schools controlled by school boards. Will the school board be called upon to recommend the appointment of teachers and headmasters, or will the school have a school committee making recommendations to the school board?

Those are examples which have been mentioned for giving parents a say in matters. The hon. member should just read the entire subsection.

No, as soon as you put subsidized private schools in the same net as Government schools, then they will be subject to the same control. The only difference is that under clause 2 (1) (a) they will not have their religious instruction inspected.

Why not lay stress on parent-teachers’ associations?

A parent-teachers’ association is a different kind of organization from a school board; a school board is a statutory body.

We are just giving examples now of how parents can take part in school activities.

A parent-teachers’ association is not a statutory body; it has no powers as a school board has in the Transvaal. We have a number of parent-teachers’ associations in the Transvaal. They are not statutory bodies; they cannot make recommendations to the Department of Education. I think the hon. the Minister will have to reconsider the definition when he takes this Bill to the Other Place. I think my hon. friend made an excellent point here. I did not see it at the beginning but I am beginning to realize the possibilities of it now. It is a very dangerous situation in which these private schools will find themselves.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has been chasing up a hare now and the hon. member for Kensington is in hot pursuit of that same hare. There is no reason to chase up hares in this connection. The accent of this specific principle centresaround the idea that the parents will participate in education as such. This paragraph is very clear; I just want to read it out to hon. members again—

The word “or” presupposes that it can be any one or more of these organizations or bodies, or that it can also be done in any other way. Just a few examples are mentioned here. The word “or” is used here, and not “and”. But I want to go further. Hon. members of the Opposition must read this paragraph in conjunction with the preamble to this specific clause. The preamble reads—

In other words, it is very clear that the Minister is not going to come along to-morrow morning and determine that from next week there is going to be a school council for private schools in Natal which receive subsidies. Hon. members of the Opposition are completely wide of the mark. The Minister can from time to time determine the general policy. I want to state very clearly that the concept of “school councils” could not be omitted from this clause because in certain provinces there are existing school councils. If this clause did not mention school councils, then it would have meant that this Bill did not make provision for existing bodies in certain provinces, and those bodies would, therefore, have been unlawful since this clause would not then have made provision for them. Surely that is very clear. There are parent-teachers’ associations in certain provinces. In other provinces there are school boards; in still other provinces there are school committees and advisory councils. The Bill must make provision for all the existing bodies. The word “school boards” could not be omitted because that would then have meant that there would in certain provinces have been statutory bodies which would then have been unlawful there and which would have had to fall away because the Bill did not make provision for them. That is why these names are being mentioned, and now hon. members of the Opposition have suddenly taken fright and adopted the attitude that the Minister is next week going to exert domination from above like a dictator and say that he is now going to place the private schools in Natal under the jurisdiction of a school board and that he is going to force them to do what he wants and appoint people himself, etc. Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. members of the Opposition would be a little less suspicious and take the reasonableness of the hon. the Minister and the Government a little more into consideration. There is no reason for suspicion. It is being stated very clearly here; the clause provides that the Minister may. from time to time, determine the general policy. The Minister stated very specifically that an education policy would not be stipulated, but that it would be developed. The Minister must have a framework within which he can develop the education policy, and the participation of the parents in educational activities must also in some way or another be included in this process. There are various ways of doing this. In certain provinces it assumes one form and in other provinces it assumes another, and one has, therefore, to make provision in the Bill for all the existing forms. Suppose Natal were to say that it had no interest in a school board and that it never wanted one. In any case, it cannot say so at the moment because it does not know how its own people will feel in ten to fifteen years’ time in regard to this matter, neither does the hon. Minister know how they are going to feel in 15 years’ time. Nobody knows that, and that is why one must state the matter as broadly as possible so that one may, within this framework and as the matter develops and progresses, determine and develop the policy from time to time so that one may ultimately reach the ideal state of affairs in South Africa. I think the hon. members of the Opposition have the wrong end of the stick when they suddenly come along and chase up this hare in regard to school boards as if it could to-morrow be forced upon any province whatsoever. The hon. member for Kensington, who has experience of school boards, will know that the Minister will not be able to force anything like this upon people immediately. As time passes, attention will have to be given to this matter if there are any requests in this connection and if any progress is made in this direction.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the hon. member for Randfontein is quite wrong when he says that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has chased up a hare. What he has done is to point out what is in this Bill. It is no good saying that we must not be suspicious about the Bill. The hon. member for Randfontein suggests that we must not be suspicious about this Bill. I think that we have every reason to be suspicious about this Bill, having regard to the way in which it was introduced, and having regard to our earlier experience of the last advisory council that the hon. the Minister appointed for himself. When the hon. member for Randfontein talks about this he must not say, “This is what could be done”. We know what could be done but we must look at the Bill. If he looks at the Bill he will find that private schools fall within the ambit of every single principle in clause 2 save paragraphs (a) and (e), that is in regard to religion and free education. If that is the case, then what is the position as far as the school boards are concerned. The position is that the Minister “shall determine”. It is no use saying that Natal can say that they do not want this or they do not want that. That does not help. If the Minister does not like it, then he will not do it. We have said in Natal before that we do not like this Bill anyway. We said that we wanted all sorts of things in education but we did not get them. This Bill has been introduced so that we in Natal shall not get them. The hon. the Minister has provided in this same Bill, and I want to remind that hon. member when he says that we must not talk about there being a dictator …

Order! I think the hon. members are making a lot of generalizations, which they may be able to do in a Second Reading debate, but not in Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of paragraph (h) the Minister may in relation to private schools do this. Does he or does he not deny this? He has the power here to do so. He takes the power to do so. If he takes the power to do so we are entitled to ask him what he intends to do with it.

I have replied to that already.

What the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Randfontein forget is this. He says we must not talk about the Minister having dictatorial powers but that is just what he has here. If a province, having got through the net of consultation with the Minister, passes an ordinance saying that there shall be some kind of body, but not the kind that the hon. the Minister wants, then what happens. The hon. the Minister then passes a regulation in terms of this Bill and the whole of that ordinance is then overridden. Why does he have these powers? It is all very well for him to say that he has answered this. I want to ask him whether he will respect what the provinces want in this regard. I shall tell you what his answer is: “I cannot tell you now. I am not going to answer that. I am taking the power to override everything that every province does once it has even got through the net that I have set up for it here.” This is not satisfactory at all. That is precisely why the hon. member for Kensington moved his amendment to clause 2 (1). If I may say so, because he wants to get them into his net is precisely why the hon. the Minister would not have been prepared to accept the amendment in any event, even if it had been in order which it was not.

I am sure that the hon. member for Randfontein will concede what the hon. the Minister will also concede, namely, that he wants conformity. If the hon. the Minister could have done so, he would have brought every school within the purview of every single provision and principle contained in the clause now before us. He would have because that is what he wants. That is what he has always wanted. I have no doubt that he still regards these private schools as being something un-South African. The hon. member for Randfontein said that there would develop here two completely different South Africanisms, namely, the one of the private school and the one of the provincial school. The hon. member for Randfontein must I think look at the Bill and say to himself that if this is a hare, he must indeed try to catch the hare. If he can catch this hare he must tell us why if this is not going to happen, the Bill does not make provision for it. To put it differently, why if this is not going to happen does the Minister take the powers to do it? That is what it says and we are entitled to be suspicious. We do not like it and we do not trust the hon. the Minister’s motives in regard to education if our past experience as far as this kind of national education is concerned is anything to go by.

Mr. Chairman, there have been some complaints from the Government side regarding the questions we have levelled at the Minister in connection with this clause. I want to submit to the Minister that the reason why we are having a searching examination is that we have had little time to study this Bill. This is the key clause to the whole Bill as it deals with the national education policy. At the moment we are particularly concerned with clause 2 (1) (h), which deals with school boards in so far as it may affect what is known as the private schools. By private schools I mean those private schools which are subsidized. I know that private schools which are not subsidized fall beyond the scope of the Bill and I will not discuss them. I am concerned with those private schools which are subsidized. In the main most of those private schools are controlled by various church bodies under the church constitution. Those church organizations are nervous as to their future as they may be affected by this Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention in terms of the powers given him by this clause to interfere in any way with the governing bodies of those private schools.

I have already told you what my intentions are in connection with all ten of these principles.

The Minister has told us that he intends to consult. We want to know whether it is the Minister’s intention to insist on having members of his own department or members of another Government department sitting on these school boards. That is what we are concerned about. It is all very well for the Minister to show impatience but it is only here that we can get the answer. It is only here where we are having the discussions, there is no other place where we can get the answer. We must have the answer before we pass this Bill. It is no good the Minister showing irritation. He has not answered the question as to whether he is going to insist on his own representatives or persons delegated by his department or the Advisory Council to sit on these boards. These school boards have asked a specific question and so far we have not had an answer.

Of course you have had an answer.

The Minister may protest as much as he likes but we have not had an answer. He has given us general assurances that they have nothing to worry about. He has made general statements but he has not given a specific statement. So far the Minister has given general replies. He has not given the assurance that he will not have his own representatives on these boards. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to have his own representatives, either directly or indirectly, on these school boards. If he says that he cannot go beyond that point, then these school boards will continue to be suspicious as to the Government’s eventual intentions.

I just want to warn hon. members. Hon. members are simply repeating what has been said and asked over and over in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell hon. members that I think they are being quite unreasonable now in their attack on the Minister. They are now asking him for details in regard to these school boards and they want to know, in the minutest detail, precisely how it is going to work. I think that is extremely unreasonable. The Minister made it as clear as daylight to them that he is not determining what is going to happen. That is to be determined after consultation with certain bodies—the Administrators, the Education Advisory Council and others. He cannot say now how it will ultimately appear in detail in its final form, or whether it will ever be there. He simply cannot do that. He does not have the power to say so because he does not know what advice he is going to get and how the matter is going to develop. To harp continually on the same theme now and continue with the same argument, that is something I find very foolish. The Minister stated that he would suggest in general what was intended. He had then to hold consultations, and after consultations certain things would develop, if something in a certain direction was necessary. It depends on the advice he will receive. It depends upon the attitude people will take. It is a discussion and a development of ideas. It is not a mere stipulation.

There is a second argument. Hon. members have argued that State officials, police, and I do not know who the deuce else, will be appointed. This entire point falls under the heading “that the parent community shall be given a place in the education system”. That is where the accent falls.

Order! The hon. member has returned to the principles and is indulging in repetition. I cannot allow it any more.

Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to put this point.

Yes. but it has been put over and over again.

Sir, I am dealing here with people who cannot and will not understand, that is why I have to put it again. I am used to teaching people who do not quite understand what is going on. I just want to give them a little lesson. They do not understand it. The Minister cannot compromise himself in regard to the details of each one of these principles now. He will ultimately be able to do so. as the matter develops. In conclusion I want to say that the safeguard is there, but when the Minister’s vote is discussed each year, they can launch attacks on each one of these points. He will have to defend himself and justify what he has done. That gives them the fullest right to discuss everything. Why must they anticipate things now and say what must be done in regard to this matter?

Mr. Chairman …

Order! How many times has the hon. member spoken on this Clause?

Once. I was interrupted on a point of order, Sir. I then completed my speech.

I think it is three times, including that interruption on a point of order.

No. Sir. I spoke once on clause 1 and then I spoke on this clause but I was interrupted on a point of order.

If I count clause 1 as well, then the hon. member has spoken about four or five times. I am referring to this clause.

Sir, if he spoke four or five times, he must have been out of order.

I said including clause 1. We are not discussing clause 1 now. The hon. member must listen before he interrupts me. The hon. member may continue, but I think he has already had three turns. I am not quite sure.

Sir, I shall be very brief. I think the hon. the Minister need not worry about wasting too much time here, but I think there is a point that must be cleared up. The hon. member for Randfontein mentioned that this was not something that the hon. the Minister would decide on his own. I am speaking about the question as to whether or not a school board will be appointed for a particular area. This is to be something which will be done in consultation with the Administrators and the Council. I submit that this consultation with the Administrators is worthless in the light of the provisions of subsection (2), in regard to which. Sir, you unfortunately ruled our amendment out of order. What is the good of consultation with the Administrators if the Minister stands behind them with a big stick saying: “You listen, or else …”

Order! The hon. member is now discussing things which have been raised over and over again.

Yes. Sir, but that brings me back to the question of the appointment of school boards. We should like from the hon. the Minister …

We have been back to that question too often. I think the hon. member must resume his seat. We all know about this question.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters I should like to touch upon. I think you will agree with me when I say that they have not yet been raised in this debate on this particular clause. The first is in connection with Clause 2 (1) (e) in which mention is made of free education including books and stationery. I am in the position, and I think many other hon. members are in the same position, that we as members of Parliament are actually migratory labourers. Our children have had experience of schools where the books are free and also of schools where the parents must pay for those books. I should like to bring it to the Minister’s attention that where mention is made of free education, books and stationery, it is certainly not in many cases in the northern province, from where I hail, a lavish present if one considers the quality of the books.

Order! The hon. member is discussing trivialities now.

Mr. Chairman …

No, the hon. member is just looking for something to say.

No, Sir, I am discussing the details.

To talk about the quality of things which are distributed at schools under the present dispensation, is not at all relevant.

What I want is precisely that the quality of those books should in future be good.

That point the hon. member can raise when the hon. the Minister has the say in the matter. At the moment the Provinces are doing that.

Then I come to paragraph (c) of subsection (1). I do not want to discuss the principle now, but I want to know precisely what the position of the agriculture schools is. I think I am entitled to ask that because I received a reply from the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services in this regard. I want to read out the reply. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will consult with his colleague in this connection. It is a reply to a question which I put on Tuesday, 4th October, 1966. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services furnished me with a reply in regard to the language medium at agricultural schools. He said—

Order! Can the hon. member tell me where agricultural schools are mentioned and where it is said that they fall under this Bill?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether agricultural schools do in fact fall under this Bill.

If the hon. member read the Bill he would see that they do not fall under it.

They could be indirectly subsidized, Sir. May I ask the hon. Minister this: Do agricultural schools fall under this Bill in any way?

There are agricultural schools which are controlled by the Provinces and which automatically fall under them. There are other agricultural institutions which fall under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and which are not at all relevant here.

Then I am entitled to ask the Minister what the medium is in the case of those agricultural schools which receive money from the Provinces, and whether they will also come under this restriction.

If they are subsidized, they fall under this.

I am glad that I have received that assurance from the hon. the Minister. I now have a few remarks to make in regard to subsection (3) of clause 2 which reads as follows—

An amendment was moved to that clause which the Minister accepted. The hon. member should be in the House when a measure is discussed if he subsequently wants to say something about it.

With respect. Sir, you still do not know what I wanted to say about it.

The Minister said that he accepted it.

I was not referring to the amendment. I was referring to another matter in connection with it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a question in connection with clause 2 (1) (f). This paragraph provides that education in all those schools as defined, which includes subsidized schools, “shall be provided in accordance with the ability and aptitude of and interest shown by the pupil”. Then the phrase “and the needs of the country” is inserted.

I have replied to that fully. I cannot help it if hon. members leave the Chamber. I replied to that point a few minutes ago.

Mr. Chairman, I should respectfully like to point out to you that when I wanted to discuss subsection (3), I did not want to refer to the hon. member for Green Point’s amendment. I know about the amendment, which provides that certain matters be published in the Government Gazette. I am glad that the amendment was accepted. However, what I am concerned about is that mention is made of “any steps”. I should like all steps taken by the hon. the Minister to be published in the Government Gazette. I shall let this sentence suffice. I just wanted to indicate to you that that is the point which I wanted to raise, and not the other point in regard to the amendment.

I think that is precisely what the hon. member’s amendment means.

Question put: That all he words after “instruction” in line 23 to the end of paragraph (c) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—53: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout,G.P. C.: Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; du Plessis,H.H. H.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, S. F.; le Roux, F. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.: Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swieger, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; van den Berg. G. P.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.: van Staden, J. W.; Venter. M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

NOES—27: Basson, J. A. L.; Fisher, E. L.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. I.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W.V.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, I. O. N.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber,W.T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore dropped.

First amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and the Committee divided:

AYES—27: Basson, J. A. L.; Fisher, E. L.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell,M.L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—54: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout,G.P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Du Plessis,H.R. H.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.;oux, F. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le R, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Sadie,N.C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I think that this is probably the most remarkable clause that any self-respecting House or Parliament has been asked to pass. If this clause means anything, and one must assume that it does mean something, otherwise it would not be here, then one must assume that, despite the ruling of Mr. Speaker to the effect that section 114 of the Constitution means nothing here, this nevertheless does mean something. Clause 3 (1) gives the Minister certain powers. The hon. the Minister is not a member of this House, and one wonders whether hon. members of this House are going to support him where he purports, in terms of this Bill, to bind the hands of members of Parliament so far as the introduction of legislation in this House is concerned, and whereby he further purports to bind the arms of this House as to how it shall and shall not conduct its business. Surely the hon. gentlemen who sit on that side of the House, when they are clothed with the armour of members of Parliament, members of this House, members of this noble institution of Parliament, they have a different outlook on life compared to what they have as ordinary Nationalist politicians.

The Minister who brings this Bill here proposes that no legislation may be introduced into this House unless there has first been consultation with him. The Minister of Education, Arts and Science is a member of the Other Place. Is it not the prerogative of this House to determine its own affairs? Do we not jealously guard that right? Is that not the effect of Mr. Speaker’s ruling on section 114 of the Constitution at the beginning of this debate? Are these hon. gentlemen going to become the poltroons in the cause of Nationalism? Who is going to …

Order! Is the hon. member not now making a second reading speech?

No, Sir, I am dealing with the effects of this Bill.

The hon. member must now confine himself to the details of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if any of those hon. gentlemen ever ask themselves, when they talk about democracy and about a parliamentary democracy, what it means.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

With great respect, Sir, that is precisely what is under discussion here.

Order! Only the details of this clause may be discussed, and not the principle involved.

I am talking about the effects of this clause. If this clause is passed, we are saying that we irrevocably bind ourselves, we bind this House, to the extent that we may not discuss a matter of education unless the Minister of Education has first been consulted and has given us permission to do so.

That is not so.

Of course that is what it means. It means that nobody may introduce a Bill into this House unless the Minister’s permission is first had and obtained. Really, Sir, I know that we have had to defend an awful lot in this country on this side of the House, an awful lot of things that matter in the field of constitutional law, but surely, Sir, we can on this occasion rely on those hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side to protect the powers and privileges of this House. Not even the hon. the Prime Minister can introduce legislation like this, without first consulting with the Minister of Education. Mr. Chairman, this brings us to an all-time low as far as our own self-respect as members of this House is concerned. We hope that the hon. the Minister will withdraw it. He can, if he likes, confine this clause to members in the Other Place, but surely we will not allow him to do this to us! Not only the powers of this House, not only the powers of Parliament, but the legislative powers of the provinces too are in effect destroyed by this. Even minor proposals cannot be introduced without consulting the Minister. Even then, even if the Minister is consulted and he consults with his bodies and the ordinance is then passed, even then the Minister can in any event override it by way of regulations in terms of the clause which we have just passed. All the provincial councils become empty legislative shells, empty halls, where, if members move or attempt to move educational proposals, one will only hear the clinking of the chains which tie them down in terms of this clause. So it is here, too. I am quite sure—and therefore I feel there is nothing more to be said about this—that no self-respecting member on that side will allow the Minister to get away with this.

No self-respecting member

would talk as you are talking. [Interjections.] When I heard the words “Police State” from you, then I have heard everything.

The hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation is blessed with a lot of things, but a good memory is not one of them. The Minister never heard me talk about a Police State.

Oh, yes, I did.

Oh, no, I did not.

I will show you in Hansard.

You try to do that.

You will try and wriggle out of it.

Order!

The hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just as much blah as this hon. Minister, tried to do the same thing, and he has not found it in Hansard yet.

You will get the Oscar for your performance.

I want to ask the Minister of Sport whether he is quite happy with this clause. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me ask the Minister pertinently, let him get up and say what he thinks …

What I think of you?

… instead of making interjections. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! Will the hon. member please proceed with his argument.

Let the hon. the Minister rise and tell this House whether he is quite happy that this House should have its hands tied when it wants to deal with educational matters, when it wants to introduce legislation, by having a fetter placed on it prohibiting it from doing so unless and until the hon. the Minister of Education has first been consulted. Will the Minister get up, instead of making interjections, and say this? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the ignorance and the subtlety of the hon. member for Durban (North) is almost beyond comprehension. In the very first place I want to state that this clause was taken over just as it was included in Act 86 of 1962. This clause has already been in operation for the past four years. It is a provision which is being implemented by all the Provinces and which is also being implemented by us. It is one of the major building stones with which we began, before we had a national education policy, to see to it that legislation was not introduced—and this is all advisory—by the House of Assembly or the Senate which affected education and which was in conflict with provincial ordinances. The purpose is to see to it that consultations can take place and that ordinances are not introduced which are in conflict with other provinces measures. I can give the hon. member numerous examples where this legislation has had a good effect. In most cases the proposed legislation was sent to the advisory council. They found nothing wrong with it and merely informed me that they had no objection to the legislation. It is not I who took the decisions—I sent the proposed legislation to the council immediately. They informed me that the proposed measure was not in conflict with existinglegislation, that there was no danger that it would in any way do anything wrong as far as education, was concerned and then the legislation went through just as it stood to be dealt with further. I simply cannot understand the hon. member. He now wants to set himself up as an authority because he is a lawyer and thinks he can do anything. He wants to set himself up as an authority in regard to something which has already been in operation for four years.

You are too clever by half.

Yes, that is the real difficulty. The provision has been in operation for four years already, and all that is being done here is to re-enact it since Act 86 is to be repealed. Act 86 of 1962 is being repealed in this legislation. Certain things now have to be re-enacted, and that is one of the provisions which worked very well indeed. Sir, what does this provision have to do with the autonomy of this Parliament if people are consulted in terms of envisaged legislation? The hon. member made an outraged speech here the other day in which he asked why the public had not been consulted about this legislation and why the Bills had not been published. He asked me to do what the hon. the Minister of Justice does and consult people. But now that I do want to consult them, the hon. member is kicking up a fuss! Just imagine! Have you ever seen anything like it in you life before, Mr. Chairman? I must say it is a pitiful state of affairs. It is just being done in order to demonstrate against the Bill, and hon. members are quite willing to make great fools of themselves in this demonstration.

