I move—

In terms of Standing Order No. 68, I intimate that the debate on the third reading of the Bill will be extended to three hours, excluding the reply of the hon. the Minister in charge.

At this final stage of the journey of the Bill through the House it is customary to deal with the historical background of the Bill and its passage through the House. There are two items in the debate I should like to refer to in order to clear up any misunderstandings that may have arisen. The first is a reference that the hon. member for Randfontein made during the second reading. He seemed to be under a wrong impression about what my attitude had been when the Bantu Education Bill passed through this House in 1953. He said that in this debate I had contradicted myself and that my attitude had changed; he said that was because the Party whip had cracked and I was now toeing the line. He did not use the words “toeing the line”, but that was the meaning of what he said.

I should like to compare the two Bills we have had. In this Bill we have an attempt to create a national policy in education for White children. We did not like the Bill because we thought it was a bad Bill. We thought it conferred upon the hon. the Minister autocratic powers, and therefore we moved that the Bill be read this day six months. In other words, we rejected the Bill. Now, what did we do in 1953 with the Bantu Education Bill? We rejected that Bill as well. We suggested that co-ordination should be the first stage in creating a Bantu policy in education. I had the honour then to speak in that debate and to vote for the rejection of the Bill, because we moved that the Bill be read this day six months. In other words, my attitude then and now is exactly the same. The hon. member for Randfontein has followed the old device of taking two or three sentences from their context. In this case they were sentences taken from the early stages of a 40-minute speech, and then he made deductions which are quite unjustified. Unless one is prepared to say how the rest of the speech developed and how the speaker voted, I think it is a case of suppressio veri. I think that is most unfortunate.

My second point is this. I should like to refer to a statement the Minister made in his reply to the second reading debate. He was referring to my hon. colleague, the hon. member for South Coast and a statement he had made. The hon. the Minister said this—

Now, it is a coincidence that while he was making that speech a statement was being made in the Free State by the Chief Inspector of Free State Education. This is the report It is a SAPA report which appeared in more than one newspaper—

The R50,000 question, of course, is whether the Minister is going to withdraw the Bill. But I should like to add that I do not make hasty deductions from his statement. I think perhaps the hon. the Minister made a hasty declaration, because anyone who is familiar with the organization of an education department, realizes that there will occasionally be incidents of this kind. I cannot think of instances where there has been an 18-months delay but these things can happen, and if hon. members accept what I say, that this can happen in the ordinary organization of an education department, why then do they attack Natal as they do if there is an isolated instance here and there of a child who is perhaps not in the right class?

It is not only in isolated instances.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; what is sauce for the Free State is sauce for Natal, I think it is most regrettable that the hon. the Minister should have made a challenge of that kind because naturally there will be numbers of children who are temporarily placed under this disability.

It is general in Natal.

Sir, I have an assistant at the back here who is assisting me in my speech. I am very grateful to him but I should like him to come in later.

The next point I wish to make is in regard to the historical background. When in 1962 we established an advisory council for education, the hon. the Minister himself—not through the council but he himself—fired the first shot in his inaugural address—a very important occasion—as Chancellor of the Potchefstroom University. According to a Press report he said this—

Sir, in this debate we have heard a great deal about “national character”. Is it suggested that there is no South African national character? Is it suggested that a young country that has fought in two world wars, with subversive influences at home, has no national character? Any person who has served in the South African forces knows there is a very strong national character, and it is not confined to one section of the population. Make no mistake about that. Afrikaans-and English-speaking young men fought together as South Africans; they have fought in foreign countries as South Africans, and they have given a tone to our national character. Who can say there is no South African national character? It is quite absurd to say you need an Act of Parliament in order to develop and cultivate a national character in South Africa. We have all that. Is there any difference between the national character in the Transvaal and the Free State or between the national character of the Cape and Natal, or the Cape and the Transvaal? Surely we have a national character. In addition to that, our systems of education are coming more and more closely together, even without a Bill of this kind. We do not need a Bill of this kind, because the process is taking place in spite of the policy of the Government of deliberately dividing the children in the schools. I gave the example of the Van der Bijl School. It is a great tragedy that we did that, Sir, because when the Union of South Africa was established, the delegates appointed a committee immediately to advise on how they would handle education seeing they had a provincial system and that education would now come under the provinces. They wanted to have co-ordination. They appointed the Beyers Commission and that commission gave them a basis of co-ordination. Great South Africans have endorsed that basis of co-ordination and they have continued to endorse it. I will give the name of one great South African who endorsed it. He did so in this House. He said in a debate in this House in 1944 exactly what he thought about it. That great South African was Dr. Malan. This is an extract from his speech in that famous 1944 debate on a private motion introduced by Mr. C. R. Swart and seconded by Mr. Strijdom. Talking about the Beyers Commission Dr. Malan said—

Sir, that is a straightforward statement. Then there is another ex-Minister who distinguished himself in this House, Mr. Serfontein. This is what he had to say when he took part in the same debate; I have the English translation here—

And later—

In other words, that was the South African system. Why the hon. the Minister should say at this stage that he wants to develop a national sentiment, a national character in South Africa, I cannot understand. Sir, from 1962 until this Bill was introduced, we have asked for information. We have had two annual reports, one from the Department which, as I have said on earlier occasions, appears early—and we are grateful for that—and the other from the advisory committee. In the reports of the advisory committee there could be nothing definite because they were not allowed to make a report in their advice. I understand that they make confidential reports. It is difficult to see why they made any general report if all their reports to the Minister were confidential. However, they have submitted their reports and we have read them. Right throughout there has been what I have called this veil of secrecy, and then the time came for the hon. the Minister to introduce his bill into this House. Well, Sir, without disclosing the contents, without giving the country an opportunity to study its provisions the bill was introduced and rushed through the House. The hon. the Minister was rather like this play we have been having. Macbeth before the murder:

In that spirit he has rushed the Bill through this House and intends to take it further in the same spirit. I think it is grossly unfair to the people of this country, to the people who are interested in education. I do not want to quote telegrams; I have received many letters and telegrams. I want to quote one statement only from the oldest council of education in the Transvaal, a council established in the nineties of last century, the Council of Education. The hon. the Minister is naturally familiar with it. This is what they said in their report; they sent me this copy of their general Statement—

This message is dated the 23rd February—

I think that expresses the general feeling.