Mr. Chairman, I have not checked on the details of the 1962 Act, but the Minister is quite correct when he says that a section of that Act corresponds to this clause. Why was it included in that Act? What was the reason? It was put to us that while this Advisory Committee was advising the Minister and while they were preparing legislation so that we could have a national education policy, legislation in the provinces and in Parliament should be suspended. So that, in order to suspend legislation during this preparatory period of four years, this section was included. But that period has since passed. We do not need that provision now. We now have the Act of the Central Government. What the hon. member for Durban (North) has said is absolutely correct. We cannot introduce a private Bill here, we have no power to do so in this House without the consent of the Minister. That is what it amounts to.

Not consent—consultation.

What is the difference?

There is a big difference. Surely you know the difference?

Just where is the independence of a member of Parliament? A member of Parliament does not need to consult the Minister before he does anything? He comes here to act as an independent member of Parliament representing his constituency. To say that we must consult the Government of the day, even with regard to a motion, is altogether wrong. [Interjections], Mr. Chairman, what is the great weakness of this Bill as a whole? I will tell you. From the time of Union the problem has been in South Africa to develop a system of local government. What we are doing in this Bill to-day is to destroy the only system of local government we have and we are putting nothing in its place. Therefore, this clause will make it exceedingly difficult for us in the future to develop the system that is being introduced here to-day. We on this side of the House said at the beginning of the debate that this Bill was creating a dictatorship. Where could one have greater proof of that than here? I think the hon. member for Durban (North) has spoken correctly to-day. This clause is the same as the corresponding section in the other Act. We are going to dispose of the old Advisory Committee in terms of this Bill, because at the end of the Bill by clause 9 the old Advisory Committee is not going to exist any more. Neither should this section exist any more after this Bill is passed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a point of order. I want to ask you whether in terms of section 8 of Act No. 86 of 1962 this measure which we are at the moment debating has been properly introduced into this House in view of the fact that there has not been consultation with the Administrators?

Order! The point of order should have been raised when the Speaker was in the Chair. There was ample opportunity to do so, but it was not done. This Bill has been committed to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration and the Committee must now carry out the task entrusted to it by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw to the attention of the Minister the serious practical difficulty which flowed from the provisions of the relevant section in the 1962 Act, a provision which he now proposes to include in this measure. I thought that perhaps the Minister might start making some enquiries from the Administrator of the Cape who found, when dealing with certain legislation introduced into the provincial council, that he was in some difficulty. The Administrator himself, on the advice of his executive committee, desired to amend the legislation, and difficulties were encountered.

I wish to take a point of order, Sir. It is that the National Education Policy Bill, which appears on the Order Paper as Order No. 2 for consideration to-day, is a Bill which it is not competent for this House to proceed with in that it has not been the subject of prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister or Administrator, and that the Minister has not obtained the views of the National Education Advisory Council thereon as required by section 8 of Act 86 of 1962.

If I may deal with the circumstances, Sir, the Bill to which I refer, when introduced into this House, was explained as a measure which had arisen from contact between the provinces, consideration by the National Education Advisory Council, and consultation with the four provincial Administrators in Executive Committee. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill it appeared, through an interjection and questions, that there were in fact two Bills, the Bill before the House and another Bill which had been before the provincial Administrators. So yesterday the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science kindly made available to the hon. member for South Coast not two but in fact four Bills, three drafts and the final Bill, which we to-day have before us for consideration. Arising from a study of the Bill which had been before the Administrators for consideration, it appeared that in clause 2 there were three subclauses introduced which in fact had not been in the Bill before the Administrators. I referred to the question I asked. I quote from the debate on clause 2 in Committee—

In other words, the hon. the Minister stated for the first time yesterday that there were provisions which had not been considered by the Administrators. I have the Minister’s Hansard in which he stated, referring to myself—

The Minister continued to state—

And he continues to say later—

Now, I submit, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister’s statement that he does not consider it necessary to consult on this particular provision and that he had no intention, and in fact had not consulted, is in conflict with the requirements of section 8 of Act No. 86 of 1962, which requires that—

This is a clear provision that any proposed legislation which, with respect, I submit includes this Bill before the House, which constitutes proposed legislation, must firstly be considered in consultation with the Administrators, the Education Advisory Council and any other Minister concerned.

Now it may be argued that that applies to the principles of the Bill, but that minor changes of detail need not necessarily receive prior consultation. I would like to submit, with respect, that the provision to which we take exception, the provision to which objection was lodged, is in fact not a minor administrative detail but has been ruled by the hon. Chairman of this House to be a matter of principle. It is considered by the hon. the Minister as a matter of principle. He stated during the Committee Stage that he regarded it as a matter of principle, and I took, as a point of procedure, the following point with the hon. the Chairman—

Order! The second part of the amendment of the hon. Member is also out of order.

I then took the point of order that this was another matter concerned with the Administration and not with the principle of the Bill I submitted—

Order! The ruling was specifically that both amendments should be treated as one and as such out of order.

I then proceeded to state, after raising the point as to whether this dealt with the principle—

Order! That has already been ruled out of order.

I then took this point of order—

Order! This amendment has been ruled out of order, because it too is destructive of the principle contained in this clause.

I therefore submit, Sir, that not only the hon. the Minister but the hon. the Chairman of this Committee in his wisdom regarded this not as a minor matter of detail, merely affecting the detail of a measure which has been before the Administrators for consultation but in fact a basic principle, a principle the amendment of which would be fatal to the success of this clause. That being so, I submit with respect that this Bill which we are considering has not been before the bodies before whom, by law, it is required to be placed, and that the difference between the Bill which those bodies considered and the Bill before us is so fundamental in that it removes the right of the provincial councils of Natal to legislate by superimposing the right of the Minister, by regulation and directive, to supersede and over-rule any ordinance or any regulation made by any province in the Republic of South Africa. Where there was no such suggested removal of powers in the Bills before the provinces, it removes in fact the legislative powers of the provinces to deal with education, because not only must they consult the Minister but if they should pass legislation, of which the Minister does not approve, the hon. the Minister can by simple regulation or by a mere directive, not even published in the gazette, over-rule the powers and the rights of a provincial council, and that being so it makes of this measure a different measure with very different and much more far-reaching implications than the measure considered by the provinces. It in fact removes from them the power which the Draft Bill which they considered left in their hands, namely the power to carry out the provisions of this Bill whereas the three clauses which we attempted to remove by way of amendment, leave the power with the Administrators but then super-impose the power of the Minister over them, and therefore I submit that it cannot conceivably be accepted that the provincial Administrators, not knowing of this provision, could have given the same consideration, nor would they be likely to have given the same consideration, to the proposals before them had they known of these three sub-clauses. Had they known of these three sub-clauses it would have changed their whole approach to the measure on which they were asked to comment.

Other members, Sir, with your permission, will deal with two points in connection with this matter—one in connection with the Cape Provincial Council where an ordinance was introduced dealing with education and where it was ruled that that Ordinance could not be amended because there had been no prior consultation with the Minister on that amendment. With your permission, Sir, I am going to ask the member who was present at the time, the hon. member for Green Point, to deal with that matter and to indicate that there is a precedent in that section 8 of Act 86 of 1962 has already been established in the context in which I now ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the Bill before us does not comply with that provision and that this House is not competent to proceed with discussion thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to address you on this point of order. The hon. member for Durban (Point) tried, of course, to cloud the issue as much as possible by great prolixity, whereas the position is quite clear in simple language. He argued quite correctly that Act No. 86 of 1962, the Act on the establishment of the National Advisory Education Council, provides that legislation relating to the education of Whites which is introduced in this House, should first be considered by, and that there should be consultation with, the Provincial Administration and also the Advisory Education Council. On that point the hon. member is quite correct. That consultation did in fact take place thoroughly and fully from 1962 to date. One of the main accusations of hon. members of the Opposition was in fact that we were taking so long about the Bill. According to them a Bill was handed to the Minister two years ago, and they wanted to know why the Minister did not come forward with that Bill, why he did not publish that Bill. Hon. members of the Opposition are all aware of the comprehensive negotiation which took place with the provincial administrations and the Advisory Council.

They criticized us because we negotiated for such a long time; we should have introduced the Bill long ago. Therefore the hon. member for Durban (Point) cannot claim now that there was no negotiation, but now he seizes on this one specific point, clause 2 (2), and in particular paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), the deletion of which was proposed by the Opposition, and he alleges that there was no consultation with regard to those paragraphs. Surely it is clear that those are consequential to the principle. The principle which is laid down in clause 2 (2) (a) is merely amplified in (b), (c) and (d). That principle was thoroughly discussed with the provinces and there was cooperation with the provinces, as the hon. the Minister put it. Clause 2 (2) (a) reads—

The hon. the Minister stated clearly that it had been discussed with the provinces, that they had agreed to it and that they had accepted it. In other words, the concept of enforceability of the policy so determined is already contained and fully defined in clause 2 (2) (a), and the provinces considered it and agreed to it. The addition of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), merely to prescribe the method with regard to this enforceability, is in my view consequential and does not affect the principle of consultation as such, and therefore I say that the hon. member makes me think of a man who has a problem for every solution instead of a solution for every problem. The principle was considered and accepted and the points which are objected to, i.e. paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), are purely technical points to give effect to the principle which was in fact considered, with regard to which there was in fact consultation, and which was in fact accepted.

I wish first of all to deal with a question which you, Sir, may perhaps consider to be unnecessary and I would be indebted to you if you would indicate that if you do consider it to be unnecessary so that it is not necessary for me to waste time. The question is whether you consider that this is a point which, if not taken before the Bill is introduced, may not be taken during the course of the debate. My submission is that quite clearly this is a point which can and should be taken at any time when it comes to the notice of this House that the Bill which is before it may be in contravention of some previous law. In fact, I would respectfully submit that it goes further than that …

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his point of order along the lines followed by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I now want to deal with section 8 of Act 86 of 1962. It has already been read out to you, Sir, by the hon. member for Durban (Point), but I would like to stress that the section provides that no proposed legislation shall be introduced into the House except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister or Administrator and after the Minister has obtained the views of the council thereon.

There are in my submission two ways in which this particular clause can be interpreted. One is a very restrictive interpretation to mean that every single provision in the legislation must have been before the Administrator-in-Executive Committee and the Minister must have obtained the views of the National Advisory Council on that entire Bill. If that is your interpretation, then clearly this Bill is improperly before Parliament to-day because it is conceded by the hon. the Minister that certain provisions in this Bill have not been before the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. But, Mr. Speaker, if you rule that this is too narrow an interpretation of the clause, my submission is that even on a more generous interpretation of the clause the present Bill is improperly before Parliament. I say this because if you rule that this does not mean that every bit of the legislation as it has been introduced in Parliament should be placed before the Administrator-in-Executive Committee but merely the main principles, I submit that that must mean not only the principles of the Bill but also the important features of the Bill and the important provisions made in the Bill.

I submit that that must be so because the section does not merely say that the Minister must consult with the Administrator on the legislation. It goes further and says that “the Minister must have obtained the views of the council thereof”. The council referred to there is the National Advisory Council. With respect I say that it would make nonsense of this provision if the interpretation was that the Minister need merely obtain the views of the National Advisory Council on the broad principles of the Bill. The effect of section 8 is that the Minister must obtain—this is my submission—the views of the National Advisory Council, not only on the broad principles of the Bill, but also the important provisions of the Bill. If that is not so, then it becomes completely farcical that there should be any reference at all to the National Advisory Council: in other words, if all that the Minister need do is say to the National Advisory Council, “I am going to introduce a Bill to change the law relating to education” without getting the views of the council on the main provisions.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein must realize that I am addressing you on a point of order. I am not addressing him and he must please contain himself. Mr. Speaker, my second submission to you is that the provision which has been introduced into this Bill which is before the House and which on the Minister’s own admission has not been before either the Administrator-in-Executive Committee or the National Advisory Council, is a provision of considerable importance. Amongst other things you will notice that in subsection (2) (d) it enables the Minister to make regulations in terms of which he can impose penalties on the Administrator-in-Executive Committee for failing to carry out the provisions of the Act. This is surely a very important provision, a provision which I would think is unique in any law dealing with the provincial councils and the Administrators-in-Executive Committee. I may be subject to correction, but I do not believe that any other law passed by Parliament has provided penalties which can be imposed or has empowered the Minister to impose penalties on Administrators-in-Executive Committee if they fail to carry out provisions in a Bill. Quite clearly therefore if one has regard only to subsection (2) (d) this is an important provision. I submit that the other changes in the Bill are also changes of importance. That being so my submission is that in terms of section 8 they ought to have been placed firstly before the Administrators-in-Executive Committee for consultation. That is all that this section requires. It should secondly have been placed before the National Advisory Council. When it comes to the National Advisory Council, the provision is different. They are not merely consulted. The Minister is required to obtain the views of the council on the provisions. When one has regard to the National Advisory Council, the section requires the Minister to go further than he is required to go in respect of the Administrators-in-Executive Committee. He is called upon to get their views. I submit once again that that must mean that he must get their views on the important provisions of the legislation which he is introducing certainly on the principles. In my submission this is an important change in the law which, because it has not been referred to them, and their views obtained. means that this legislation is being introduced contrary to the provisions of section 8.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place it is my submission that the legislation which is now before Parliament is a Bill, according to its long title—

The first submission I wish to make is that this legislation is essentially legislation to provide for the creation of a national education policy. The point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) as to what this matter is really about is in my view quite incorrect, and for the following reason. If an education policy has been determined and the Minister, as I outlined in my arguments yesterday, is convinced on the strength of events which have occurred that this legislation may be frustrated because it is not implemented properly by people whom one expects to do so, then one is justified in including a clause which does not relate to educational matters but to a method to ensure that what the legislature places on the Statute Book is carried out. That is my first point. The second point I want to make is that there was in fact consultation on the important matters. The very first bill, the laylanguage bill drafted by the Education Council, provides in clause 4 (1):

That is the principle that it is the duty of the Administrators to carry out and implement these activities in respect of the policy. That is in the very first document. A second document was drawn up after I had deliberated with the Administrators in August, 1966, on which occasion they were consulted. That was in September, 1966. There it is on page 5, sub-paragraph (2):

That is very strong, and they had been consulted. It was formulated this way at their instance. That was the consultation which took place in September, 1966. Then we came to Parliament. Then the new Bill was drafted in more or less its present form. Then the December hullaballoo was made in Natal. It is on that occasion that it was considered necessary merely to define that principle, which had already been laid down, namely that the Administrators should implement this policy. By an Administrator I mean the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. That is the designation. That was merely amplified. The principles of consultation were in no way violated. They were consulted, as is stated now in paragraph (a) of subsection (2)—

Then follow paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). which I need not repeat, which provide what will happen if they fail to do so. This is where the mischief comes to the fore. If it is left in the hands of educationists, that mischief will not occur. We never imagined that the matter would be exploited for politicizing. If that is necessary, what is the use of placing something on the Statute Book and what is the use of laying down a policy if one knows in advance that for mischief and through a loophole existing in the Act it will not be carried out? Now I submit—I say it only for your guidance—that we are in no way violating this principle of consultation. They were consulted on this point. That is proved by that document. I am very glad that I handed those documents to the hon. members in order that they may see for themselves. That proves that they were consulted, as stated in subsection (2) (a), and that paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) are merely a further amplification of that, if they fail to do so, and lay down the method to be followed. It did not entail a change to any principle. If we were to do what the hon members are asking, we would become a powerless body. I may just draw your attention to section 59 (1) of the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa, which reads as follows—

Now I do not know why the hon. members introduced all their amendments, because then we would not be allowed to accept an amendment here either. If their arguments are correct, then we must pass any legislation before us as it is, and after an amendment has been proposed, and we accepted it, we must first refer it back for consultation. Surely that is quite wrong. That is neither the intention of the Act nor is that written in the Act. I am not a lawyer. but if what those lawyers say is correct, we have made a faulty act. Our advisers do not say that. When we passed the Act in 1962 we did not think so either. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider very kindly what I said here, namely that no principle has been violated.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you in the light of the rulings the Committee received yesterday from the Chairman of Committees. That is that sub-paragraphs 2 (2) (b), (c) and (d) constituted principles of the measure which was before the Committee. That being so, I have no argument and no disagreement with the hon. the Minister when he says that he had consultation with the provinces in regard to paragraph (a). That is correct. There may perhaps have been a variance in wording from the one draft to the other, but there was consultation. As the Chairman ruled yesterday, and as I think was correct, the hon. the Minister in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) introduced two vital new principles into this Bill. The first is that he could intervene in a province and by regulation direct what a provincial administration should do if an Administrator failed to carry out the directives which were received. But more important than this intrusion into the functioning of an elected body of the country was the imposition of penal consequences upon an Administrator-in-council who failed to carry out the directions of the Minister.

I fail to regard that as something, as the Minister has suggested, that was a mere filling in to paragraph (a). The fact that the Administrators should be subjected to these consequences is more than “filling in”. I want to say that it seems very necessary that there should be some guidance in this matter because the section as it stands not only has effect upon this House, but it has effect on the Other Place and it has effect on the four provincial councils. It says what shall be done in those particular legislative bodies. The matter arose crisply before the Cape Provincial Administration in 1963 after the passing of the 1962 Act. It rose crisply when there was an endeavour to amend the Education Ordinance of the Cape Province. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the draft ordinance No. 19 of 1963. This ordinance was brought before the council. It was desired that there should be certain amendments to the administrative aspect of the ordinance as it applied in the Cape Province. What happened? I refer you, Sir, to the minutes of the Cape Provincial Council, volume 14, of 21st May, 1963. I believe that the Administrator on that occasion did the correct thing when the matter was raised with him. Before the Chairman gave a ruling, the Administrator, according to the minutes on page 1810, says:

That was in fact done—it was withdrawn. Then there was proper consultation as directed by section 8, and thereafter the ordinance was reintroduced in the council. That was done in so far as the Cape Province is concerned, and I believe that the Administrator and the executive council of the Cape acted correctly on that occasion. The argument which has been advanced by the Minister and the hon. member for Randfontein is that all this imposition of criminal sanctions upon the first citizens of the Cape, the Transvaal, the Free State and of Natal, is a mere detail. It is not a principle, so they say. It should not be discussed as to whether we in this House …

That has nothing to do with educational matters.

That is an extraordinary interjection from the Minister. He includes in an ordinance dealing with a national education policy something that apparently has nothing to do with education.

Order!

I have made my point, Sir, and I do not wish to proceed further with this argument. I wish to suggest that the procedure which was adopted by the Cape Administrator-in-executive was the correct procedure in so far as consultation was concerned.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker …

Have hon. members themselves not heard enough? I think I have heard enough.

May I address you on one point, Sir?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Is it a point of order on a point of order?

That is quite proper, Sir. The hon. member for Pinelands wishes to address you on a different point of order altogether which was raised …

Order! I will allow two more speakers, one on either side.

Mr. Speaker. I should like to address you on this point of order. I adopt the premise that it is of no importance whether or not this legislation affects the principle. This House is nevertheless entitled to discuss and to accept this legislation. I want to quote your own ruling in this connection. You will recall, Sir, that section 8 of the legislation, which is now formulated anew, i.e. the National Advisory Education Council Act, provides that no proposed legislation relating to the education of white persons shall be introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly or in a provincial council, except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister or Administrator. That is what the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are appealing to now. I maintain that the position is analogous to section 114 of our Constitution Act, which provides that no legislation shall be passed on education except by petition by the provincial council. In consequence of an objection which was raised when that legislation was introduced.namely that there had been no petition by the provincial councils and that the legislation could consequently not be introduced, you gave a ruling on the basis of section 59 of the Constitution. At the beginning of the discussion on this legislation I quoted your ruling in full and now I just want to quote an extract from your ruling—

you advanced other reasons as well for your ruling—

On those grounds alone this legislation is in order. It does not matter whether or not this legislation is in conflict with the previous principles, or that the procedure laid down in a previous Act has not been followed. This House cannot bind a House that succeeds it, otherwise it would not be sovereign. This National Advisory Education Council Act of 1962 cannot bind this Parliament. That was also confirmed by the ruling you gave here, which was founded on section 59 of our Constitution Act, namely that this House is sovereign. On those grounds alone I ask you to adhere to your previous ruling in this matter and consequently to disallow this objection.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that if this point of order were upheld, we would become a “magteloseliggaam”—a powerless body. I should like to deal with that matter from two aspects. First of all, I think that he indicated that no amendment of this Bill would be possible—he said that this House could not pass an amendment. My submission is that that is not correct at all. The 1962 Act says that no proposed legislation shall be introduced unless there be this prior consultation and views be obtained. It merely refers to the introduction. Once legislation has been introduced, the Act makes no attempt to remove the powers of this body thereafter to debate such legislation and change it. It merely says that in regard to the proposed legislation they must have been consulted and the council’s views obtained before introduction. So much for that aspect.

The second point, Sir, is this. To suggest that the upholding of this point of order would make this House a powerless body is also, I submit, incorrect. All that is required is laid down by Parliament itself, namely that where legislation is introduced there must be prior consultation between the Minister and other interested Ministers or Administrators, and the views of the council be obtained. That is the provision of this Parliament. It was not intended that that should be a dead letter. It does not prevent this Parliament having full sovereign power, but it does indicate steps that must be taken before it may exercise that full power. That is said in clear language and all that is required is that those particular conditions be satisfied and then anything that is passed is beyond challenge. I should also like to associate myself with the other points made by hon. members on this side.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) was good enough to inform me in good time that he intended raising this point of order. I am indebted to him for doing so. Consequently I have had an opportunity of going into the matter very carefully. I have also listened to the various arguments and points adduced in this point of order debate. In view, however, of the emphatic statement by the hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill that he had consulted and had obtained the views of the various interested parties as required by section 8 of the National Advisory Education Council Act of 1962 before the proposed legislation was introduced into the House, I have no option but to rule that the further consideration of the National Education Policy Bill should be proceeded with in the normal way.

When proceedings were interrupted last night, the only answer that the hon. the Minister produced to the suggestion that this House, and that no self-respecting member of this House, should be a party to the passing of this clause, was that this provision was contained in the National Advisory Education Council Act of 1962. Sir, he is quite right; it was there, and we voted against it then. In the latter parts of this Bill, in the clauses which we will come to, like clause 9, that Act will be repealed. I express the hope that the hon. gentlemen, especially those who sit over there and who vote with their Minister, will respect this House when they vote on this clause.

On a point of order, Sir, merely by expressing the hope that hon. members will respect this House, an insinuation has been made against hon. members on this side of the House.

Order! I think the hon. member is exaggerating now. The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, if the hon. member for Durban (North) is guilty of an insinuation by saying that he expresses the hope that when members on this side of the House vote in favour of this clause in the Bill they will respect this House, it is my submission that members on both sides of the House at all times respect the Committee of this House. It is my contention that this amounts to an insinuation against members on this side of the House that they do not respect this House.

Order! I think the hon. member is carrying his deductions too far. I have given my ruling, and the hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, who is a member of the Other Place, is asking every hon. gentleman in this House to tie the hands of this House so far as the consideration of education is concerned in the future. It is not only that a private member is involved; he cannot introduce legislation, but as the hon. member for South Coast said last night, not even the hon. the Prime Minister could introduce legislation dealing with education until and unless the hon. the Minister of Education who, I stress, is a member of the Other Place and not even a member of this House …

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything, but we are being asked in the first place to tie the hands of this House in so far as dealing with legislation is concerned and to hand the whole matter over to the discretion of the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, who is not even a member of this House. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. members opposite whether they do not jealously regard the rights and the powers and the privileges of this House to deal with its own affairs and with matters of State and matters of policy, and especially such important matters as education? Because they have to answer this question. If they vote for this, what they are saying is that when it comes to education we abandon our rights to deal with that matter in this House. [Interjection.]

Why?

I will tell hon. members why. The reason is that if you read the clause you will see it says that no proposed legislation relating to education shall be introduced into the House of Assembly, except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister and the Administrators and after the Minister has ascertained the views of the Executive Committee. [Interjections.] It is not even a question of an hon. member of this House going to consult with the Minister. He cannot even introduce anything for discussion in this House unless the Minister has first consulted with these various people. There is no provision here providing that if an hon. member of this House wishes to introduce legislation, that Minister then has to consult with those people within a certain time. In other words, the matter is entirely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. He will determine when he will consult these people and whether he will consult them, and one has to go to him and ask him whether he will please consult with them. I appreciate that the same provision was also in the 1962 Act. [Time expired.]

I do not know much about white education but now know a great deal about Bantu education. I just want to show you what nonsense and rubbish that so-called jurist, the hon. member for Durban (North), spoke here. Does he not know that if the hon. the Minister were to act unreasonably, this House has the right to withhold the Minister’s salary and say to him: “We are not going to pay you a penny.” Does he not know that this House has full control over the Minister? After having sat with the hon. member on a select committee for a considerable length of time, it comes as no surprise to me that he is so stupid.

The hon. the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat, proved not only that he knows nothing about white education but also that he knows nothing at all about education.

Order! Education is not being discussed now; clause 3 is.

I want to approach clause 3 from another point of view. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he means by consultation, for we have now learnt from the hon. Minister that consultation did in fact take place notwithstanding the fact that the measure on which we are voting had not been submitted to the persons with whom he had held consultations.

Order! That argument has nothing to do with this clause. The hon. Minister spoke about a procedure which had been followed in terms of another Act.

Before voting on this clause, I want to know how the clause will work; I want to know what kind of consultations took place in the past and what the hon. Minister intends doing in the future. With respect, Sir, we are being asked here to vote for a clause and I maintain that we have the right to know what the Minister is going to do with that clause, how he is going to implement it and what he means when he talks about consultation.

Go and get yourself a dictionary in the library; then you will know what I mean.

No, words mean nothing to this Government. If we judge according to the meaning of words then we know what the clause means, but the Minister’s idea of “consultation” is something which appears in no dictionary in the world. I challenge the hon. Minister to bring me a dictionary which states that “consultation” means that one can introduce a measure into the House of Assembly which has never been seen by the persons with whom the Minister had to hold consultations before the measure was introduced.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Durban (Point) is making a reflection on the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker found that the hon. the Minister had consulted the provinces as provided in the relevant section, and the hon. member is questioning that. I maintain that it is a reflection on the ruling of the Chair.

That hon. member is of course quite wrong as usual; it was not Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Mr. Speaker’s ruling was that the Minister had stated that he had consulted the provinces and that he therefore had to accept the hon. the Minister’s word. I am entitled to ask the Minister what he means by “consultation”. I want to know what the hon. Minister means when he talks about “consultation”.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he has repeated the same sentence at least ten times in five minutes.

If I were given a chance to put my case without interjections then I would be able to make my speech much shorter.

The hon. member must cease making reflections on and insinuations against the Chair.

No, it was not my intention to reflect on the Chair.

The hon. member said that he was not being afforded an opportunity of making his point. The hon. member has made the same point at least ten times within the last five minutes.

Then I withdraw it, and I say that I will take much less time to put my point if I did not have to react to nonsensical interjections.

I think the hon. member would have even more time if he did not repeat himself so much.

I want to ask the hon. Minister to tell us precisely and set out step for step how he will in future deal with the envisaged legislation contained in this clause. He is asking us to give him certain powers, and I want to ask him to tell us in detail with whom he will consult. how he will do so and whether he will again introduce legislation in this House which contains provisions which have not even been submitted to those persons with whom he was supposed to hold consultations. If the hon. the Minister would give that explanation then it would be possible for us to consider this clause on a better basis and come to a decision on it.

I am rising to say something about this clause in connection with the ruling which has just been given by the Speaker to the effect that there should in future be consultations in terms of this clause. Mindful of the pious appeal which the hon. member for Durban (Point) made here to the effect that all those sitting in this House must respect the legislation of this House, I feel that we will best be able to respect this House if we respect the sovereignty of this House, and I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether he should not delete the words “the House of Assembly and the Senate” which appear in this clause so that the House of Assembly and the Senate will not in future, when this legislation is passed, be obliged to hold prior consultations with certain bodies in regard to the nature of the legislation being introduced here. I am only mentioning it for consideration, for in view of the Speaker’s ruling, we will find ourselves in the difficult position that it will not in future be possible to introduce any legislation in regard to this matter without prior consultation with the provinces.

We are once again having a storm in a teacup here.

What are you suggesting by calling this place a “teacup”?

Well, it is full of “blaar”.

Order!

The hon. member for Durban (Point) was very curious to hear from me what I meant by consultation. I am now rising to reply, and the hon. member should really display the courtesy of listening to what I say instead of merely reverting to and expressing his own ideas. Either the Provincial Council or the Administrators forwarded draft ordinances to me. I then forwarded the draft ordinances to the National Education Advisory Council, but the Council does not sit continuously. It often happened that it was only the members of the Executive Council who were permanently there and who then went through that legislation and informed me that they had found nothing in that legislation which was in conflict with other legislation and that it would not be detrimental to place that legislation on the Statute Book. I then wrote to the Administrator informing him that he could proceed with the legislation. When my own legislation was under discussion I also forwarded it to the Advisory Council in order to inform them that I intended introducing this legislation and I sent the Administrators copies of my legislation.

The hon. member need not get the trembles now. He already has the jitters. [Interjection.] I am talking now about what I am doing. I am giving the hon. member my definition of what consultation is. I am not going to discuss this legislation any more because I have already put it to the Speaker and it is a fact that there was consultation. I did have consultation and the first point, namely the defining point 2 (a) is the consultation which has already been held. Must the hon. member continue now and try to circumvent in a subtle way the Speaker’s ruling by bringing in arguments through the back door every few minutes. It is very transparent. We are not so stupid that we cannot spot it. What happens now is that when this Council and the Provincial Council are in session and they can improve on the legislation with amendments, we may improve it without introducing a new principle there. The hon. members may differ. I say that paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are not new principles. It is merely because this principle, since the Administrator has been implementing …

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister is not reflecting on your ruling by stating that these points are not matters of principle, after you, Sir, have ruled that they are matters of principle.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked me to define what consultation means. There is not just one word which you can give for that, because he said that one will not be able to read in any dictionary what that word means in the House of Assembly. I am now giving an example of how I hold consultations. This is proper consultation. Even if I were to forward legislation to the Administrators and they were to make no comment, then I would still have held consultations. That is all after consultation. That is why I say that the hon. member for Heilbron is wrong. It is also consultation, even in regard to legislation which is submitted here in the House of Assembly or in the Senate. “After consultation” means that if the other persons with whom I am consulting, are not satisfied with that legislation, then I still submit my legislation here. The sovereignty of Parliament remains beyond all doubt. Nothing is done to affect the sovereignty of Parliament because if-it was “in consultation” then the provincial council or the Administrator or any other body could have prevented me from doing so. But even had I merely written a letter or picked up the telephone and said that it was my intention to introduce that legislation, and they were to say to me that they were not satisfied with it, then I could still have done so. I can say that I am going ahead nevertheless. With this legislation nothing was done in an underhand way. It was all open and above board. The hon. member for Kensington complained that I delayed for 18 months while I held consultations during that entire period of 18 months with those people because I wanted to have them all on my side. If the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Durban (Point) had not intervened, then I would have had most of the Executive Committee of Natal on my side.

Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to circumvent the ruling of the Speaker. I wish to examine this clause. I think the hon. the Minister and his advisers have had in mind only legislation introduced into this House by a Minister of the Government or introduced in the provincial council by the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. The point made by the hon. member for Durban (North) is a very important one. This is an infringement of the rights of ordinary members of this House. I have myself introduced university legislation into this House on more than one occasion. I will say that it has become customary to consult the hon. the Minister and if possible to obtain his assistance. I do not think that I have had the pleasure of dealing with this Minister but when I have consulted Ministers I have without fail obtained their assistance. I have usually consulted the chairman of the education group on the other side as well and we have co-operated together. We introduced the Bill as a Private Members’ Bill on behalf of an institution. I know that a custom has grown recently …

This has nothing to do with university education.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will follow better if I conclude these remarks. A custom has grown up in recent years whereby a university in order to save expense consults the Minister and the Minister kindly sponsors the amending Bill as we have had just this week in the case of the Port Elizabeth University Bill. The Minister will sponsor an amending Bill on behalf of the university. A university might think it may lose some of its autonomy by doing so. A university is very jealous of its autonomy, especially in this country. I therefore say that the hon. the Minister, in order to make this a satisfactory clause even from his own point of view, should not say that no legislation should be introduced. What he should say if he wishes to express his own views is that no legislation by the official body, that is members of the Cabinet or members of the Executive Committee in the provinces may be introduced. But to say that no legislation can be introduced is going much too far.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the row which has been kicked up here by the hon. members of the Opposition in regard to the National Education Advisory Council, I should just like to read this clause. Clause 3 (1) reads as follows—

I should like to emphasize the last portion, namely “after the Minister has obtained the views of the Executive Committee thereon”. I think that this last portion of the provision is in fact in conflict with the basic principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. If it is necessary to wait until the views of the Executive Committee have been obtained, it means that this Parliament may not introduce any legislation before some or other executive committee has seen fit to give its opinion on it. What could the position be in practice? It could be that some or other executive committee took a long time to furnish its views and in this way delayed very urgent legislation. That is why I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister very courteously whether he will not withdraw this last sentence. Why is it necessary for him to wait until he has obtained the opinion of the committee?

The hon. member must look at the definition of executive committee. It is the executive committee of the Advisory Council.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that more of the hon. members on the other side of the House will take part in this debate. One is reminded, the longer this goes on, of something which someone once said, if I may quote: “And even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer”. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Heilbron for having the courage as a member of this House to appreciate what is involved for hon. members of this House and for the institution that this House itself is. I congratulate him. We can differ on many things. This is my point. We differ about politics. We differ greatly, but on matters relating to this House, this Parliament, our privileges and our rights, I hope that we will guard them jealously always against any sort of interference.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he said that last night in a ten-minute speech and to-day again. He has said the same thing over and over again.

The only discordant note that we have had from hon. members on that side so far—and I exclude the hon. the Minister because he is not an hon. member whose rights are being affected here in this House-—was from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, but he seems to have an obsession for reducing something by 5 per cent per annum, and no doubt he feels that this is just another reduction of 5 per cent per annum. The point that arises here is just this. You will recall that before the debate on this Bill began we took a point of order relating to section 114 of the Constitution. That is precisely why we took that point of order. That section affected and curtailed the procedural aspect of Parliament. That is why we took the point of order. We said that it had value and that it had effect. This point here has value or it has effect. The point is simply this. The hon. member for Kempton Park made a suggestion which the hon. the Minister did not accept. He said that one could wait until the opinion was given by the executive committee or whatever body was concerned, but the fact of the matter is that no one can introduce any legislation and that no one can therefore discuss it until and unless the Minister has consulted, not the member, but as the hon. member for Kensington said, the practice has grown up …

It worked very well for four years.

It has not been used here for four years. [Interjections.] That may be so. Whether it was used elsewhere over the last four years or not is not the point. The question is simply whether hon. gentlemen in this House are prepared to abandon their rights. It is as simple as that, and for every vote that is cast “aye” these will be an hon. member who has such regard for this institution. Let me ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any regard for our Constitution, and in particular section 59 of our Constitution, which provides that Parliament “shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic”. It remains so. Then it goes on: “and shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic”. Full power means full power. As far as educational matters are concerned, if this clause is passed, Parliament will not have full power to deal with these matters. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate whether he agrees with that or not and whether he feels that that provision in our Constitution was put in lightly or whether it was put in with the object that it might be, in a Bill like this, and in such an important subject as this, fettered at the instance of one Minister of a Cabinet as far as Parliament is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a misunderstanding in regard to clause 3. It is clear that this sovereign Parliament may, according to clause 3, only instruct the Minister in respect of what procedure he must follow before he introduces legislation here. This subsection is not binding on a future Parliament. That is being conceded on a future Parliament. That is being conceded and we all know that it cannot bind a parliament. It is an instruction which we are to-day seeing fit to give the hon. The Minister. I would not be surprised if it was as a result of a previous request of the Opposition that the hon. the Minister has to consult the executive committees and the Administrators. I would not be surprised if it were they who had asked that he must receive instructions. That is what it is. It is an instruction to the Minister to consult these bodies before introducing legislation on education in this House. Then it is for this House to decide. If the hon. the Minister does not carry out the instruction, the House can decide whether it can accept the new legislation without the instruction having been carried out or whether the matter must first be referred back to the various bodies. This does not affect the sovereignty of Parliament at all. Every hon. member sitting here knows that. It is clearly stipulated in the Constitution. The Speaker has already repeated his ruling during the discussion of this Bill. As the hon. Member for Heilbron indicated, we cannot bind a future Parliament. If hon. members were to read this clause, they would see that we are saying to the hon. the Minister that no proposed legislation in regard to certain matters may be introduced without the Minister having caused consultations to be held. That is clear. It does not bind us. It does not affect our right to pass any other future legislation in any way. I do not know why such a fuss is being made about this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down is in fact arguing that this is a meaningless clause. He says that this clause does not bind Parliament. He says that this clause is of no effect whatsoever because future Parliaments can introduce a Bill which has not even been considered by anybody else. In other words the hon. member is going to vote for something which is absolutely meaningless. He is going to vote for something which he himself condemns as being a dead letter of no force or effect and not binding upon this House. What a mockery of Parliament and of legislative procedure if we are going to place on the Statute Book legislation which means nothing and which does not bind us. That is the argument. If this clause is meaningless I ask the Minister: Why is it here if it does not bind Parliament and the Minister? I submit that it does bind Parliament. Mr. Speaker considers that it binds Parliament. In the ruling he gave this afternoon, he considered that this clause, as it appears in existing legislation, in fact had to be observed by the Minister. Mr. Speaker’s ruling was not that it was not necessary to consult. Mr. Speaker’s ruling was that he accepted that there had been consultation. Therefore this legislation had been introduced in conformity with this measure. Either that is so, and it is necessary, or the hon. member for Omaruru is right and it is meaningless and it has no power or effect. If that is so, I suggest that the hon. the Minister withdraw it. If it is not so, then I suggest that the hon. member stands up and says that he is sorry and that he has misread it. I want to draw attention to the hon. the Minister’s definition of consultation. He said that if he wants to, he will pick up the telephone and say to the Administrator: I am going to introduce legislation dealing with schools. Whether you like it or not, it is going through. The hon. the Minister said that that was all he needed to do.

I did not say that I would do such a thing. I just explained to you what you can do.

The hon. the Minister said that that was what he could do. He said that he could just pick up a telephone and say that he was introducing some legislation dealing with education and that was that. Then he could introduce it. In other words, the Minister’s interpretation of what he is required to do is one of utter contempt for the views of the people concerned. If there is anything more contemptuous of the opinions of others than to describe consultation as the picking up of a telephone, then I should like to know what it is.

You are talking nonsense.

The Minister is very quick to say that other people are talking nonsense even when they quote him. I am quoting the Minister, and then the Minister says that I am talking nonsense. I want it clearly understood by those who will be affected by this Bill that the Minister considers it within his rights not to place before them the details of what he intends to introduce as legislation, not to let them have sight of the actual legislation itself, but merely to say to them, “This is what I intend to do and, whether you like it or not, I will do it.”

They will laugh at you because I never treat them with contempt.

I beg to differ. I ask what is more like treating with contempt—and I will deal with the Natal Provincial Council—than to show people one Bill and then to introduce another Bill with different provisions which they have not seen?

That is not true and you know it is not true. It is not true. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, is the Minister entitled to say, “You know it is not true”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the words, “And you know it is not true.”

The hon. member knows it is not true. [Interjections.]

Order! I pointed out to the hon. Minister just now that he may not say that the hon. member knows that what he is saying is not true. This is in conflict with a ruling by Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member knows that it is not true. I say that the hon. member knows that it is not true. I challenge him to prove his contention. [Interjections.] I withdraw those words.

The hon. the Minister says that it is not true. I quoted from Hansard yesterday what I had said. This is what I quoted—

That is quite correct.

Now I will quote from Hansard what the hon. member for South Coast said—

Just carry on.

The Minister was emphatic that this Bill went to the Executive in October …

Order! What has that to do with clause 3, which is under discussion now?

Consultation, Mr. Chairman.

It has nothing to do with clause 3. Clause 3 does not deal with consultation. It is a clause taken from an existing Act.

With respect, Sir, this clause says that the Minister shall consult with the Administrator. I am now quoting to show how the Minister consults with the Administrator. That is the point. If I may repeat—the Minister was emphatic that this Bill went to the Executive in October. I quote further from Hansard—

Not this Bill—before it was finalized.

So there was another Bill.

I also have other quotations. There was another Bill.

I gave you copies of the other Bill.

I have copies of the other Bill here. I have the Minister’s specific assurance in his own words that at least three subsections of this Bill were never before the Natal Provincial Administration, and I said—and those were the grounds on which I based my claim—that the Minister had treated the Natal Executive with contempt because he had introduced clauses in this Bill which that Executive had not seen. That is what the Minister challenged me upon. That was my statement, that was the issue on which I challenged the Minister, and that was the issue on which the Minister now stood up and said that I was not telling the truth. I take the strongest exception to that remark. I was speaking not only the truth, but I was quoting the Minister in doing so. I take the strongest exception to the Minister’s allegation that what I said was untrue. I say that not only Natal but also the other provinces have not had the privilege of seeing portions of this Bill. Therefore I submit that I am entitled to say that consultation, as the Minister sees it, is consultation with a view to pleasing himself, and not consultation in the sense in which we should like to see it done. Consultation in fact took place on other aspects of the Bill, but not on the essential aspect of control by the Minister and removal of the provincial councils’ control. It is this aspect which I believe they should have been consulted upon as the present enactment requires should have been done. The Minister admits that there was no consultation.

Are you suggesting that there was no consultation in regard to the clause under discussion at present?

On three paragraphs of clause 2 (2). Clause 3 deals with what should have happened in this case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (Point) in respect of the sovereignty of Parliament, I wish to say that the only possibility of a curtailment of the sovereignty of Parliament would be if the hon. members on the other side suggested that clause 3 (1) could never be changed by Parliament. I do not think that the hon. members would have the temerity to suggest that. Therefore I think that the argument about sovereignty is completely frivolous.

You have missed the point, and you missed it deliberately.

No, I have not missed the point.

Yes, you have, and you know that you have.

If the hon. member says that this is an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament he means that it cannot be altered by this Parliament. As I say, hon. members have not had the temerity to even suggest that. With regard to the argument of the hon. member for Kensington, I wish to say that my reading of this particular clause is that it clearly indicates that this is legislation introduced by the Minister himself. The latter part of clause 3 (1) reads as follows, “… except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister …”. It clearly means that it is the Minister who introduces the legislation. If this clause means what the hon. member for Kensington says it means, then I would say that at least 99 per cent of the Bills are initiated by the Minister of Education. Even if this were correct, as the hon. member for Kensington suggests, it means that private Bills would have to go through a form of consultation with these various bodies, and I see nothing wrong with that in principle. But I do not think the hon. member forKensington is correct. If you read this clause carefully, it means that it is the Minister of Education, because it talks of consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister. It is the Minister of Education who introduces the Bill. That is quite clear on interpretation.

Clause 3 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—89: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker. V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.: Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

NOES—32: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Fisher, E. L.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood. L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

I move as an amendment—

and to insert the following subsection to follow subsection (1):

I am just pointing out that the intention of this amendment is that the number of members representing the Department—it is his Department—which are appointed by the Minister is being increased to two, and that the following subsection is being inserted to follow upon subsection (1) to say that the members of the board should be persons who have distinguished themselves in the field of education, or who, in the Minister’s opinion, possess other special qualifications in regard to one or other aspect of the Board’s activities. I think it will be an amendment which will ultimately be welcomed by the Opposition, because it was actually a charge that came from their side that these people were now being appointed without any qualifications. They said I could appoint any person, even one who knew absolutely nothing about education. That is why I have seen fit to insert this amendment so that, just as in the case of the previous council, the persons who are nominated to the Education Advisory Council will be persons who are closely connected with, who have knowledge of and who have distinguished themselves as far as education is concerned, and who possess special qualifications in that regard. People therefore who will really be a credit to the council and will be able to render good services. I really hope the hon. member for Kensington will be satisfied with this amendment and that he will withdraw his own amendment. I am asking this because I think that it is a dangerous thing to give direct representation to any kind of body, no matter how good the record of that body might be. If I were to read out all the names which the hon. member wants to propose, i.e. vocational schools, commerce, mining, industry and agriculture and all these people were to be given a kind of direct representation, it would look fine on paper, but in reality they would merely elect their own people again. They must in some way or another remunerate a person by offering him a position. We have many councils of this type. The names of the members look good on paper, but when it comes to doing their work they do not have the time, either because they are too busy, or because they do not possess the necessary qualifications, or because they are not interested. In regard to these 26 persons who have been appointed as members of the Council I should like to know what hon. member in this House can point a finger at any one of those persons and say that that person is not absolutely qualified to do the work which he did in fact do. There are so many qualified persons whom one can appoint as members. I want to accept that one will be able to choose 26 other persons who are equally qualified, but I want to make an appeal to hon. members and suggest that we should follow the method we followed four years ago.

I have no objection to the hon. the Minister improving his own clause by moving this amendment. I think it is an improvement although it is a minor improvement but it is not the fundamental thing. Sir, when I first read this Bill and saw that the hon. the Minister had made provision in clause 9 to abolish the existing advisory council, I thought we had come to the end of that period; we had established an advisory council in order that the Minister could prepare his Bills that he has placed before us. An advisory council such as the one that he introduced in the 1962 Bill consisted of men who could move around—itinerantmembers—who could get in touch with the various departments of education and, as the hon. the Minister has told us on more than one occasion, establish a contact body. They had the task of preparing this new legislation. We could see the point of that. We did not like the constitution of his advisory body at that time but we never thought for a moment that it was anything but a temporary body established for this special purpose. We did not think the hon. the Minister was going to carry it forward as he is doing now. Sir, I would like to put this to the hon. the Minister before I move my amendment, to see what he thinks of it: Is an advisory body of this kind necessary at all? Is it necessary for new members to come into his Department? Sir, I have gone to the trouble to analyse the establishment and the organization of the hon. the Minister’s Department. He has some remarkable men in his Department. He has in his Department learned men in the field of education. He has in the Division of Education itself Planning and Inspection. But surely that is what the advisory council is going to be, a planning body? He has 32 members in that sub-department; he has provision for that, and then in addition he has a very big research department with a staff of 139. I do not say he should not have them. But in addition he has the educational heads of departments in terms of clause 6 of this Bill. With these heads of departments and his planning body, surely he could form an advisory council inside his own Department? Why does he want to establish another sub-department? What are they going to do? The main job has been done. The contact he wishes to preserve is there. I know the hon. the Minister has set his heart upon having the Advisory Council in his Department. Why have five permanent men on the executive with jobs in the Department? The hon. the Minister of Finance has been asking us from time to time how we could reduce expenditure. Well, I suggest the hon. the Minister could come along and say: “I can form an advisory council quite easily in my own Department”, and if there is any doubt after he has consulted the provinces and the heads of departments under clause 6, what about the teachers’ associations; what about the Federated Teachers’ Association? There you have a strong body that can assist him. I should like the hon. the Minister to give some thought to this. I do not say we should abolish the advisory council but I want him to give some thought to it. I have prepared a compromise in my amendment, and my compromise is that there should not be five members on the executive. I want a chairman and a vice-chairman so that when meetings of the advisory council, which the hon. the Minister is anxious to obtain, are convened, somebody will be there to preside. Therefore I propose that the permanent men should be a chairman and a vice-chairman appointed by the State President. I am prepared to concede that; I want to compromise with the hon. the Minister. I do not think we need five. I think two would be sufficient. I do not want this advisory council to consist only of professional men. I want to broaden it. We have professional men at our disposal. Is there no man in the Department of Agriculture who can give us advice?

There are valuable men in Agriculture; there are educationists in Agriculture; they could do it. Then in the second part of my amendment I propose there should be no more than 17 additional members who shall be nominated by the Administrators of the provinces, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, representatives of the universities, technical colleges, vocational schools, commerce, mining, industry and agriculture and the Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Private Schools, provided that at least 40 per cent of the appointments are made from each language group. We shall not make the mistake we made last time of having seven professors, one of whom was an English-speaking person from an English-language university, and of having an executive of five members, four distinguished educationists on the Afrikaans side and one English-speaking representative who came from a private school. We do not want that, so I would like the hon. the Minister to give this amendment careful consideration. Let us take the chairman, the secretary of the Minister’s own Department, with a wealth of experience behind him and who has been through all these negotiations. Take him as chairman; take the members of the heads committee under clause 6, that the Minister is going to retain; he will have them as well. Cannot representatives of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations join in when there is a meeting? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his advisory council is really necessary?

In the form in which the hon. the Minister wants to have it, I do not think it is. I do not see how he can employ them. Look at the inspectors he has; look at the wonderful Department he has in his head office. I have the Estimates before me. I think the people we have placed at his disposal are a remarkable body of men. There is a strong organization in the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I think the men we have there are needed and I am not criticizing that, but it is a very strong organization. The Minister can get all the men he wants from his own Department. I am not taking the Administration. We have the Administration already; we have the secretary, a deputy-secretary and four under-secretaries. But this is the one I like: The Minister has a Chief education planner—this is the sub-division of Education Planning and Inspection—two Chief Inspectors, two Education planners. They are men with creative force who plan, and 16 inspectors. I am not referring to the training inspectors. I am excluding them and taking the purely academic people, the people the hon. the Minister wishes to make provision for. If that is the case, the hon. the Minister might like to leave this clause over to the end so that we could have further discussion. I really think that the proposal he has in the Bill is not satisfactory. I do not know whether he would like my compromise amendment. I should say ours, because our caucus has gone into this very thoroughly and there is a feeling that the hon. the Minister might be prepared to accept it in the form I have given now. With that I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (a) a chairman and a vice-chairman appointed by the State President; and
2. (b) additional members not exceeding 17 in number, who shall be nominated by the Administrators of the provinces, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, representatives of the universities, technical colleges, vocational schools, commerce, mining, industry and agriculture, and the Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Private Schools: Provided that at least 40 per cent of appointments are made from each language group.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would help the discussions along if I put the matter in this way. I have a great deal of respect for the arguments raised here by the hon. member for Kensington. There is a lot to say for them. I am now talking in the first place about the Council as a whole. The hon. member himself mentioned persons who will render good service on such a council. But he does not really know what I want to do with a Council. I want to tell him that this Council will meet twice or at the most three times a year to discuss important matters of policy which the Executive Committee has dealt with. These are people who hold office. They earn nothing extra by serving on the Council and they receive only their normal travelling allowances, etc. I do not think that the hon. member has any idea of what the activities of that council are with its five members in the Executive Committee. The co-ordination of the work, the working out of the system, the presentation in draft form of certain matters will only really commence now. We now have legislation which will enable us to introduce a national education policy. Each of those ten points will be dealt with with the utmost caution and circumspection. That I should really say in my Third Reading speech, when we conclude. We cannot proceed in a topsyturvy way and decide, without there having been proper discussions and without a study of the matter having been made, which one of those ten was to be accepted. We have heard a great deal about consultation. Those are actually the people who have to hold consultations with the educational heads. They will continually have to grant interviews to all those bodies which the hon. member mentioned, receive their memoranda, ascertain what their views are or whatever might have to be done. These people do not draw on their own wisdom and state that this is how it must be done and this is how it will be done. They hold consultations and are continually busy with these matters. I want to give the hon. member for Kensington and the entire Committee this reassurance. i.e. that the activities of this council, and particularly those of the full-time members, will increase tremendously because what we are doing with this legislation is to seek to attain an ideal. The ideal is what he himself stated in this debate on 31st August of last year. It is something for which we have been waiting for 40 years. It is not something which one merely places on the Statute Book and then sits back with hands folded thinking that having done so one’s work is completed. I can proceed in this vein, but I do not want to take up the Committee’s time. I do however want to tell the hon. member for Kensington this. I shall bear in mind his amendment in regard to the selection of people so as to comply with his wishes as much as possible and make it as representative as possible. That is in fact what has happened now. What has happened now is that we have representatives of every facet of education serving on that advisorycouncil in different capacities. The hon. member will surely admit that the universities have a great interest in our secondary education. It is therefore necessary that there should be professors of education. It is really not my fault that Afrikaans-speaking professors of education should serve even at English-language universities. It is really not my fault either that in an English-medium high school almost half of the teachers are Afrikaans speaking. It is not my fault that when my choice begins to become limited I will not be able to adhere to the population structure by saying that I must have 40 per cent and 60 per cent of the other. That is not my fault. It is also not my fault that, when Act No. 86 of 1962 was placed on the Statute Book, the same fuss was made and that many of the English-speaking people wanted nothing to do with this Council. They were hostile to it. I want to tell the hon. member this. He does not know how many refusals I received from people of the English-language group to whom I offered appointments. Some of them even told me that they would very much have liked to have done so but that they thought they would have been ostracized by their own language group if they did so. In addition the hon. member must not forget that what happened when I introduced Act 86 of 1962 and asked members on the opposite side to send me names of suitable persons whom they thought could serve on that council with good results, is not my fault. Does the hon. member know what I received? I received two names from the former member for Hillbrow. That was the only reaction. That is what makes this type of criticism so cheap. It is being stated here with sweeping gestures of the hand and being implied in the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington that at least 40 per cent of each language group should be represented. That points to the English-language section. But what have they done once again in the case of this legislation? So much suspicion has been sown against it amongst the English-speaking people that I do not know where I am going to get them from. I do not know where I am going to get them. The hon. member must bear this in mind and I am not talking nonsense now. Those are facts which I have just mentioned. Before I can commit myself with legislation that I will take this or that proportion from such a group I shall first require to know whether the Chamber of Industries has one person who is interested in coming to my council and serving on that council with good, impartial advice, or whether he merely wants to obstruct and impede the workings of that council. We cannot allow that; it is too late in the day as far as our education is concerned to do that. I shall again extend the invitation in this regard. Let these be people with real knowledge and let the Opposition show their worth this time. I want them to co-operate with me and furnish me with the names of those people so that I may. together with all the other names which I have received, consider them when this council is reconstituted.

Mr. Chairman, I shall have a few words to say later in regard to the composition of the council in view of the remarks of the hon. the Minister. He has invited hon. members on this side of the House to submit the names of possible people who could serve on this council. I should like to ask him whether he would be prepared to consider distinguished educationists of the Jewish faith to serve on this council in view of Clause 2 of the Bill.

Mr. D. Miller, a Jewish person, served on my council.

I wish to move an amendment of which I have already given notice. I move the following amendment—

I am introducing and mentioning this in a most uncontentious manner. I shall not even try to give the reasons why it should be in this Bill. The reasons appear to be so obvious that I am sure it was probably an oversight on the part of the Minister.

I shall accept that amendment.

I am most grateful to the hon. the Minister for accepting the amendment. It is quite unusual for one of mine to be accepted.

I trust the Minister will forgive me if I am now a bit more contentious in regard to his own amendments. I am most grateful that he has accepted my amendment. I express that gratitude to him, but there is another matter in regard to which I am afraid I must be a bit more contentious, if the Minister will forgive me. This matter has to do with the composition of the council and the amendment of the hon. the Minister. I have the Bill here before me and I want hon. members to look at the composition of this new council as it will be if this Bill goes through. Hon. members should note the numbers on this council. I am particularly interested in the number of members. Let us work this out according to the Bill before us, together with the amendment of the hon. the Minister. This national advisory education council shall consist firstly of not more than five members of the executive committee. That is five. Then, as amended, there shall be not more than two members from each province and not more than one in respect of South-West Africa. That is an additional two for each province and one for South-West Africa. That is four times two, plus one, which equals nine. Then it shall also consist of not more than two members being representatives of the department and designated by the Minister. That is two additional members. Finally there shall be not more than three other members appointed by the Minister. Adding these four figures together, five plus nine plus two plus three, we arrive at a total of 19. Here we have a strange and curious position. Yesterday in reply to a question of mine, the hon. the Minister told the House that the council at the present moment does not consist of 19 members, but of 29 members.

Twenty-six.

Yes, 26. I am not saying that those members were appointed illegally. They were appointed perfectly properly under the previous Act which said that the minimum number shall be 15, I think. They were properly appointed. Now the hon. the Minister, with a council of 26 members, moves an amendment which limits the numbers off to 19. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister what is to happen to the extra members who will now be removed from the council, or who will have to resign from the council, or who will no longer be on the council in future. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be so kind as to give us an indication of why there is to be a decrease in the numbers. I may be reading the Bill wrongly. I do not think I am. I think that this Bill, as amended by the Minister, limits the number to 19. There are 26. Seven of these are to go. Who are they and why are they to go?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, in connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. where the number of members of the Education Advisory Council are now being reduced to 19, I must just point out to him that this is other legislation which we are busy with now. Why must the Council be constituted in precisely the same way as was provided in the 1962 Act, Act 86 of 1962? They are now asking this short-sighted question: What will happen with the remaining members? The people know that if they become redundant, they can just disappear from that advisory board as it exists at the moment. I should like to return to the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington. As an ex-teacher that hon. member has moved an amendment and has stated inter alia in the amendment that commerce, mining, industry and agriculture—bodies which have absolutely nothing to do with education—should be able to recommend, or as he puts it, that the Minister can nominate members from persons recommended by those bodies. Naturally it is understandable that the representatives of industry, for example, will nominate a person who is connected with industry. Of course the hon. member expects industry to nominate somebody connected with industry. The representatives of commerce will recommend somebody connected with commerce. I cannot understand the hon. member. He is an ex-teacher. We would like to have educational experts on that council. There is the example of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. On that Council there are people who, after all, do know something about economic matters. A person who has knowledge of education only will not be appointed to the Economic Advisory Council. There is also the Scientific Advisory Council. In the same way people will be appointed on that Council who know something about science as such. They are experts in their respective fields. Now does the hon. member, as ex-teacher, want people serving on the National Advisory Education Council who know nothing about education as such? I cannot understand it at all. I just want to conclude with the remark that according to this amendment it is now being expected that the Minister must accept a council which has actually been constituted or recommended by other bodies. I cannot see how the Minister can accept advice from such a council or that he should even be compelled to appoint people who have been nominated by other bodies.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct an impression the hon. the Minister has. I have noticed now for the second time that he has referred to a speech I made in August, 1966. He seems to have misunderstood me. When I said we had been waiting for 40 years, it was not for the Bill.

You referred to the national council’s report.

What was said in the National Advisory Council’s report was that they had now provided for the new deal in secondary education. We have been waiting for that so that the Central Government would give back to the provinces what was taken away from them.

And you referred to the National Policy Bill.

That is not the Policy Bill. It is a different thing. However, that is by the way. I want to proceed with a suggestion I made in regard to what is still left of this co-ordination we need. What is still left? The hon. the Minister has mentioned it. We have referred to secondary schools. That is being dealt with in the third Bill. What is the next point? Teachers’ certificates. We should have that rationalized in this country. That is being done. We now have equivalents in South Africa. We have in fact arrived at a national certificate. We are all agreed and the departments are all agreed. Now I come to the third point, namely the fact that in various provinces they have different syllabuses in the schools. The syllabus for arithmetic in one province is not arranged as it is in another, and so on. Children moving from one province to another or even from one school to another have difficulty. That has been put right.

And the training of teachers?

The training of teachers comes under teachers’ certificates. Naturally it is part of the second point that I mentioned. Now I come to the third point, which is a big one. I do not want to say that schools should be ordered to have a certain syllabus. I do not like that. I do not think that teachers should be treated in that way. They are professional men. But within certain limits it is advisable to make suggestions, and then the broad outline can be the same. I am going to quote to the Minister from a publication which he probably receives, as I do, namely Educational News Flashes—Onderwysnuusflitse, of the Transvaal. I think that it is a first-class publication. This publication is in both languages, but the contents are not in both languages; otherwise I would quote in English. I am going to quote from the March, 1966, issue, page 10—

The article ends up with the following words in heavy print—

In other words, all this co-ordination we have heard about, the desire to appoint a special body to see that co-ordination is being carried out, is being carried out at a professional level in South Africa to-day. I do not see why the Minister needs this body. As I have pointed out, the reason for my amendment is to try to obtain a compromise and to keep education in touch with people who are outside the professional sphere of education. I ask that we be kept in touch with agriculture, with economics. The hon. member for Koedoespoort mentioned the Economic Council. The weakness of that council is that education is not better represented thereon. It should be.

The point I wish to make is this. The new advisory council which the hon. the Minister wishes to establish to-day—not the one to be abolished by clause 9 of the Bill—has a very light task, a routine task. I believe the Minister has the experts, he has able men in his own department to handle this matter. With my compromise proposal, namely with the two special men who can preside at meetings and who can prepare for meetings, and so on, I think all the ground would be covered. Therefore I urge the Minister to accept my amendment, which I think is a constructive one. I hope the Minister will not appoint five executive members as he had last time.

Since the hon. member has stated that that was not what he meant on the 31st August, I shall once more read the words which appear in Column 1827. This is what the hon. member quoted from the report of the National Education Advisory Council—

That is the end of the quotation. Then the hon. member for Kensington went on to say—

That it should return to the provinces.

No. What the hon. member read was this, both the national education policy …

I did not even see the policy.

The hon. member said that we have been striving to attain that for the past 40 years. The hon. member does not want to believe now what he said himself. I shall leave the matter there.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Chairman, I could not speak about the Policy Bill, because they were not allowed to publish it. I was speaking about the statement about handing over secondary education.

In any case, I have made my point. The hon. member knows that he meant it well and in an honest way; that was before he had to dance to the tune of the other people on that side. The hon. member is in reality an educationist of name and stature, but his party is knocking him about somewhat.

I just want to say something more about the matter which the hon. member for Kensington raised. He has made another plea. According to him there is no work for the Council. He wants to disparage the work. He says we waited 40 years for it. Sir, the hon. member is well acquainted with universities. I want to tell him that at every university there is a council and a senate. If the hon. member knows what goes on at each university, from the most trivial to the most important, he would not have spoken as he did. The senate at each university sits almost continuously each week, and if it is not sitting, then there are committees of the senate of the specific university which are continuously busy. After all, there is no such thing as stagnation there. The example which the hon. member mentioned here was that the key syllabuses are at present almost all that they ought to be. But the hon. member was an inspector of schools. Surely he ought to know that that is not the end. The matriculation board sits each time and works with sub-committees. Amendments and improvements are continually being made. Science is making rapid advances and adjustments have to be made. Surely the hon. member is blowing hot and cold now. Surely he knows that what he is saying there is not correct. If it is necessary for a university such as Potchefstroom, which has almost 3,000 students, to do so, and if I as chancellor receive the minutes of the Senate and of the Council, and I see what an amount of work these people have to cope with, then I cannot understand how the hon. member can want us to have only a chairman and a vice-chairman to preside over a body. Originally we intended that this Council should consist of seven people, because men like Dr. Jordaan, Dr. Bingle and others simply could not keep up as they had to write the reports themselves. They have to write out their reports after they have investigated the matter. They are really one-man commissions working on many of these matters. Therefore I cannot agree with the hon. member at all if prejudice has so blinded him that he cannot realize how much work there is to be done.

Will this advisory committee advise the Minister on university policy?

No. [Interjections.] I think we should become unilingual in this House and speak English only.

What has it got to do with English? I understand Afrikaans perfectly.

But then the hon. member should understand me. What did I say? I said the hon. member knows all there is to know about universities. That is what I began with. Now I want to explain to him by means of an illustration how one single university with a senate has to hold weekly meetings and then in addition has to hold a lot of meetings with senate committees. If that one university has to hold all those meetings, how can there be only a chairman and a vice-chairman, as suggested by the hon. member for Kensington, to preside at two or three meetings per annum on a national advisory council? I, Sir, suggest that there should be five permanent members on an executive committee. With that I am trying to prove that in view of all these thousands and thousands of schools and children, with their various kinds of activities, the State is probably justified in incurring the expenditure in respect of five permanent members while the other members only receive travelling and accommodation expenses. That is my argument. It has nothing to do with universities.

The hon. member for Orange Grove objected to the 19 members. But why did the hon. member not also object to the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington? He also wants 19 members.

I did not object to the number, I merely wanted to know who were going to be reappointed by you.

I am not obliged to reappoint any of them because I did not remove them from office. I appointed all of them for a fixed period, i.e. five years, as provided in the Act. Some of them were appointed for different periods of time in order to retain continuity. There were some of them therefore whose period of office had ended. I think there were approximately seven of them. I consequently extended their period of office for one year only. That means that all members, even the members of the Executive Council, are appointed only until 31st December of this year—in other words, after 31st December I shall have no statutory obligation towards any one of them, whether in a temporary capacity or a permanent one. I may just add here that all of them whom I offered to reappoint for a further 12 months accepted my offer. I therefore have the council at full strength until the 31st December.

Does that mean that this legislation will not be able to come into effect before 1st January, 1968?

No. I shall make use of these people if it is necessary. The hon. member knows that this Bill provides that the date of commencement will be determined by proclamation. We shall still see what ought to be done. I am certain that there will be quite a number of these people who will say that they are prepared to resign voluntarily if that begins to form an obstacle for us.

But you said that you had extended the period of office of some of the members for one year only. They are all therefore going to serve until the end of the year. But the question is whether they would then be serving lawfully since the new Act restricts their numbers?

It is a matter which I can consider. I can only say that we are all such good friends that we will arrange things amongst one another. I am certain of their cooperation. We shall have mutual consultations.

I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington in regard to the constitution of the council. While I appreciate that the amendment of the hon. the Minister has at least enabled certain conditions to apply, conditions which apply to the previous council established under the National Education Advisory Council Act, I believe that the hon. member for Kensington still conveys the feelings which were expressed at that time in regard to the composition of the council. I should say that the Opposition has every right to criticize the narrowing of the sphere of the work of this council. This Bill constitutes a diminution of the rights and functions of the council. I believe that the very fact that these clauses are set out as they are shows a disregard for many of the opinions which were expressed at the time when the Minister referred the matter to a Select Committee for investigation. Much of the advice and recommendations tendered to the Select Committee have not been put into effect and are further disregarded in this clause. Sir, it was always the opinion that there should be an advisory council. If one surveys the evidence given before the Select Committee, it is very interesting to see certain factors which were expressed explicitly. For instance, to the question whether the council should carry out investigations in schools, 12 of the 25 bodies that gave evidence said “no” and only five “yes”. To the question whether decision should be implemented by means of negotiations ten of these 25 bodies said “yes” and one “no”. To the question whether if there was no agreement decisions should be enforced seven said “yes” …

We have heard that speech before.

Yes, and I can only hope that the hon. member will listen again and try to put some of these things into effect. These sentiments are an expression of the feeling of very many people in South Africa. These statements have never been contradicted; they still stand. I believe that this Bill is magnifying the power of the Minister while it diminishes the rights of educationists and of those people who wish to play their part in education. This is contrary also to the Minister’s own undertaking. Section 7 (2) of Act No. 86 of 1962 lays down that the Advisory Council would act only in consultation with the Department of Education, with provincial education departments and with education bodies and organizations as well as with persons concerned with educational matters. But in this Bill there is no reference to this. Take the question of the appointment of committees. There is provision, under clause 4 (3), for the council with the approval of the Minister to appoint committees, but even this is a further diminution because in terms of the previous Act persons with a special knowledge or experience of any aspect of the work of the council could be appointed. Even in regard to the question of an annual report there is a further diminution of rights of this council because under the previous Act it was laid down that the report should be laid upon the Table of the House. Provision was also made for a minority report to be submitted, if necessary. There is no reference to a minority report in this Bill, however. There has been criticism from the hon. the Minister as well from the hon. member for Koedoespoort about the diversity of interests. The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that education should remain under an educational body. But I should like to point out that education is dependent upon, has interdependence with, other bodies—such as commerce and industry. Therefore the request by the hon. member for Kensington for provision to be made for these bodies to play their part is one which should be taken cognizance of. We have an example of a body which is working very well, which is providing information, useful and concrete information, suggestions and recommendations in regard to education, namely the Education Panel. This panel is comprised of education experts but other interested bodies also play their part and make a contribution. Therefore I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Kensington should be supported.

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister could not see his way clear to accepting the last part of the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington. I am referring to that part which makes provision that at least 40 per cent of the appointments will be from the other of the two language groups. The hon. Minister, who like me is an Afrikaans-speaking person, knows that when it comes to matters dealing with language and education, the language group concerned is extremely sensitive.

Were you here when I stated how many offers I have made to English-speaking people?

Yes, I was here. But allow me to complete my statement. The hon. the Minister knows how sensitive thedifferent language groups are in regard to matters affecting language and education. In fact, the hon. Minister has experienced the sensitivity of the English-speaking members in respect of this Bill here. Common sense demands therefore that the Minister should make certain that a fair balance is struck as far as his appointments to the Education Council are concerned. It is the policy of his Government to give control of their own educational matters to the various racial groups. That is what the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu are getting. The white group is not in exactly the same position—we form a whole but we have two distinct language groups. I should like to request that the Minister, if he does not want it in the Bill, give us the undertaking that he will see to it and do his best that as close as possible to the half of appointed members will be from each of the language groups. I think that is essential. There is the argument that the Minister made many offers. Well, there may have been suspicion. That I will believe, but part of the suspicion was based on the fact that many of the Government’s appointees to public bodies have been quite unbalanced and one-sided.

You cannot go by our language groups only.

Let us be fair. In the days when the Afrikaans-speaking people felt that justice was not being done to them, we were up on our feet. [Interjection.] The Minister says that merit must count. But there is the suspicion, and it is not an unfounded one, that “merit” is being held up too often as an excuse for making one-sided appointments. There are too many bodies which, this Minister appointed, where the English-speaking people are not getting their fair share, and it would be very dangerous here if the right thing were not done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider that part of the amendment and see whether something cannot be done to furnish the necessary reassurance. Particularly in this case where one has a Government which is made up largely of members of one language group, it is all the more necessary that that should be done. In addition, what seems strange to me in the section is the neglect of South-West Africa. Of the 19 members, 18 will be from the Republic, and the provinces as such are each given two members, but South-West Africa “not more than one”.

Because they have their own education, and really have sitting there in the capacity of observer only.

I think we must be more generous in our thinking on this matter.

Neither do they fall under this Bill.

But two heads are surely better than one. The real reason why I am asking this is because there is a very strong German-language group in South-West Africa, and there are also German schools in the Republic. Afford them the opportunity of sending two members as well so that those two members can represent the two main language groups there. That is the reason why I am asking this. I do not think it is necessary to always grant South-West one as against two from the other provinces.

The hon. member spoke in an ignorant way, for surely he knows what the position is in South-West Africa. We have nothing to do with their education. This legislation has no bearing on South-West Africa. All that they asked was to be able to keep pace with developments, and they asked whether they could send an observer. That was in terms of the 1962 Act. He is not counted as a full member. The Director of Education of South-West Africa was nominated. He has no vote; he has no say. He can discuss and give advice, but as observer one man is enough, and it will probably still be the Director of Education, in order to keep his own education department in South-West in touch. That is quite reasonable. It is not a question of South-West Africa being in any way inferior; actually they have nothing to do with it. However, we made this the position because they very much wanted to maintain contact.

I would just like to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we are now living in the year 1967. Why should we now, as far as this Education Council is concerned, define with mathematic precision the ratio between English and Afrikaans-speaking people. For the first time in the history of education in South Africa an education policy is being formulated on sound pedagogical educational principles, where no attack is being made on the spiritual properties of anybody. Never before in the history of this country has there been such a good understanding between English and Afrikaansspeaking people as there is at present. We are not playing one group off against the other.

But we cannot go to school together.

I want to tell the hon. member that the whole attack against this legislation is a revelation of the unnational spirit of the Opposition. It is typical of them when we deal with matters like this. They look for a sinister motive behind each clause, but in the meantime it rests on a sound educational foundation.

It is perfectly obvious that the Chief Whip has tried to throw oil on the troubled flames, and very successfully too. The whole reason why we want this assurance is that we have had previous experience of the Minister and his previous appointments to the Council. Because we saw the imbalance in that Council, we want the assurances contained in this amendment. Time will show whether the Minister is in earnest. So far we have not had adequate proof that the Minister is earnest and therefore we want this assurance, and it is better to have the assurance in the law than to have it by way of promises. For that reason we support the amendment.

I want to deal with the composition of this Council from an aspect other than that of language and, without being parochial, I want to look at the representation of the different bodies who will be responsible for the carrying out of the policy which will be adumbrated by the hon. the Minister in terms of this Bill. The position at the moment is that the existing Executive Committee under the 1962 Act has produced the extraordinary situation that the Cape has no representative on that Executive Committee. The Minister may perhaps say that there was nobody qualified to serve on it, but I cannot accept that that is the position in regard to educationists in the Cape, that there was nobody qualified to serve on that Committee. The Minister has moved certain amendments. The one in particular will provide now, if it is accepted, that the Advisory Council, as far as subclause (b) is concerned, shall consist of not more than two members in respect of each province and not more than one in respect of South-West Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that means that it is possible that there can be no representation of a province on this Committee if in his judgment there is nobody qualified to represent that province. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not at this stage perhaps consider deleting the words “not more than”, because I see the writing on the wall that we will have difficulty in expecting the House to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, and to leave it that there shall be two members in respect of each province. I would like to go further and suggest, because of the responsibility of the provinces in the administration of education, that those two persons should not be appointed by him after consultation with the Administrators, but to be appointed by the Administrator of each province. The Minister will no doubt find reasons as to why those appointments cannot be made by the Administrators. The second point which I want to urge upon him is this: He has indicated that in selecting the other members of the council he will have regard to the various bodies mentioned in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington but I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one of the important functions of the council under sub-paragraph (2) (c), namely that it shall endeavour to uphold and promote the prestige of the teaching profession and of persons engaged therein. Sir, that is a most important function and I hope that the Minister will perhaps go further than he has gone this afternoon and that he will be prepared to say that because of this important function he will specifically give the opportunity to the Federal Council of Teachers Associations, which after all is representative of English-and Afrikaans-speaking teachers throughout the country, of nominating persons or at least of submitting a panel of persons from whom the Minister will make selections in the composition of this council. This is a body which is particularly and vitally concerned with one of the functions of the council and we believe that they are entitled to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that their nominees will have an opportunity of serving as members of the council.

I would like to deal with one aspect raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in connection with the ratio of English to Afrikaans-speaking members on the board. I am dealing specifically with the position in Natal. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that there is suspicion and that for that reason a certain ratio should be maintained in making appointments to the board. I want to reply to that by saying that this suspicion is only in the minds of politicians. There is no suspicion in the minds of educationists. I am specifically concerned with this whole question, and I have kept my finger on the pulse of it. I know that there is no suspicion in the minds of the educationists. I should like to quote the view expressed by Mr. J. MacMillan, principal of the Highbury Preparatory school who said—

He added that he could see no cause for alarm over the proposed National Education Policy Bill and went on to say—

What about the South African Teachers’ Association?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member can ask his question in a moment.

What is the date of that report?

This is a quotation from The Natal Mercury of the 16 th February, 1967. Let me.quote another opinion—

He went on to say, as reported in The Daily News of the 16th February—

Order! What has that to do with the constitution of the council?

This has to do with the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that there is suspicion and fear in connections with this Bill. I am quoting the opinions expressed by leading educationists and people concerned with education to show that there is no fear and suspicion in the minds of the educationists. I continue to quote—

The hon. member who has just sat down missed the entire point. The argument I advanced was not whether there was suspicion about the general principles of the Bill. I said that English-speaking persons, in the light of earlier experiences of the appointment of public bodies, had become suspicious because a fair ratio had not been maintained between the two language groups. That was my point; it had nothing to do with the general principles of the Bill. I most certainly want to accept that there will be English-speaking persons who will approve of the general principles. Here I am only concerned with there being a fair ratio of English to Afrikaans-speaking members on the education council.

The hon. the Minister replied to the point I raised in connection with South-West Africa, and I am satisfied, but I should very much like to get a reply from the hon. the Minister to my request whether he can at least give an assurance …

I gave the hon. member for Orange Grove my reply to the request.

I listened very attentively to the hon. the Minister. He did not say that he would see to it …

I explained what I did the previous time, and I am going to do exactly the same thing again. I have again invited hon. members to submit names to me.

My feeling is that the hon. the Minister is evading this point somewhat.

That is your feeling just because you are suspicious.

I am not suspicious. My attitude rests on facts. I would be out of order if I were to mention the names of bodies in this debate, but it happens too frequently that there is not a proper ratio between the two White language groups on bodies appointed by the Minister. We shall discuss that when the Vote of the hon. the Minister comes up for discussion. It is a delicate matter …

I merely weigh up the merits of the likely candidates when their names are submitted to me.

It is really strange that the merits of the one section always outweigh those of the other. However, I want to conclude. I hope that before we leave this matter the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that we shall have a balanced body so that there will be no suspicion on the part of English-speaking people that there is not a proper ratio of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking members on the Education Council. It has been my experience that there is suspicion. I have many English-speaking voters. I make a point of not inciting one language group against another. At times, as things are in politics, there is a temptation to do so, but I never yield to the temptation to incite the two language groups against each other.

What did the hon. member for Durban (Central) say?

I am now concerned with myself.

But you are a member of the same Party.

I challenge any hon. member opposite to bring me proof on any other occasion when it will be permissible to do so, that I have incited the two White language groups against each other, because if there is one thing on which I have always strongly insisted that is that there must be cooperation between the two sections, but where the Afrikaans-speaking section is in power that section must be fair because we have always insisted on justice being done to the Afrikaansspeakingsection. I want to tell the hon. the Chief Whip that this is not at all a case of being “unnational”; it is precisely because we are so national that we want a national and not a sectional body, and it is because of the fact that these bodies are consistently so sectional that we object and want a really national body. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance before we conclude this debate that we shall have a balanced body on which the Afrikaans-speaking section as well as the English-speaking section will have fair representation.

The hon. the Chief Whip on the other side, the hon. member for Brits, has unfortunately left the Chamber, but I would like to quote Shakespeare to him where Shakespeare said, “Methinks thou dost protest too much”. The hon. member made a point about national unity.

Order! National unity is not under discussion now. Clause 4 of the Bill is under discussion. I have already allowed hon. members too much latitude and the hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I accept your ruling, Sir. We accept that there is national unity today but how much is there going to be in the years to come after this Bill has been implemented?

Order! National unity and what the effect will be in future, have nothing to do with the clause under discussion.

I accept the ruling, Sir. Dealing with the question of the ratio of representation on the board in terms of the amendment by the hon. member for Kensington, and in answer to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I want to quote a little further from the report which he quoted of a statement by Archbishop Hurley in The Daily News of the 16th February, 1967. It is the same report as quoted by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Let me say that it is not clear whether or not the hon. the Archbishop had seen this Bill at that stage. But he expressed a grave fear that if a programme of Christian national ideology, not with the hyphen …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that that might have been applicable to clause 2, but certainly not to clause 4.

Sir, on a point of order, the member for Umhlatuzana quoted from the same report.

I just want to finish what I was saying. Will the hon. member resume his seat, please? I have allowed the hon. member to speak as the last speaker on this issue, because, as a matter of fact, I should not have allowed the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to quote from the paper on that point.

I quote further—

That was said by the hon. the Archbishop, Sir. The hon. member went further and he quoted two individuals. One was the Archbishop and the other was an educationist. The South African Teachers’ Association—not one individual, but the whole Association—in an official statement reported in the Natal Mercury of Monday, February the 27th, 1967, after they had seen this Bill, after they had been made aware of the provisions contained in this Bill, said the following. The report reads—

Now, Sir, dealing with this bureaucracy, that is the reason why the hon. member for Kensington moved this amendment: “Provided that at least 40 per cent of appointments are made from each language group”. This House has heard what the hon. member for Bezuiden-hout had to say. There is no need for me to repeat those arguments. I support this amendment.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of subsection (1) stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy. J. P.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rens-burg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

NOES—33: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Fisher, E. L.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray. L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.: Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore dropped.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science and by Mr. E. G. Malan put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Fouche, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Have-mann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.: Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto. J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar,B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy. J. P.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

NOES—33: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Fisher, E. L.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray. L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.: Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, reading as follows—

I should like to explain my amendment. Its purpose is to direct attention to this paragraph, in order that I can ask the hon. the Minister to explain why this paragraph should be included. It occurs to me that it could possibly be included in the civil service regulations? I do not know. Possibly it is. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to say that a man can be suspended as a member of the executive committee for reasons of economy. Of course, that can happen to anybody for the reason that it will promote economy. “Efficiency” I understand, but I should like the hon. the Minister to explain that. He knows where it is. It is on page 8, subsection (5) (a) (iii). I shall read it:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Kensington that he was quite right in what he thought. That is not included in the regulations but in the Public Service Act, 1957, itself. The object of that is that if a person is perhaps no longer able to continue working as a result of his failing health and he has had five years’ service, he will be entitled to receive a pension if he is discharged under this subsection; otherwise he is not entitled to it. Therefore, this is really to protect such a person. [Interjection.] If he retires under these circumstances his period of service of five years is added. He will then receive a higher pension. This relates to matters beyond his control, and affords protection to the members. That is what this means.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. the Minister quite understood me. As I read it, the relevant words are “other than his unfitness or incapacity.” Therefore, Sir, if there is some other reason, then he can be removed, say, for instance, for reasons of economy. If this is taken from the regulations, then I wish to ask the Minister whether the members of this committee are to become civil servants in the usual manner? I move my amendment, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, Act No. 86 of 1962 contains the precise wording which appears here. What I find striking is that at first the hon. member for Kensington simply did not want to hear about five executive committee members when a previous clause was under discussion. Well, at a later stage he proposed that there were to be two executive committee members but that they had to be appointed by the State President.

Order! That is not relevant now.

Mr. Chairman, in his amendment the hon. member now seeks to protect those executive committee members. However, Sir, I do not want to discuss that any further. I should like to refer to clause 5 (3), which reads as follows—

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it should definitely be the ideal that the members of the executive committee must be fulltime officials. The reason for that is that at present there is a great deal of work to be done and that there may even be more in the future. Members will then have to obtain permission to perform extra work outside their official duties. Now I should like it to be emphasized—and I am inclined to think that that is what the hon. the Minister has in mind in this measure—that the members of the executive committee must be full-time officials. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that that is what he indeed has in mind in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply once more to the hon. member for Kensington. It is quite clear that such provision is made in this clause because members—a service member is described here—belong to some pension scheme. Now he becomes a member of our council and like before he himself has to pay his pension contributions into the same scheme. The Public Service Act provides that if such a person is no longer able to continue working for reasons beyond his control, i.e. if his strength is declining, if he is beginning to get old, or whatever the reason may be, he may be retired on pension and for that reason five years may be added to his pensionable service. The fact that the word ‘economy” is mentioned here, can be explained as follows. If it may then appear that the post is redundant as a result of that, he receives an extra five years and then that post need not be filled. This will only be done in absolutely exceptional cases in order to benefit the member himself and in order to enable him to get the largest benefit possible. This actually is a public service regulation of which the Public Service Commission makes a great deal of use. The position is that if a person is so run down, whether spiritually or physically, but may not yet be retired on pension, then he receives this privilege and, in addition, this opportunity.

To the hon. member for Koedoespoort I want to say that I do not intend amending the provision to which he referred. As I said a short while ago, I believe that this executive committee will have a great deal of work to do and that its members will have to be fulltime officials. The provision that a member, like any highly remunerated official as a matter of fact, has to obtain permission to perform any duty other than his official duties, completely answers the argument of the hon. member.

Will the members of the executive be permitted to continue as professors at the university or lecturers at the university?

No.

Will they now become full-time members?

Yes.

Then I should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about this clause. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that what I am going to say will be said in a quite different spirit than that in which the destructive and negative arguments have been advanced from that side of this House up to now.

Order! This clause has not yet been discussed at all; therefore the hon. member may not refer to other matters.

In order to put my case, I must refer to clause 4 and to the Advisory Education Council for purposes of comparison. The National Advisory Education Council is going to be the council which is going to give advice in the sphere of education. It will be a council to which the entire country will look up. It is going to be a council of status and prestige. Clause 6 provides for the appointment of a committee of educational heads and certain matters will also be referred to it for advice. Subsection (2) reads—

Therefore that is done as the Education Council determines. There is no problem about that. But then subsection (3) reads as follows—

Here, too, there are not many problems, because the Minister refers certain matters to the committee, but the difficulty really lies in the final portion of the subsection, namely—

This provision places the committee on a very high level, virtually on the same level as the Advisory Council. I think the seeds of future conflict between the two advisory bodies are inherent in those words. We are only human, and it may happen that this committee may at a certain stage of its development want to attract some of the prestige and attention from the Advisory Council to itself. I envisage the possibility that the hon. the Minister may at some stage or other find himself in the midst of a squabbling between two bodies and because he will be in the centre, he will find himself in an invidious position. I now want to suggest—and I think the hon. the Minister will do so—that where the hon. the Minister finds himself in an uncertain or difficult position as a result of conflicting advice which he may receive, he will refer the matter to the Advisory Education Council. I think the method to follow in this instance, so as to avoid any conflict at some later stage and in order that nothing will be detracted from the prestige of the Education Council, is to bring the recommendations of this committee to the notice of the Minister through the channel of the Advisory Council. If this can happen, I think it may be possible to eliminate the possibility of any conflict between different schools of thought which may have prejudicial consequences and which may place the Minister in a difficult position.

I think there is substance in what the hon. member for Pietersburg has said. You will remember, Sir, that when we discussed clause 4 I said that in establishing this Advisory Council for which the Bill makes provision, we could establish a council which would include heads of committees, because I realized what the hon. member has now pointed out. You may have two different points of view. The Advisory Council will advise and at the same time will come back to this committee. I have no objection to this heads committee. I said so at the time. The Bill says here that the committee shall advise the Minister or an Administrator. You will have two advisory bodies. When I made the suggestion that you could have one advisory body who then, together with the officials of the Department, could do certain things without establishing another body of civil servants, the Minister would not accept it. He insisted on having this new sub-department, this Advisory Committee. I think the Minister should give this careful consideration. If the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading, these are points which we could have discussed, but the Minister was so anxious to hurry this Bill through the House that we did not have that opportunity. I hope the Minister will explain this to us.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. members for Pietersburg and Kensington. The position is this. We have the five heads of the Education Departments. We are adding South-West Africa. These six people now really form a co-ordinated body of one’s high officials in the sphere of education. What actually happens in the Minister’s office? One instructs the head of one’s own Department that this and that must be implemented, but that head, if the relationship is right—and it must be right between administration and policy—must then also be able to come to one and tell one that he would like to bring it to one’s attention that this and that is something which can be done at that time. There is no question of any conflict arising in this regard.

It is for the Minister to decide that the matter which has been brought to his notice by these officials, the committee of heads, is one which is necessary and that it has to be referred to the Administrators for consultation or to the Advisory Education Council. I think that is a fine relationship. The entire matter of co-ordination becomes very closely linked indeed. It remains advice. The Director of Education in the Transvaal, for instance, may go to the Administrator and tell him, “I think you or the Executive Committee should now pay attention to this problem”. That is all he tells him. Consequently I think hon. members have no reason to fear that a conflict will arise between the National Advisory Education Council and the committee of educational heads as a result of the wording of this clause.

The problem which I foresee can possibly arise in regard to the operation of this committee of educational heads seems to exist as the result of the amendment to the definition of educational heads. Under the amendment which the Minister moved and which the House accepted, this committee of educational heads now includes the Director of Education in South-West Africa.

He always was a member.

He is brought in under this amendment to the definition of “educational heads”. We have a Council which will be advising the Minister on a policy which will apply only to the Republic and not to South-West Africa, but the committee of educational heads also has as a member the Director of Education of South-West Africa, and there he is sitting advising the Minister on a matter which is of no concern to South-West Africa; advising how we in the Republic should carry out the policy fixed by the Minister. I do not know what the purpose is, unless the desire and intention is that by association and affiliation the Director of Education of South-West sitting in this Committee might be influenced to think that it might be of benefit to South-West if they took over some of these ideas there. But it seems extraordinary to have him sitting on a Committee to advise how we in the Republic shall carry out the policy evolved by the Council for the Republic and not for South-West Africa.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

This is the clause that relates to an inspection that the Minister may cause to be made of a school. I presume the hon. member for Kensington will move his amendment, that this clause be omitted. I am not pleading that the clause should stand, but I took note of the fact that there are serious objections. I am therefore prepared to insert the words: “After consultation with or notification to the Administrator concerned.” This clause therefore makes it essential that I shall not arrive there like a thief in the dark with a gang of inspectors and trap the man, but shall give him notice, or shall even deliberate with him on the fact that such an inspection will be carried out. I think in this form it should be clear that there may be negligence, that the work may not be done, and then it is useful to have legislation, and if a person is innocent in the matter, there is nothing to fear. When I was a school-teacher I was always glad if an inspector visited my school, because I knew that everything was in order and I would receive a good report. But those who are afraid, or those who express fears here, are afraid that something may be found wanting; what greater achievement is there for a school or a province than that an inspection is carried out and everything found in order? Then it is actually a feather in their caps.

I think the hon. the Minister has missed the point. In this clause it is not a matter of whether you accept or welcome inspection; that is not the question at all. The question is that the Provincial Education Department will have its corps of inspectors. The Minister, not satisfied with the report received from the Transvaal through its corps of inspectors, will say: “I will send my own inspectors down; I will send along an inspector to inspect the work that has been done already.” I do not think any self-respecting profession could accept that, and I think the Administrator-in-Executive-Committee of any province would object to it. If the hon. the Minister will accept my suggestion then I think we could compromise. What I suggest is that he should say: “The Minister may, with the approval of the Administrator concerned.”

No.

That would be the sort of consultation where the two parties agree. The Minister could say: “I am not satisfied with what has happened,” and he could then discuss it with the Administrator. The Administrator would then say: “I am quite prepared to let you send down one of your own men to investigate.” That I can understand, but as the clause reads now I would not have the slightest hesitation in supporting my own amendment to negative the clause. We do not want that kind of inspection.

If this clause was in the Bill as submitted to the Administrators, I do not wonder that the Executive of Natal washed their hands of the whole Bill. I think this is a shocking thing. The Minister by inserting this clause is showing his belief that the Executive Committees in the four provinces are going to work in a manner contrary to law and that he has no faith or trust in their bona fides in so far as the administration of the law is concerned. He is showing not only lack of trust but he is saying in the most categorical terms here: “I am going to take steps to put up super-snoopers to investigate everything that you do in the Provincial Administration.” Sir, the Provincial Administrations, within the powers conferred on them by the Constitution, have sovereign powers of legislation, and the Minister comes along and treats them as though they were a very low form of local government which for some reason or other he has good cause to believe has dishonest people running it, so he is going to send along someone from the Auditor-General’s Department to go and investigate what they are doing. Sir, this is not a case of money; it is a question of carrying out the terms of the law. It stands precisely on a par with an investigation into the financial dealings of some minor, trivial little authority. The Minister says here in categorical terms: “I have no trust in these people.” What kind of response does he expect to get from this? This is not the kind of thing where the Minister can expect co-operation from anybody under these circumstances. He has already talked about the cane and the powers that he is going to exercise here and the powers that he is going to exercise there. He has taken powers already to annul provincial ordinances, and here he comes along with this kind of provision in the Bill. What about his trying it on some of his colleagues in the Cabinet and making arrangements to send inspectors to look at the way in which they are doing their jobs in their Departments? Sir, the hon. the Minister smiles. Perhaps somebody might try it on him and decide to send an inspector to go and look at his Department. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and this is a very good fat gander, and I am sure he needs a bit of sauce if he has not enough sauce of his own already. Sir, this is deplorable. It is the first time in my experience that this principle is being enshrined in legislation in South Africa. Here we have a flagrant attempt to reduce the dignity of a Provincial Administration to that of a minor local authority, with the Minister sitting there with the power to carry out these inspections. Sir, I am not here to say what would happen if I were a school master in a school visited by one of these inspectors under certain circumstances. But the hon. the Minister was a school inspector himself; he knows what kind of treatment he would have received. The hon. the Minister nods his head. He says they would have kicked him out. How right he is. We would like to kick the inspectors out here too but unfortunately we cannot do it, so we have to put up with this kind of thing. Let the Minister get up and tell us in the plainest language just precisely how he is going to put the heel of his boot on the Provincial Administrations.

Hon. members of the Opposition have insisted very strongly that there should be consultation. I want to quote once again from two documents. In August, 1966, this document was submitted to the Administrators, and I want to read what appears on page 11 under “clause 8”—

1. (i) An Administrator shall at any time furnish the information, reports and statements which the Minister may require from time to time.
2. (ii) The Minister may, after consultation with an Administrator, make an inspection of a department, school or office, or cause such an inspection to be made by a person designated by him for this purpose, in order to ascertain to what extent the Education Policy referred to in section 2 has been or is being carried out, or to report on any other matter determined by the Minister.

This document was submitted to the Administrators in August, 1966. [Interjections.] The hon. member will have to apologize in a moment, because here we really have an agreed measure. Then, on 27th September, 1966, after consultation with the Administrators, the Administrators requested that subsection (1) of clause 8 be deleted and that clause 8 read as follows—

I refer the hon. member for Durban (Point) to the document of 27th September, page 12. Here I have all the letters of the various Administrators. In the last letter, dated 18th October, from the Administrator of Natal, this point is not mentioned at all. The Administrator’s letter begins as follows: “We accept the Bill in its present form, with the following reservations …” Nothing is said under the reservations, and I am therefore entitled to say that the Executive Committee of Natal, together with the executive committees of the other three provinces, accepted this specific clause and that they are amenable to the inspections being carried out. I am interested to hear what hon. members on the other side will now have to say, because this is the strongest point they made here. No coercion whatsoever was applied to the provinces. If the members of the Executive Committee of Natal wanted to object to this, they could do so. I really think hon. members of the Opposition should leave the matter at that, because this clause is essential. The provincial Administrators appreciated its necessity; any reasonable person appreciates its necessity, and as the clause is worded in the present Bill, it is even better than in the draft Bill. It is better in that it will now read:

That is absolutely according to the agreement. I am now appealing to those hon. members—perhaps they have merely overlooked it—to be so generous as to admit that their province also agreed to this and that all the provinces agreed. The hon. member for Kensington, whom we know as a generous person—it will not affect his political standing in any way—should now get up and withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder why in the Bill that the hon. the Minister is talking about this is clause 8 but in the Bill before us it is clause 7.

I do not think that is an issue.

Mr. Chairman, if you will just listen for a minute, this is very much the issue in view of the reply that the hon. the Minister has given us.

We are now dealing with clause 7.

Yes, we are dealing with clause 7, but the hon. the Minister has just quoted from a previous Bill in which it was clause 8. I want to explain why. The previous Bill—the hon. the Minister shakes his head—has been subdivided into two. One is the Education Services Bill which is on the Order Paper. Look at the look of shame on his face, Mr. Chairman! He has been caught out in the act. He took another Bill, severed it from this and has made it a separate Bill. The clause with which he is now dealing is the clause applicable to the Education Services Bill. That is the position and so it was represented.

But what is the difference?

It makes all the difference in the world. The Educational Services Bill deals with technical education which has been under his department for some time and which was again to be brought back under the control of the provincial administrations. In bringing it back provision was made for the inspectors to have a look at that branch of education which was again coming back to the control of the provinces. The provinces had no objection to it. Now the Minister takes that provision and he applies it to the education which is normally under the control of the provincial councils. That is why the numbers of the clauses are different. That is exactly where the other Bill was severed from this Bill. The hon. the Minister’s face has given him away here. He need not shake his head and look shamefaced about it now. That clause was to deal with a feature of education in the original Bill which was under the control of his department and is now in another Bill which returns the control to the provinces, something which was in this Bill as originally drafted. It was part of this Bill and he has severed it but he has left that control in this Bill for the purpose of sending his inspectors to deal with education which usually is in the hands of the provincial administration. He has not removed it and put it into the Educational Services Bill where it rightly belongs. That is why the provinces accepted it. It was the natural corollary of handing back to them the control of that facet of technical education which his department has been handling. That is the answer to this question. The Minister must not try to get away from it by quoting his documents and saying that the Executive agreed to this. They did not agree to it in this context. They agreed to it in the context of technical education which is returning to the provinces. The hon. the Minister knows that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for South Coast is now doing a very mean thing. I want to say that it is a mean thing to accuse the Minister, because the accusation made here is that the Minister deliberately brought the provinces under the impression that these inspections would apply only to the technical schools to be transferred to them for administrative purposes, and that he is now using a trick and is going to make these inspections applicable to the Education Policy Bill. I think that is a mean insinuation which the hon. member cannot substantiate.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should use the word “mean”. It is not a proper word to be used in Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw the word “mean”. I shall say it is a mischievous insinuation which the hon. member should know should not be made. In any event, I think it is very mischievous. The hon. member makes a fuss about this matter, as though inspection is unacceptable, as though it is quite objectionable and as though this is the first time he has seen it in legislation. I want to quote to him from the Education Act of 1962, in which exactly the same is written.

You know nothing about that.

I wonder if the hon. member knows anything about this matter. In that Act it is written quite clearly—

The Minister is now adding that by way of an amendment—

He may carry out an investigation in those schools in respect of any matter he wishes to investigate. That is nothing but inspection. It is just not called inspection. I want to read the second part:

The concept of causing inspections or investigations to be made into a specific matter was incorporated even in the 1962 Act. The hon. members are making a fuss about something which is not so bad at all. Secondly I want to ask this: What point is there in the Minister determining a policy and having the power to enforce a policy when it is not carried out, if he cannot cause an investigation to be made in order to ascertain whether or not the policy is carried out, particularly in view of the fact that he is dealing with people who say in advance, “We reject your entire policy. We will have none of it.” Mischievous in all respects. Is the Minister supposed to fold his hands very trustingly and say that after they have rejected the policy completely and utterly, they will in any event carry out the policy word for word and not try to evade it anywhere? The Minister needs these powers of inspection. They are essential to make this Act effective. Finally, I want to reject with all the contempt it merits the idea expressed by the hon. member for South Coast, that the Minister was deliberately trying to trick those people.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot let it pass that the hon. member for South Coast should sin so blatantly against the full truth I have read out to him. I want to prove that by referring to the draft of August, 1966. The draft reads—

That has nothing to do with educational services. He has to carry out that inspection in order to ascertain whether the provisions of clause 2 which we have accepted in this Committee and which prescribe the education policy, have been implemented. That is the draft of August, 1966. In the draft of September, 1966, which is the final copy which was sent to the legal advisers with a view to drafting the Bill, it is again stated clearly that “the Minister may, after consultation with an Administrator, cause an inspection to be made in order to ascertain to what extent the education policy referred to in section 2 has been or is being carried out”. That has nothing to do with ordinary inspections. The hon. member for South Coast then came along and made out that I had brought the Administrators or the executive committees under the impression that it meant an ordinary school inspection in terms of the Educational Services Bill. It drives one to despair to be saddled with such things at a Committee Stage. This is the second time I have read that. I appeal once again to the good sense and the fairness of the hon. member for Kensington to get up like a man and to say that because this is an agreed measure between me, my councils, the Administrators and the executive committees, and they are amenable to it, he will withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will stand up as a man, but the position is that the hon. the Minister right from the beginning of the discussions on this Bill has been producing documents which we have never seen. Any document which the hon. the Minister has and from which he wishes to quote should have been laid on the Table of the House at the outset of this debate so that we could know what was going on. I want to read the clause that I have moved should be negatived.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that an hon. member cannot move that a clause be rejected. He must merely vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I merely gave notice of what our attitude was. It is a courteous thing to do. The clause states:

The Minister may cause an inspection to be made of a school …

What does it mean? He says that an inspection of a school “is nie ’n gewone inspeksie nie”. What is it then?

For what purpose?

It is perfectly clear. To see whether the policy that he lays down is being carried out. That is exactly what an inspector does in any school. When a man goes to a school, he goes to see whether the policy of his department is being carried out. [Interjections.] Of course he does. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kensington must make his own speech.

This is exactly the same thing. For the hon. the Minister to say now that he is not speaking of an inspection of a school is just too ridiculous in view of the wording of this clause. It is perfectly clear what he means. There is no doubt in my mind if words mean anything. What he means may not be what the words mean. That I am quite prepared to accept. What the words mean is perfectly simple and straightforward.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has quoted from some of the various and multitudinous Bills which have been drafted, but I notice that he did not quote from the Bill which his advisory council submitted to him.

That has nothing to do with it.

The Minister shakes his head and says that that has nothing to do with it. Of course it has something to do with it. The Minister alleges that he is advised in these matters.

All these Bills have been referred to the advisory council after they were drafted.

This was a Bill drawn up by the advisory council.

No, not the Bill. Only the principles.

Its title is “Konsepwetsontwerp om voorsiening te maak vir die bestuur van en beheer oor die nie-universitêre onderwys van blanke persone op ’n nasionale grondslag en vir daarmee in verbandstaande aangeleenthede”.

Look at their annual report. They call it “drafted in layman’s language”.

That is the problem with this Minister. Words mean what he wants them to mean.

The hon. member must get back to this clause. He is talking about the whole Bill again.

I want to make the point that this Bill, the title of which says “Konsepwetsontwerp …” was the one drawn up by the National Advisory Council and it did not have a clause in it dealing with inspections. The Minister then introduced the inspection clause which he quoted to us. He quoted correctly from what he called “the August Bill”. I think the Minister will agree that there was objection and that there were comments on it. The wording was amended in the Bill submitted on the 26th September. Words were inserted and other words were removed, for instance “the inspection of a department” was removed. The Administrator of Natal, speaking in his personal capacity, issued a statement saying, inter alia, that the public in Natal would welcome the Bill because it would strengthen the provinces’ control over education. If this was understood by the Administrator to mean that the inspection of education was to be removed from Natal and handed to the Minister and that the Minister could now send in super snoopers, as they have been designated, and that the Minister could appoint people to inspect, how could the Administrator have made a statement that this Bill would strengthen the provinces’ control over education? I want to know who has been misled. Was the Administrator misled?

No. You have been. You do not understand it. That is your difficulty.

I fail to understand how a provision in a Bill which entitles the Minister to send an inspector into a provincial school and to inspect, can be claimed to strengthen the control of the province over its own education.

Ask the Administrator that question.

Now the Minister is getting into it. Now he says that I must ask the Administrator.

You do not understand the Bill.

I understand the Bill perfectly well, and I also understand that the right of the Minister to appoint his own inspectors and to send them into Natal, is not an extension of the control of Natal over its education. When the Minister came with this printed Bill, it was not the wording which was before the Administrators in regard to inspection. Here is the printed Bill. Here is the Bill as the Minister read it out to this House. The Minister himself read it out, and it said: “Die Minister kan, na oorlegpleging met ’n Administrateur …”. Now the Minister is introducing an amendment to incorporate that, but the Bill before the House was not the Bill as it was put before the Administrators. The words “na oorlegpleging” were left out. The consultation was left out of the printed Bill.

Why does the hon. member want to argue that point which has been settled?

No, it has not been settled, Sir. We want to know what the consultation revealed. I submit that the consultation with the Administrators would have required, even amongst those who accepted inspection, “oorlegpleging”—consultation before an inspection. The Minister left that out and I want to know why. Why is he now coming back with an amendment to replace an omission consciously and deliberately made from the printed Bill? What is the story behind it? There is a story behind it, Sir. I do not believe that the Minister did this just to amuse himself. For no rhyme or reason he omitted from the printed Bill the words “consultation with the Administrators before inspection”. He would not have left that out for no reason. There was a reason for it. We are entitled to ask what the reason was. Does the Minister expect us to accept that he left out vital words providing for consultation merely because he did not think they were important? If there is a reason for it, I think we are entitled to know what transpired that led the hon. the Minister to move the amendment he has just moved. If the hon. the Minister thinks that people are being suspicious, he has only himself to blame. He is playing ducks and drakes here. He is putting one clause before the Administrators, and printing another in this Bill, and now amending it. If people say that the hon. the Minister is going to appoint Broederbond inspectors to carry out his views and that they are going to try to impress his political views on to the provinces of South Africa, he has no one but himself to blame. He has no one but himself to blame because I suggest that he has not been entirely frank. Here I have the resolution published by the executive committee of the United Party—controlled provincial council of Natal. That resolution rejects the Bill totally.

What is the date of that resolution?

This was subsequent to the negotiations.

What was the date?

I do not have the date here. It was in January.

When the House adjourned I had been dealing with the question of whether the sending of inspectors from a central office in Pretoria to inspect—and specifically I gave the example of Natal—schools and offices in Natal, whether that in fact was not a reduction of rights and of control as far as the Natal Provincial Council was concerned. I want to put very clearly to the Minister the simple issue. The hon. the Minister stated that he had not misled the Administrator and the Executive in Natal in regard to the reduction of power and control.

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

Oh, is this the same speech?

On a point of order, Sir, surely the hon. member’s time cannot have expired?

If a member spoke in Committee on a Bill before dinner and speaks again immediately after dinner, it is the same speech.

I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington to omit this clause. I reject it categorically. This has been referred to as the super snooper or the Gestapo clause in this Bill. [Interjections.]

What did the hon. member say?

I said this clause was referred to as the super snooper or the Gestapo clause of the Bill, because it provides for an inspection to be made at the instance of the Minister to ascertain to what extent the national education policy as laid down in this Bill is being carried out. We have heard from the hon. member for South Coast the effect that this clause has on the administration of education by the provinces. We have heard from the hon. member for Kensington of the effect it has on the profession. The hon. member for Kensington went on to say that no self-respecting profession would agree to such a clause in its constitution, or to be embodied in the rules in terms of which it is to be employed. I want to quote a report in the Natal Daily News of 25th February, which refers to a statement made by the S.A. Teachers’ Association on this very clause, and which reads as follows—

So much for the allegations made on the other side that this meets with the general approval of educationists. I think it is quite plain that it does not. The Minister and speakers on the other side have admitted that there is a shortage of teachers in South Africa, and particularly of English-speaking teachers. This shortage was created by bad facilities … [Interjections.] They have completely lost faith and confidence in the teaching profession outside Natal. [Interjection.] I submit that this clause is going to weaken the position even further. Teaching already is in an unsatisfactory position as a profession, but where we are going to have inspectors of education, on the one side, from the provincial authorities, those authorities which exist to-day, and in addition to that we will have inspectors of policy—in other words, big brother is watching—does the Minister really think that this will encourage more people, particularly from the English-speaking section, to enter the ranks of this profession? I am afraid that this is a case where the Minister, instead of attracting more recruits to the profession, will make them more and more suspicious. We know that we need more teachers for the welfare of our children, and I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this clause from the Bill.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) talked about the Gestapo clause, and he then said that that was the reason why there were no English-speaking people in the teaching profession. [Interjections.] That is the kind of propagandistic methods used by people who know little about education, in an attempt to sow suspicion among the English-speaking people. Here a national education policy is laid down, and once this Act has been passed, this House will hold the Minister responsible for the implementation of that policy. It will not be the provincial councils that will be held responsible, but the Minister will have to account to this House if this policy is not carried out. How can the Minister see to it that a policy is carried out unless he can employ methods to carry it out? That is why this clause is so essential and so logical. It goes without saying that if complaints reach the Minister he will probably first consult the Administrator concerned and find out from him what the position is, and it is only if the position continues that the Minister will send his inspectors. It is also provided in the clause that the Minister may cause an inspection to be made. It is not said here that he has to send inspectors from Pretoria. [Interjections.] If hon. members on the opposite side knew anything about education, they would know that the ordinary inspector of education goes to a school to check the standard and to see whether the regulations are carried out and whether the sylabuses are interpreted correctly, and all those things. It is not their function to lay down policy. How would an ordinary education inspector, unless he has specific instructions, be able to say whether one of these policies is being violated? Because the Minister will be held responsible by this House for the implementation of this policy, he must also have the authority to appoint those inspectors.

The hon. member who has just sat down has cast a gratuitous insult at every inspector of education. [Interjection.] It is an insult to suggest that existing inspectors of education are not fitted or qualified to carry out these inspections. That hon. member stated clearly and specifically that if the Minister was to be held responsible for the policy, he had to have his own inspectors to inspect on his behalf, and he implied that the existing inspectors were not to be trusted to inspect on behalf of the Minister, to see that his policy was being carried out. I refute that. I throw that insult back at the Nationalist Party. I say that the inspectors of Natal and of the other provinces, and the teachers of the other provinces, will remember that this Government has expressed, through this clause, a vote of no confidence in the inspectorate of the provincial Education Departments of South Africa. [Interjection.] You can wriggle and you can squiggle and try to get away from it as much as you like, but you cannot avoid the direct implication that the need for the Minister to send his own inspectors into a school or an office is a direct expression of lack of confidence in the ability of the existing inspectors. There is no other interpretation. The hon. member has let the cat out of the bag. He has spelled it out in clear, specific terms. He has said what the Minister has not said, and this is something which we will not forget and neither will those who have been insulted. This security branch which the hon. the Minister is setting up, this prviate inspectorate—he may have consulted with the Minister of Justice; I do not know—this private inspectorate of his, which is not going to be responsible to the departments which in the name of the Minister administer the education departments, are to be called upon to see that ten principles are carried out. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to these ten things which these inspectors are going to have to inspect. They are going to have to see firstly that education has a Christian character in the schools throughout South Africa. The hon. the Minister gave us his definition of what a Christian character should be, but he is appointing inspectors now and each of those inspectors can have their own interpretation of what Christian character means as applied to a school.

Order! The hon. member is dealing with clause 2 again, and I cannot allow that.

With respect, Sir, clause 7 states that an inspection may be made in order to ascertain to what extent the national education policy has been or is being carried out.

Order! If I allow the hon. member under clause 7 to analyse everyone of the ten principles and to ask how they are to be applied, then we are going to have the Second Reading debate all over again. I am not going to allow it.

Am I not allowed to deal with the powers granted to these inspectors under clause 7? Clause 7 gives powers to the inspectors to do a specific job and, with respect, I want to deal not with clause 2 but with clause 7 and what the inspectors are going to have to do, because clause 7 says what they shall do; they shall see that a certain policy is applied.

Order! The policy to be applied has been discussed over and over again.

I am not questioning the policy and I assure you, Sir, that I will not debate the policy.

Order! If the hon. member asks the Minister what the inspectors are to do about Christian education and how they are going to carry out their duties in respect of each of these ten points, then he is debating the policy.

Sir, I accept that the policy has been passed and that we cannot question or debate it. What I am discussing is how the inspector to be sent into a school is going to apply his responsibility in carrying out an inspection. What will he actually do when he comes into a Scripture class or when he comes into morning assembly and he hears the reading of Prayers? He is inspecting that school. Surely we are entitled to ask how he, when attending a Scripture class, will carry out his duty as an inspector in reporting to the Minister. On what is the Minister going to ask him to report? Is the Minister going to ask him to report whether the text which has been chosen is a suitable text?

Order! I have already told the hon. member that he can raise all these questions and ten times as many questions on every one of the ten principles if I allow him so much latitude. I am not going to allow it. The hon. member must come back to the clause

Very well, I will come back to the clause and I will put this in general terms if I may not do it in specific terms. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what he will expect in the form of a report from his inspectors, when they go into a school in Natal or the Cape or the Free State or the Transvaal for that matter, in regard to the carrying out of the policy laid down in this Bill? Does he expect those inspectors to go into the detail as laid down in clause 2 or does he merely want a general report from them? This is a matter of tremendous importance.

One of the factors which must be taken into account in this Bill is that recognized teachers’ associations shall have a voice and a say and be recognized in educational planning. That is something which has already been passed by this House. Officially recognized teachers’ associations will be recognized in educational planning. When an inspector knows, for instance, that the South African Teachers’ Association has condemned clause 7 of the Bill, is that inspector to report to the Minister and say that in terms of this measure the views of that teachers’ association are accepted, or is that inspector, on behalf of the Minister, to say to the teachers who form the S.A. Teachers’ Assocation that they are wrong and then impose upon them the views of the Minister? What is his position going to be vis-à-vis the teachers when he finds himself in the cleft stick that the association has stated its specific opposition and the Minister has stated his specific policy? Is the inspector to be ground between those two irresistible forces or is one of them to be rolled into the ground? These are matters on which we must have clarity if we are to pass this clause and give this power to the Minister.

Before I sit down, I want to complete the question which I was putting to the Minister when my time expired. My question was this: In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that the Administrator of Natal was not misled and that this clause specifically reduces the power of the Provincial Council, will he now tell us … [Time expired.]

Just in the case of the previous clause, hon. members of the Opposition are again sowing suspicion unnecessarily. This clause is perfectly simple, if only hon. members would read it. [Interjections.] If only the hon. member would read the clause in its simple terms, he would understand that it holds no evil intentions. The clause reads—

He may employ those same inspectors, of whom the hon. member for Durban (Point) is so jealous at the moment and whom we all accept to be good men, to make this inspection; it is not said here that those people may not do it; he may employ them to make the inspection. He may ask the Administrator to appoint an inspector to bring out a specific report, because the rest of the clause provides for that—

He may ask the Administrator to submit to him a report on a certain aspect. The entire matter is crystal clear, but hon. members of the Opposition, with a view to outside publicity, wth a view to opposition to this Bill, are so anxious to present this clause in a bad light. It is a deliberate attempt. The hon. member for Durban (Point) need not look at me like that; I know he dined well to-night, and there is no need for him to look at me like that. This clause is quite clear. Here a clause is simply being introduced to afford the Minister an opportunity to see to it that his policy is carried out, and this House may hold the Minister responsible for the implementation of this policy. Hon. members of the Opposition may attack him, when his Vote is brought up for discussion, on certain policies which have not been carried out. How is the hon. the Minister to implement the policy if he cannot instruct an inspector to ascertain whether or not the policy is being carried out? How else is the policy to be carried out? Is there any justification for attacking him? I feel that we are dealing here with mischievous opposition to this clause. That is why this clause is being associated with all the unpleasant things hon. members on that side can think of, and that is why specific names are given to the clause, as has been done here, in order to stick a label to this measure as though it is a far-reaching measure which confers exceptional powers on the Minister.

I actually rose to state another point very clearly and very strongly. The hon. member for South Coast is not in the Chamber at the moment, but in view of the assurance the hon. the Minister has given him and the entire Committee, I want to appeal to him to get up and apologize to the Minister for the mischievous and purposefully false attack he made on the hon. the Minister before business was suspended. He brought the false accusation against the Minister that he had made an attempt to mislead the administrators. If the hon. member for South Coast can march, he now has the opportunity to get up here and to march like a man and to apologize to the hon. the Minister, and if he does not apologize, I want to say that the hon. member is not the man we think he is.

In terms of the clause which we are discussing the Minister may cause an inspection to be made. It is not clear from this clause in what manner it is intended that that inspection will be carried out. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the provisions of section 5 of the 1962 Act, which provides that the Minister after consultation with the Administrator concerned or any other Minister, may appoint a committee consisting of a member of the council and two other persons to carry out an investigation in regard to one or more schools as the Minister might direct. Sir, I think it was a fairly reasonable approach that the Minister should direct his mind to a particular school and that he would after consultation then send a committee to do an investigation. But under the clause as it now reads it would appear that independent investigators are to be directed by the Minister to carry out an investigation, and in place of the committee we will have a James Bond in a mortar-board who is going to do an inspection at a school.

Order! The hon. member must not repeat arguments already advanced by other hon. members.

I want to proceed then to the appeal which the hon. the Minister made to us immediately before the suspension of business to accept a clause which, as he told us, was settled in consultation with the Administrators. In making this appeal he dealt quite correctly with the first, second and third editions of the Bill before it came before the House. The hon. the Minister then referred to the Bill as printed. By the Minister’s own amendment, the Bill as printed did not conform with what he had discussed with the Administrators.

Order! That point has been made at least ten times.

The hon. the Minister has now moved an amendment to insert the words “after consultation with or notification to the Administrator concerned”. I want to ask the Minister: When in any draft and at any time did the Administrators accept the words “or notification to the Administrator concerned”? The amendment which the Minister now wishes us to accept as being one acceptable to all the Administrators, says that he will send them a peremptory note and say “I am going to cause an inspection to be carried out”. Sir, that is not what the Administrators agreed to, according to the hon. the Minister’s own explanation to us. His explanation to us was that they were prepared to accept “after consultation with the Minister”. The words “or notification to the Administrator concerned” appeared in no draft; it appeared in neither the first, second, third or fourth edition of this Bill.

I am surprised that hon. members should continue debating and arguing this point. The hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Green Point, asked when I had consulted the Administrators with regard to the amendment proposed here. I want to repeat that in terms of section 59 of the Constitution Act Parliament shall be the sovereign body as regards legislating. Earlier in this debate I did in fact accept an amendment by the hon. member for Green Point, but if the hon. member contends that his argument is correct, we could not have accepted that amendment. What is the difference between one amendment and another? According to the hon. member’s present argument, it means that this House does not have the power to effect any amendment to the Bill before and until such amendments have been referred back to the Administrators or to the National Advisory Education Council.

You said that we should accept this Bill because the Administrators accepted it.

I said this amendment did not constitute a new provision. I want to say once again that the draft approved by the Administrators after final consultations in September, 1966, provided quite clearly that the Minister shall do certain things after consultation with one or more Administrators. The only objection now raised by the hon. member is that the words “or notification” did not appear in that draft. But surely the hon. member knows that “after consultation” means virtually the same as notification.

You may give notification without consultation.

Say, for example, I receive information to the effect that at a certain school the education policy is not being carried out in respect of particular points. With that information I would then approach the Administrator of the province concerned and tell him that I have received such information and that I am going to order an inspection of the school concerned on those grounds. And if the Administrator tells me that I cannot do that, I can surely do it nevertheless. But what is the meaning of the words “or notification”? I think this is a very mild term. For example, I may write him a letter to draw his attention to certain matters which have been brought to my notice and inform him that as a result of those things I shall be compelled, unless matters are set right, to order an inspection. Notification is therefore milder than ordering an immediate inspection. The notification serves merely to inform the man that everything is not in order and to ask him to have it put right. Let me point out to hon. members once again that provincial administrations form part of the government of the country. They are not separate, hostile institutions, but form part of the Government. We are now in fact dealing with legislation to allocate the functions of the various sections correctly. The policy must be determined centrally. That is our attitude, and if hon. members on the opposite side do not agree with that, that is their business. In fact, the majority of the population of the country says that policy should be planned centrally. For Bantu education the policy is planned centrally, and similarly in the case of coloured education and Indian education. In the case of white education it must be exactly the same. But now one has to employ other Government bodies to have the policy implemented.

Therefore my final reply is that we are not violating any principle in this respect. Administrators and their executive committees are aware of this provision. They will most certainly not be grateful to hon. members on the opposite side, because they agreed that this measure should be drafted in this form. When the law advisers drafted the Bill, the amendment I am proposing now was not contained in it. The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me why I was moving this amendment now. I thought it would be no more than fair to do so. No sensible person would in any event simply send a bunch of inspectors to a school one fine day. But I considered, nevertheless, that it would be no more than fair to insert this provision, namely that inspection may be ordered after consultation or after notification. I appeal to hon. members not to pursue this point any further. It is not getting us anywhere. The principle is correct. One cannot lay down a policy without providing at the same time for the necessary means to see to it that that policy is carried out. In clause 2 (2) it is provided that the task of the Administrators shall be to carry out the policy, and in clause 7 it is provided what may be done with an offender, i.e. the person who failed to do so. That is necessary, otherwise the policy cannot be carried out.

Order! I warn hon. members that from now on I shall not allow any further repetition of arguments on this clause.

The hon. the Minister has pleaded with us not to take this matter any further, because, so he states, there is no difference between “oorlegpleging” and “kennisgewing”. He said there was no difference between consultation and notification.

Oh, no.

If the hon. the Minister looks at his Hansard he will see that he said “maar daar is geen verskil nie”. Those are the words he used and he added “net die een is sagter as die ander”. But I dispute this. The procedure, as explained by the Minister, would apparently be that the Minister would go to an Administrator and tell him that a particular school was not carrying out the national policy in this or that respect. Consultation means that they will then discuss the matter so that the Administrator may have an opportunity of explaining the true position to the Minister—in other words, they will consult. Here again, Mr. Chairman, words when used by the Minister do not have the same meaning as they have in a dictionary. He has his own meaning for words. He has his own interpretation because “consultation” means an exchange of opinions. As against this the sending of a notice is a different thing, because the Minister can simply write a letter to the Administrator of Natal, for instance, telling him that he, i.e. the Minister, is going to inspect Hilton College or any other private school because he does not like the way in which these private schools are carrying out the national policy. That would be a notice. As a matter of fact, the Minister need not even give a reason—he can merely say that he is going to inspect one or other of these private schools in Natal. How can this be a “softer” form than consultation? When parties consult, they get together and discuss their problems. I just cannot understand it. The Minister then went on to say that he would lay down the policy while the Administrators would carry it out. However, he made it clear, beyond any shadow of doubt, that he intended retaining all control. This clause, i.e. clause 7, gives him that control.

After consultation.

Or notification—after consultation or notification, notification to which there need be no reply.

I am talking of national policy.

The Minister made it quite clear that he intended maintaining control. I now want to ask the question which I have endeavoured to put on two previous occasions, namely that if that is so and the Minister has that control and this clause strengthens that control—was the Administrator of Natal incorrect and was he misleading Natal when he said that the public would welcome the Bill because it would strengthen the province’s control over education? I ask this question in the light of the Minister’s statement that this clause would strengthen his own control. Was the Administrator, therefore, correct or incorrect when he made that statement? That is all I want to know. If the Administrator was correct, then I should like to know in what respect the province’s control is strengthened by this Bill in view of the fact that the Minister himself said that this clause was designed to strengthen his own control? It is a clear and specific question. It is a simple issue. It is based upon the acceptance of the Minister’s word that he did not mislead the Administrator. Now he must say whether the Administrator was then wrong.

I now want to refer to the acting unappointed deputy adviser on education, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who stated in a Press statement that it was totally untrue that this Bill meant that education for Whites was being taken over as was the case with the Bantu, Indian and coloured.

Order! What has that got to do with this clause?

I am replying to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman. The Minister’s words were: “Presies dieselfde as Bantoe-, Kleurling-en Indiëronderwys.”

Order! The Minister said that the education for those groups was controlled by different departments. In any event, this has nothing to do with this clause.

The Minister was dealing with the right of inspection and said that this Bill gave him control “presies dieselfde as Bantoe-, Kleurling-en Indiëronderwys”. The Minister says this clause gives him the same power in respect of white education. He said it was giving him the same power in centralizing education as it is being centralized for the other races. But the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said the exact opposite.

When?

It is quite right that the hon. the Minister should have repudiated the hon. member. Therefore, we would like three statements from the Minister: Firstly, that the Administrator of Natal was incorrect; secondly, to clarify whether this clause gives him the power to take over white education in the same way as Bantu, Coloured and Indian education has been taken over and if not, whether the Minister will then withdraw his statement and repudiate himself; and thirdly, the question whether in fact notice is a softer form than consultation. These are matters on which I believe this committee and the country as a whole are entitled to a reply from the hon. the Minister.

Order! I put the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. Are there any objections?

Mr. Chairman …

I have already put the question, and the hon. member did not get up to speak. [Interjections.] Order! I said very distinctly that I was putting the question and nobody rose to speak …

Mr. Chairman …

…and then I put the amendment moved by the Minister. [Interjections.]

Before you put the amendment, Sir, I rose. [Interjections.]

Order! I will allow the hon. member to speak.

I will tell you why I was slow in rising, Sir. I did not think that the Minister, or the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, was going to remain seated without replying to the points made by the hon. member …

Order! Will the hon. member come back to this clause? What the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said outside this House is not in issue at all.

The point is this, Sir. If the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is wrong in his interpretation of what is meant by this clause, so are a lot of other people.

What are you referring to?

To the statement that the hon. member made …

Which statement? [Interjections.]

Will the hon. member please confine himself to this clause? I have nothing to do with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

I want to know this from the Minister. Does the passing of this clause mean in fact that white education will now be controlled in the same way as Bantu education is?

I did not say that, and this clause is very clear. I made it as clear as possible.

What did the Minister say? He said that he is taking the same control as is exercized over Bantu education.

I am not interested in what you understood me to have said.

Will the Minister tell us in what way this resembles the control over Bantu education? The Minister himself mentioned Bantu education. Will the Minister tell us in what way it differs from the control over Bantu education.

Read the Hansard if you want to.

The Minister mentioned Bantu education. We on this side did not raise it—he raised it.

You can read in what context I used those words.

By way of interjection the Minister said the control over white education is not the same as that over Bantu by saying that it is the same. We want to know from the Minister what is the position. Is it in any way the same as the control over Bantu education, or is it not? Why did he mention Bantu education? When I asked him whether it is the same, he replied in the negative. When I asked him whether it is not the same, he also replied: “No.” Surely this House is entitled to know whether it is the same or not.

Order! The hon. member has put the same point five times now, using different words each time.

Mr. Chairman, I did not put it five times.

Yes, the hon. member did.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name:

To omit subsection (3).

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some explanation as to why this clause is necessary at all. Why should the hon. the Minister in an Act define how some minor professional experiment is to be carried out? Let us take a closer look at the provision contained in this clause. The first part of the clause is quite reasonable but there is no reason why provision should be made for it in a Bill—

There is no reason why he or any department of education should not establish such services. Let us now come to subsection (2), which states:

I have no objection to him doing that but I do not see why that should be included n this Bill. I moved to omit subsection (3), which states that:

I ask: Why not? Why should the four provincial administrations, or five, including South West Africa, not establish as many as they wish? Why should we say there should be no experiment in education? It is not only audiovisual experimentation. Suppose they have a closed television circuit in Natal? Perish the thought. But this is a new enlightened age coming with the Bill of the hon. the Minister. Why should you not then have one in the Free State? Why should the Administration have to go to the Minister, who will say, “No, I have given permission for one in Natal and under subsection (3) I cannot give permission for another.” I asked the hon. the Minister for Bantu Education the other day how many language laboratories were in use in the Bantu Education Department. He said none. The language laboratory is the modern method of teaching a language. Supposing they say they are going to teach a language, for instance French or German, in the Transvaal by means of a language laboratory in not one but three or four schools, why can they not do it in the other provinces? Why should the Minister say that people are not to experiment in education? Surely the hon. the Minister cannot be serious in subsection (3). I do not know whether the educationists here will have something to say about this. Take for instance something which is not audio-visual such as the new modern I. T.A. method, the initial I. T.A. method, the initial teaching alphabet, which has come to this country. It is popular in many English speaking parts of the world to-day. As we know, the English language is not phonetic as Afrikaans is and English-speaking teachers are always experimenting with new methods of teaching people to read. In the Transvaal they have a department with vison and they say that five of our schools will carry our that experiment and observe it over a period of one or two years. Why should five schools in the Cape not do it? Must they go to the Minister? I think the whole suggestion is absurd. In my Second Reading speech I said it was the final absurdity in this Bill.

I can think of no dictatorial method which could possibly be worse than to say that in education we are going to restrict the field of experiment. An inspector of schools visiting a school where there is an experiment being carried out, will encourage it, not in only one school but in others. He will be very glad to see it not only in a department of education but in an individual school. All the great movements in education have come from the individual schools. Very often church or private schools, public schools as they call them in England, have carried out experiments. The Montessori method came from a private school. The individual Dalton plan came from a private school. But rugby football is the greatest thing that ever came from a private school. All these things have come from people experimenting. [Interjections.] The hon. member thinks that rugby came from Stellenbosch. The hon. member thinks that Rugby is a suburb of Stellenbosch. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to keep subsections (1) and (2) if he wishes to do so but please delete subsection (3) because it is absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, there are no dangers inherent in this clause. It has been included in this Bill for only one purpose, namely to be able to eliminate the overlapping of very expensive aids which often occurs in education. Sub-section (1) provides that “in consultation wth the Minister of Finance and after consultation with one or more Administrators … auxiliary services may be established. Sub-section (3) provides that when an auxiliary service has been established in terms of sub-section (1) after consultation with the Minister of Finance, the others may not do so. I want to mention a few of these auxiliary services in respect of which there need really not be any overlapping. The first is aptitude tests. The hon. member will know that it is an expensive process to draw up, standardize and test such an aptitude test to the point where it is absolutely correct. Suppose all four provinces do the same thing. They can rather do it collectively and say: “This task we assign to Natal.” Then I want to mention a second test, which is also a very expensive one, namely the intelligence test. As the hon. member knows, intelligent tests play a very important part in education to-day. An enormous amount of capital is required to test the I.Q. of a child and to help to guide him in a certain direction and to indicate to him which is the best course for him to take. Many people have to work on these tests and then they have to be standardized. Later these tests have to be verified and they have to be adapted continually. It is quite possible in terms of this clause to assign this work to one of the other provinces. It would be wrong for five education departments to carry out the same work at the same time and, perhaps, to reach the same conclusions. It is an expensive process.

I want to mention another example. We now have the new development of language laboratories. Hon. members must please listen, because I am now going to give the reasons why we want to grant this authority. Hon. members are opposed to this even before I have finished with what I want to say. The hon. member for Durban (North) is already annoyed about this matter. Let me now quote another auxiliary service, which is also terribly expensive. That is the programming of language laboratories. This is a new development. I hope some hon. members have already visited some of these language laboratories. There is an excellent one in Durban. There is one in Cape Town as well, which I have visited. It is an excellent new development, particularly for immigrant children and for people who want to learn our official languages. We need programming in this service. It is expensive to have this service programmed and established for every province. After all, it is the taxpayer’s money that is spent.

What a reason!

Of course that is a reason. It is one of the most important reasons. This is not a point of policy, but it does belong in this Bill. It is to the benefit of the taxpayer if we can centralize these auxiliary services, instead of allowing them to overlap and paying over and again for them. I want to mention two more. Another is the record library, where grammophone records are made. There are tape recordings and it is an expensive process to make grammophone records. We can use the same grammophone records. We can assign the task to a particular province and the Government can then subsidize that province to carry out the task. Why should we give everybody his own grammophone records needed for educational purposes? The same applies to the film library. A few years ago we established a National Film Board. All the film work carried out by the various departments we have centralized in the Film Board, with very good results. Each department had its own film service. The result was that it was not a very adequate film service. Each one had expenses, which included salaries and administrative costs, while we are now achieving the most wonderful results through this one Film Board. Hon. members will do well to look at the good work which has already been done in this field. They will receive an invitation one of these days. I do not know whether they may have already received it. They will receive an invitation to attend a film show by the Information Department on 16th March to see what the Film Board has produced this time. Brilliant work has been done. We need that for the schools. I am just mentioning a few examples. I hope hon. members are not going to argue about these examples and say that they are not good examples. These are examples which simply occurred to me. It may be that I have mentioned an example of a service here which is not a particularly fitting one and which could rather be decentralized. I merely asked my Secretary which of these matters we had in mind. We shall certainly examine them very thoroughly before applying them in practice. I feel very strongly that this amendment should not be accepted. I cannot accept it, because I think we shall be able to render better service by means of this central service.

Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister knows something about human nature. He has been long enough in the educational world to know that if you try to centralize everything, you stifle initiative. Does the hon. the Minister think that if the object of this clause is to centralize everything in Pretoria, that anybody in any part of the country will be allowed to have any initiative at all? Does he know anything about elementary human jealousies? Does he not even find it in his own department? Everybody likes to have the monopoly of ideas. Here, according to this clause, we are putting all the initiative in regard to the design of education in the hands of the Minister, and, in effect, unless you have a Pretoria idea, you do not have a hope. If the Minister does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, he is virtually admitting that he intends to centralize ideas. The Minister has mentioned various modern concepts of aids to education. He has mentioned the language laboratory, records, films and so forth. Surely the Minister will know that various centres will have their own experimentation. In many cases they cannot run amuck as far as expenditure is concerned, because they cannot get the equipment without first applying for a grant to headquarters. They cannot spend money recklessly. They cannot waste money because they have to go to their respective schools and respective education departments to get the necessary funds. There will be some of them who will get the necessary equipment by private subscription. Many of the experiments which have resulted in progress in education have been the result of educationists themselves having the initiative to experiment. Following the experiments, they have developed a certain technique, and that technique has been improved upon. Half the experiments that have been made in education in this country by leading educationists have been the result of individual effort. I do not hesitate to suggest that the initiative and the ideas and the imagination are not centralized in Pretoria.

Where do you get the idea that everything is centralized in Pretoria?

The Minister knows, as well as I do, that when Parliament is not sitting in Cape Town, he is in Pretoria, and the Minister is the great dictator. The Minister’s department will decide whether an experiment is to be made. The matter will not come to the Minister personally. The Minister surely knows something about administration after all these years in public office. Let me give him an example. A teacher with some imagination—shall we say in one of the Cape schools—may have a new idea. Before he can experiment and put this new idea forward, he has to write to Pretoria for permission to start his new experiment, if this clause is passed. How long does he wait for a reply? His request goes to Pretoria. It goes to the head of the Department. The Department has the usual escape. It goes into the pending file. From there it comes to the Minister’s attention. This man wants to get on with the job. He has the scholars interested. He has to wait and say “No, I am sorry. We cannot go ahead because we have to wait for the Minister’s permission”. Eventually the Minister’s permission arrives. Now we are considering something similar in the Transvaal schools and everything will be modelled on the Transvaal. We cannot accept this clause as it now stands. The Minister should accept the hon. member’s amendment because we know in practice that the initiative will start from the headmasters and from the teachers with initiative. The initiative will not start in Pretoria and the Minister’s heads of departments. In some cases they may allow for initiative, but in other cases they will not allow for initiative and they will want to ensure that all the best ideas come from those nearest to the Minister’s throne.

Mr. Chairman, I am not impressed by the Minister’s explanation or his defence of this subsection. I accept what he says about the films. That is quite true, but how did it come about? It did not come about through legislation, but because professional men in all the provinces have come together and said they have these departments, they have their own films and that therefore they are in favour of centralization. A similar development will take place for any other method one uses. I do not think there is the slightest difficulty. For example, I have just been reading a treatize for a doctorate at Stellenbosch University on the modern method of rapid reading to get a general impression of reading matter without reading word for word. It is a piece of research work from a university, nor from a province. Surely universities are free to experiment in this way? Surely universities are free to experiment in “verstandtoetse”—the intelligence tests the hon. the Minister referred to? They are free to do that. You have men working out these tests. From the days of the Simon-Binet tests they have made all this progress by private initiative. All progress has come through private initiative with a sympathetic department of education in the province to encourage them. We must have these fields of experiment. We have had fields of experiment in agricultural education in our country schools. Should we say that if we are to have an experiment in the Transvaal, you may not have it in the Free State? Why should you? They are experimenting in different directions. Look at the third subsection. Everything is to be done with the approval of the Minister. [Interjections.]. The Minister has just told us in the early stages of this speech that they are experimenting. This is the lifeblood of education. That is why we have this modern development. The Minister has referred to the computer. That has come from experimentation in various countries, and strangely enough, in Britain originally, until the Americans saw the value of it and developed it. You cannot say you are going to experiment only in one direction and in one province. That is absurd. You may have two or three schools in a province experimenting, if you have the right kind of headmasters, and perhaps being done under the auspices of a university. You might have a country school in the Transvaal, with a university assisting it. Sir, I really think the Minister should be reasonable. Drop this third subsection and keep the other two if you wish. In fact, it has no meaning whatever except that the Minister will say who shall experiment.

I have listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister has said. He has referred to various educational matters and he has insisted that this control should be centralized. As we read this clause, when an auxiliary service has been established in one centre, no similar service may be established in another centre without the Minister’s approval. What is the Minister going to do with those which are already in existence? There is an excellent language laboratory in existence in Durban. There is one in existence in Cape Town which my hon. friend says is even better, but do not let us start an argument between the provinces. There are also language laboratories in existence in private schools which are subsidized by the Government or by the province, and which fall within the ambit of this particular clause. If this control is going to be centralized, what is the Minister going to do with them? Is he going to remove them from some of these subsidized schools and lend them out to other schools? I would like to hear from the Minister what exactly he plans to do with these things. How will he work this policy of his?

I also want to refer to the Minister’s statement where he said that he does not want to waste the taxpayer’s money by duplicating these services in the four provinces. Last year I pleaded with the Minister to spend more money on the education of our children and I pointed out to him that this was the finest investment this country could make. Here we have the Minister curtailing this now. I want to quote the comments of a body known as the Natal Education Society which, talking about the Minister’s preoccupation with control, said—

Sir, quite honestly I cannot see the force of this either. I cannot see why the Minister wants to take this power to limit the extension of such things as the discoteque, a film library, audio-visual aids, language laboratories, aptitude testing apparatus, intelligence testing apparatus, things which are essential to the education of our children. But the Minister wants to limit them. I cannot understand it and I await the Minister’s reply with interest. I support the amendment.

I move—

I just want to point out that the accepted term is “buite-egtelike kind”, and not “onegte kind”.

I move—

This clause as it is being amended now, will recapitulate the provisions of section 5, subsections (1) to (5), of Act No. 70 of 1955 in concise form. Since the advisory councils mentioned here are not corporate bodies, the existing control exercised by the Secretary must be retained.

I still remember very clearly discussing this matter with the Minister in charge of the Bill when the Act was passed in 1960, Act 33 of 1960. We have now passed this new Bill giving very liberal facilities to all children in our schools—free books and free-stationery—and we are making a great effort to assist our young people, but in the case of these poor children who are special cases in special schools, this is what we say—

I made an appeal then that education for these poor pupils should be free. I do not say that boarding should be free but no fee should be charged for education. I should like to reiterate the appeal which I made on that occasion. I cannot ask the hon. the Minister to introduce an amendment now; that would not be reasonable, but I want to ask him to do so either at the report stage or to give it consideration when he goes to the Other Place.

I will give it consideration.

I move—

I just want to explain the reason for this amendment. Paragraph (b) provides that the Minister may, after such conviction, order that any success in a subject be cancelled by the Secretary. Paragraph (c) may create the impression that if the Minister has not so ordered, the Secretary may cancel the success contrary to the Minister’s decision, and that is why these words are being omitted.

Here we deal with the procedure in case of misconduct and then naturally the disciplinary regulations. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that these have been discussed with the teachers’ associations and accepted by them. If he could give me that assurance I would be quite satisfied.

It has been discussed with them.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee’s proceedings were adjourned, the hon. the Minister had given an explanation relating to this clause. The clause provides that the Minister may delegate his powers in terms of section 38 “to the Secretary, to the extent he deems fit … to approve of the acquisition by the board by expropriation of any immovable property, and anything done by the Secretary under and within the scope of the power so delegated to him, shall be just as valid and effective as if it had been done by the Minister himself.” The Minister was pressed by the hon. member for Umlazi to give some indication to this Committee as to why it was that this power had to be delegated.

I must indicate to the Committee that when the Minister approves of expropriations—and he has to approve of any expropriations for the purposes of this Act, for instance in cases of a group area, an urban renewal scheme, and so forth—the Minister, so the Act specifically lays down, not only has to approve but he has to approve in writing. In other words, this Parliament regarded this matter as being so important that not only did expropriations need Ministerial approval but such approval also had to be in writing so that there could be no doubt about it. The reason is, Sir, that this is a most serious matter with the most serious consequences. To most people in this world, and certainly to most people in South Africa, if one’s house is expropriated then one has had expropriated what is probably the only real asset that one has. One appreciates that, with values being what they are to-day, the sort of valuation placed on one’s property is not such as to enable one to buy a similar property in another area as good as the previous one in which one resided. The other thing about expropriation is that it applies under urban renewal schemes to whole communities. The Minister knows what happened in my constituency in the areas of Riverside and Prospect Hall, when a whole area from the Umgeni River north to Durban North Estates boundary was expropriated at one fell swoop. People suddenly received in the post a letter telling them that their properties had already been expropriated, that from a certain date it was no longer their property but that of the Department of Community Development, and that they could make their representations concerning the value thereof.

The Minister was very quick at the time to say that he knew all about it and that he personally had approved of it. Now suddenly he wants to delegate his powers, and I may say the most important powers that he has relating to the most important aspect of this legislation. Now, Sir, I should like the Minister to listen to this, because I may have misunderstood him. When he replied on the last occasion, I understood the Minister to say that this was an administrative matter, that there were many administrative matters, that he was virtually very busy, and so he had to delegate some of his powers. When the principle of expropriation was embodied in this Act, it was embodied subject to certain safeguards. It was put in after a great fight in this House. This power was not given very easily. But the Minister received the power to expropriate, subject to his personal approval. And now, suddenly this has become a mere administrative act to the hon. the Minister. I see the Minister shakes his head. He must not shake his head. That is what I understood him to say.

You are misconstruing what I said.

If I am misconstruing what the Minister said then I am sorry, but I heard him to say that these were administrative matters, there were many administrative matters …

I quoted certain specific cases.

Well, perhaps the Minister will indicate to this Committee what cases he does have in mind, and if he will say that in some cases he will delegate whilst in others he will not, we should like to know which ones, and, if necessary, having heard the Minister, we may insist that those instances be written into this Bill. Because as the clause now reads the Minister can delegate generally his powers in respect of any expropriation of property. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what instances he has in mind and why it is that he feels that he should not instance those occasions which he has in mind in the text of the clause we are now discussing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to explain very clearly what I said on the previous occasion. I said that as far as expropriation was concerned, cases of a certain nature occurred which eventually proved to be a mere administrative matter to which I only had to attach my signature. Subsequently I mentioned cases of that nature and I explicitly said that cases of that nature were what we had in view. There are cases where all concerned, the city council, the owner and my Department, agreed that a certain property had to be acquired. However, sometimes it happens that a property is involved in an estate with various heirs, for instance. Then the heirs agree that instead of submitting an application to the court for permission to sell their property, there should rather be expropriation in order to facilitate the matter. I explicitly said that in such cases there had been agreement on the price, that it had to be acquired, but that expropriation was the easiest way of doing it. I said that when I had to deal with cases of that nature, it was only a mere administrative matter to me. In that respect I spoke of “administrative matter”. I also mentioned another example. I must state clearly, Mr. Chairman, that I regard the question of expropriation just as seriously as other hon. members do. It is not an easy thing to do. I must tell hon. members that when these matters are brought to my notice, I make sure of all the particulars before I sign the expropriation warrant.

Sometimes cases come before me where an entire area has to be replanned and renewed, or where an entire group of unqualified persons has to be moved. Then negotiations are entered into with those persons. It does not happen the way the hon. member said, namely that people simply receive a registered letter in the post one fine day and that their properties are then expropriated. In the case of the hon. member’s constituency this did happen in respect of a few persons, but not in respect of all. I shall tell the hon. member why this happened in respect of a few persons. There were negotiations with the owners. The negotiations with these people took place gradually, the one after the other, and then the community informed the Department that they were entirely opposed to selling out to the Department. When a community adopts that attitude, only one method is left and that is expropriation. These negotiations were discontinued because they had become pointless. If people say in advance that they do not want to negotiate, then, surely, negotiations are pointless. Then expropriation is authorized and expropriation notices are served upon them in that manner. But under all normal circumstances thorough negotiations take place beforehand. All I said I intended doing, was not to deal personally with those cases to which I referred initially, namely where everybody agreed that expropriation was the easiest procedure, because I do not consider it necessary.

The other sort of case I intend to delegate is where the renewal or the clearance of a particular area has been decided upon. In such cases I would already have obtained all the particulars and I would already have instructed the Secretary in writing to acquire all those properties by negotiation or by expropriation. If the negotiations are unsuccessful, expropriation is applied. That authorization I would already have given to the Secretary by that time. If there are cases in that area where agreement cannot be reached by negotiation and expropriation has to be resorted to, then, surely, I shall already have given my original authorization for that area to be expropriated eventually, should negotiations prove to be unsuccessful. I shall delegate this power in respect of those cases only. It is difficult to describe this matter in this way in the Bill, and it is for that very reason that it is being provided in this clause that I may delegate the power to the Secretary “to the extent (I) deem fit”. In other words, I have to define the authorization. I am to give the Secretary a special instruction in every case. In cases where everybody has come to an agreement, I issue a general instruction, and as for the rest I shall issue an instruction in respect of the various properties in an area where, with my approval, expropriation may take place in the event of no agreement being reached. Then the Secretary has the power to take action on my behalf. That is what I have in mind, and that is the only way in which it can be done.

Mr. Chairman, quite frankly I would have no objection to the Minister delegating his powers in the two instances he has mentioned to us, when he instructs the Secretary to negotiate about an area, or when there is agreement amongst the owners that expropriation should in fact take place. But the hon. the Minister must be more specific. The hon. member for Durban (North) is quite right. When this legislation was originally discussed here in 1966, when it was consolidated, we on this side insisted on certain things. The paragraph governing the Minister now reads as follows—

It was considered to be a matter sufficiently important for the Minister to give his permission in writing for them to expropriate. This applies only in the case of land that is acquired by expropriation or by negotiation. This applies only in those two cases. When a previous clause was discussed the Minister said that a disqualified person did not have to get out of his property, and we agreed there that only if he died or sold his property would he have to get out. However there is another point which makes this so important, and it is this, expropriation is taking place on such a large scale to-day under this Act, under the Slums Clearance Act and under other powers the Minister has, that it is now regarded by, amongst others for example, the Indian community of Natal, as another method of acquiring property in affected areas. This proposed amendment now becomes very much more important than it would be if expropriation was not taking place on such a big scale. But it is—it is taking place, Sir, on an ever-increasing scale. The Minister indicated that that is so, because he has said that where there is an area that he wants to take over, for instance for a renewal scheme or for replanning or for slum clearance, or anything of that nature, he now wants to authorize certain action. Once he has given notice in writing that he is going to acquire that area for any one of these schemes, he now wants to delegate to his Secreatry his power to get on with the job of negotiating, and those that are left over he will acquire by means of expropriation. That is fine, because he already has those powers under another Act. But it means that expropriation is going to take place on an ever-increasing scale. That being so—and I think the Minister will agree with me that it is; since the inception of this Act the number of expropriations has increased to my knowledge—does it not become more important now than when the original Act was promulgated to safeguard the people whose land is being expropriated? What safeguard did these people have? This is something which the Minister must accept, Sir. The safeguard was that the Minister must give his approval in writing. We are, of course, prepared to make exceptions. We have indicated now that we are prepared to make exceptions in the two types of cases mentioned by the Minister. But he must put it in the Bill.

How can I formulate it?

Of course the Minister can formulate it. He can say that in respect of certain areas—he can define the part of the area concerned—certain things apply. The law is not beyond defining what the Minister wants to do. Why does he not get the legal advisers to define it in this clause? What does this clause say? It talks about, “… to the extent he deems fit …”. That is not what the Minister explained to us now. The words “to the extent he deems fit” is to any extent, Sir. In law it means to any extent this Minister may deem fit to delegate his powers. It is as simple as that. If he can define that, why cannot he define exactly what he wants to do? He can then come to us.

This Act has a history, as the Minister’s predecessor knows, where every one of the sections was fought and bitterly fought. We believe that we made good law when we laid down these things. We devoted much time and effort to these provisions. To go now and wipe out a part of the safeguard in the clause, a safeguard we fought so bitterly for, by just saying that the Minister may delegate as he deems fit, is something we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept. Because we are here to safeguard those people whose properties are being affected. There is such a large-scale mass movement of population as a result of resettlements, renewal schemes, expropriations, and so on. These people’s interests have to be safeguarded. One of the methods whereby they are safeguarded is to make sure that the Minister does it in writing, that he applies himself to each individual case and gives his consent to the board in writing to expropriate these places. When once that is undone and he can delegate that power, he may still very well in all good faith delegate to the extent that he has told us now. If the Minister has to be in two places at the same time and a case crops up to which he cannot apply his mind, what is he going to do? He is going to delegate a little more and a little more, and a little more, and he can keep on doing that until he has delegated every power he possesses under the Act. We are not going to stand idly by and let the Minister do that. If he wants certain powers, let him define them. Let him be specific. If he knows what he wants to do, then he can define what he wants to do. He has explained it to us here. He can put it in the Bill, the law advisors can write it in. I should like the Minister to give us an undertaking that he will do that in the Other Place. If he will give us that undertaking we will be much happier. We know that there are cases as quoted by the Minister, where the delegation of powers may be necessary. But to give a general power of delegation in regard to something that was fought for and eventually laid down in the way it is now, is something we on this side are not prepared to do. We ask him to tell us whether he is prepared to undertake to define the cases in which he will delegate his powers.

Mr. Chairman, if those hon. members will also help me, I am quite prepared to seek a formula so that I may insert that in the Other Place, because this is the course I want to follow. We should remember that more and more expropriations are taking place, and they are becoming more because at present we are urging local authorities to renew their areas. We simply do not want to have conditions such as those which are being exposed in Roeland Street. We shall not allow that to continue. Those things must be put right. It is often the case that the best, the easiest and the quickest way to put matters right, is to do so by expropriation. In view of the fact that local authorities and my Department are much more active in their efforts in this sphere, the expropriations are steadily increasing in number. It is therefore becoming a physical impossibility for the Minister to sign the expropriation orders for each individual property. If hon. members will help me to find a better formulation, I shall be glad. I shall once again ask the legal advisors to draw up such a provision. If hon. members will help me, I am quite prepared to propose that in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name—

This clause 11 revises section 42 of the principal Act. Previously the provision was set out quite simply and was comparatively easy and straightforward. The section read—

But now the Minister is making certain provisions in this Bill, whereby he may, in some cases, pay it in to the Guardians’ Fund or to the Master, but in other cases he may in fact hold all or part of that money himself, or the department may do so, until certain things have happened. We on this side feel that this provision is more confusing than it was before. For the benefit of those people who might have moneys standing to their credit, either with the Master, with the Minister, or with his department, or in any other fund, we feel that it would be advisable to publish a list once a year to give them an opportunity of knowing that money is left over after payment of a bond. As is provided for here, the Minister can apply what money is due to a person to the payment of mortgages and bonds, which is fair enough, but money may be left over which he can keep in the meantime. We are not opposed to that. But we do feel that the person to whom the money is owing should have the best possible opportunity of knowing that that money is due to him. For that reason I move my amendment, to give the Minister the opportunity of advertising this information once a year.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members must bear in mind that there are two kinds of cases, as the hon. member for Umlazi has said. The one kind of case is where the moneys are paid over to the Master of the Supreme Court. That happens when the owner is unknown, when his address is unknown, or when there is a fideicommissum. In those cases they are covered by the Administration of Estates Act. Section 91 of the Administration of Estates Act, Act No. 66 of 1965, provides that the Master shall publish a list of all those moneys in September of each year. In that respect therefore it is not necessary for us to publish a list as well. That is unnecessary duplication. The moneys which the Department itself holds are only those moneys which are concerned in a case in regard to which there is a dispute. Where there is a dispute then we know who the parties are and we also know where they are. Publication is surely not necessary in that case. In this case therefore it would be unnecessary for the department also to publish a list. Provision is made in all cases where we do not know who the owners are and are therefore unable to pay them. The practical result of this is that we only hold those moneys in the case of a dispute. It is not necessary to publish the facts in that case because we know who the parties are and we know where they are to be found. Otherwise there would not have been a dispute. I think hon. members will realize therefore that this amendment is unnecessary.

I do not quite follow the significance of the amendment suggested by the hon. the Minister to this particular section. Section 42, as it stands at present, provides that—

The intention of this particular subsection with which we are dealing now is to delete the obligation to deposit this money in the Guardians’ Fund. Consequently, compensation will only be paid to the owner in cases where his address is known. The proposed new subsection (2) of section 42 provides that—

This contains no obligation—it may be paid over to the Master of the Supreme Court. What we are concerned with is those moneys which are not being paid over. It must be remembered that the board need not pay the money over to the Master of the Supreme Court in cases where the addresses of the beneficiaries are not known. It is this aspect which worries us—the permissive aspect of the amended section 42 (2). If the word “may’’ in line 62 had been “shall” the Minister’s argument would have been correct because then advertising by the Master would have followed automatically. But where the department does not pay over to the Master and is not obliged to pay out in terms of this amendment, nobody knows what money is being held by the department. It is on this account that we on this side of the House feel that there should be publication also in respect of the moneys held by the department.

Do you want “shall” substituted for “may”?

Yes.

Can you propose an amendment to that effect?

Before doing that I should just like to give the Minister an added reason why something should be done in this respect. The word “shall” shall get rid of another disadvantage or handicap as far as the unknown beneficiary is concerned. Moneys held in the Guardians’ Fund are entitled to interest at fixed rates whereas there is no provision that there would be an accumulation of interest on moneys held by the department. In accordance with the Minister’s suggestion I therefore now move—

I accept the amendment.

With the permission of the House I should like to withdraw my amendment because the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Green Point I think meets the situation and renders my amendment unnecessary.

I am not against this clause although there is a certain aspect of it on which I should like to have an explanation. In the White Paper the Minister sets out what is intended under this clause and I accept that is so. However, this clause removes from the Community Development Fund the obligation to meet legal expenses incurred as a result of arbitration and legal proceedings. The Department of Justice will in future bear these expenses. But when the fund was originally established it was considered necessary that these expenses should be met from the fund. What has happened in the meantime to cause the Minister to take away this obligation from the fund?

The department and the council work with funds voted by Parliament. It now appears that this department is the only one that pays its legal expenses itself. Both the Department of Justice and the Treasury quite rightly object to that, because it is right that legal expenses that may be incurred by the various departments should all be dealt with through one channel.

This is the penalty clause. Earlier in this debate when we were dealing with other clauses I indicated that I was not happy with the severe penalties provided for in this Bill. There is in particular one aspect which perturbs me and which I, moreover, do not understand. The proposed new paragraph (i) of section 50 (1) lays down that any person who—

which is inserted into the Act by clause 5 of this Bill—

Let us now have a look at subsection (10) inserted into the Act by clause 5 of this Bill—

This, then, concerns a disqualified person or a disqualified company which makes alterations and additions without the written consent of the board. Contravention of this provision carries with it a punishment of a fine not exceeding R 1,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. But if we look at the new paragraph (E) of section 15 (2), inserted by clause 2 of this Bill, we notice that there a completely different penalty is prescribed. This, I think, relates to land which is expropriated.

Under renewal schemes.

That is correct. But the point is that the penalties prescribed in this case are completely different for exactly the same offence, although under two different sets of circumstances—in the one case when they become disqualified and the other relates to proposed renewal schemes. In the latter case the prescribed penalty is R500 or one year imprisonment, or both. In addition to this, however, the court can do all sorts of things—for instance, it may order the demolition of any addition or alteration which was erected in contravention of the notice. My point is that here are two offences which to all intents and purposes are identical. Yet in one case the penalty is double that of the other. I fail to understand the reason for this in cases which are so similar that they are almost identical. If the hon. the Minister could tell us something more about this, I would be grateful.

But there is another aspect of this clause which I should like to discuss. I think we have accepted in principle that the implementation of this legislation should, as far as possible, be by co-operation—as a matter of fact, I think this is generally accepted. But now, all of a sudden, a step is here being taken which constitutes a hardening of attitude, a change for which we have not yet had a satisfactory explanation from the Minister. He has introduced these severe penalties, he has taken away discretion from himself in regard to the extension of the periods prescribed for objections, he has taken away discretion which has always been vested in the board—he has taken all these discretions away, something which to my mind constitutes a hardening of attitude on his part towards the implementation of this Bill. Of course, this is the law and the Minister is entitled to implement that law. However, I think this is the type of legislation which should be implemented with a velvet glove. Therefore I think that this hardening of attitude. this taking away of discretion out of the hands of the Minister as well as from the board, is something which I do not like to see in legislation. Here we are dealing with the homes of people. More and more homes are being expropriated and, I think the owners should be given due consideration. They should have every opportunity to re-establish themselves and to comply with the very complicated requirements of this legislation. Instead, we find that the person is becoming of less and less consequence and the implementation of the Act of more and more consequence. The stepping up of penalties as proposed here is I submit unbelievably harsh—I say this in all sincerity—in relation to the crime which a person commits where he has to move out of his home. If we come in for criticism as a result of this we shall have to take that criticism. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. He wants to move people from their present homes and resettle them elsewhere. Well, nobody likes being moved out of his home. But now, to top it all, it becomes a criminal offence if such a person does not comply with every little whim and wish of the Minister. This I dislike intensely, and as I have already said, we have at no stage of the debate on this measure had a satisfactory explanation from the Minister as far as this changed attitude is concerned.