It is scandalous.

I would not go so far as to say it is scandalous but what I will say is that it is a travesty of democratic government. People must see what is happening. Not only must they know what is being debated here, they must know what is to be debated in order that they may follow the reports.

Sir, my next point is this: Throughout this debate we have heard it stated that every country has a national policy in education. Hon. members have spoken about the United States of America. The U.S.A. is a federation. They have State policies in education. You cannot compare them with South Africa. But then hon. members said: “What about the United Kingdom; what about their national policy?” There is no national policy in education for the United Kingdom. Hon. members do not understand the position. What is the United Kingdom? It is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Scotland has a system of education of its own. Two hundred years ago the two greatest developed countries in Europe as far as education was concerned were Prussia and Scotland. The Scottish system is not the English system; it is something completely different. Northern Ireland does not fall under the English Bill, the Butler Bill of 1944. Butler, who was Minister of Education, introduced a Bill in 1944 for England and Wales. He had two advisory bodies, one for England and one for Wales. If we wish to compare ourselves with the United Kingdom, we shall have independent provinces and two advisory bodies, one for Afrikaans medium schools and one for English medium schools.

And one for Natal.

Yes, possibly Natal could develop in the same way as Scotland and have its own system. If the hon. member here suggests it, I will give it very careful consideration. The next point is what we have heard such a great deal about in this debate, namely the importance of the home language as a compulsory medium of instruction. I cannot get emotional about this. I know that emotions are aroused. We taught the children to sing “O moedertaal jou het ek lief bo alles”. We know that and we all understand it. Naturally a child should be educated through his home language. If he has more than one home language, the parents will say: This is the one I choose. An hon. member said here that there are no people with two home languages.

No, there are no people with two mother tongues.

Yes, or mother tongues. The hon. member behind me is a Transvaler. We do not speak of “moedertaalonderwys” in the Transvaal. We speak of “home language instruction”. That is what our Act says. In the Transvaal this is how they interpreted it: They said that when a child goes to school, he will be educated through his home language. If there is any doubt as to which is the home language, the parents’ decision shall be final and will be recorded. That was the law of the Transvaal. Then the Nationalist Government gave us the testing system, to test a bilingual child to see which of the languages he knows better. I think it is quite absurd. Natal interpreted it differently. Instead of asking what the home language was and making them sign and so on, they said to the parents: Choose your home language. Choose what language you want. I see no great difference between that and the old Transvaal system. I cannot see why people can enter into a heated argument about this subject. There is no difference. It is what Dr. Malan said and what Mr. Serfontein said, namely that the parent will decide. That is what the Beyers Commission said. I shall not waste any more time over this matter.

I think the worst feature of this Bill has been, as I have mentioned at another stage of the debate, that through this direction from above, we have destroyed the only system of local government we have in South Africa, the provincial system. There are people who argue that we should not have a provincial system. There is something to be said for that, but then you must substitute another system of local government.

The Bill does not destroy this system.

Let me explain to the hon. Chief Whip. I see his point. It has often been suggested, for example, that in the Transvaal there should be two sections, namely the Witwatersrand and then the outside section, much the same as they have done in regard to Bantu education. They have divided the country up in that way. That has been suggested as a new system of local government, but we do not have that. All we have now is a provincial system and I say that under this Bill it is being destroyed and nothing is being substituted in its place. I think that is most regrettable.

Now I come to this Bill itself. Why could we not have had a constructive effort to adopt a Bill which would be acceptable to the people of South Africa? If one introduces a national policy Bill for education, it is perfectly obvious that the Bill itself should lay down in its clauses what the policy is and the details of how it is to be carried out. In this Bill which will now become law the whole matter is left to the discretion of the Minister who has told us that there are certain guiding principles. There is confusion about the meaning of the word “principle”. I am not speaking of the principle of the Bill. I am speaking of the Minister’s guiding principles under clause 2. All we have done is to state these vague guiding principles and we have not laid down any details. I have no doubt that other hon. members will go into aspects of the Bill which I have not dealt with. I am very disappointed with this Bill. When we met in select committee in 1962 we worked very hard. We heard evidence from all over the country. We had high hopes of a good Bill which we could all support. I can only at this stage, as this Bill is passing through this House, register my deep disappointment with the Bill the hon. the Minister has forced through and in regard to which he has refused to accept any reasonable amendment.

Mr. Speaker, now that the principle of the Bill has been accepted, it is perhaps desirable to consider what results the introduction of this Bill has had and what its effects will be. In the first place, it is striking that there was a large degree of agreement amongst educationists—on an educational level—about the principles included in this Bill while negotiations in regard to this Bill were in progress until, round about November last year, a tremendous political campaign was launched against this Bill. There are a few aspects of that phenomenon which I should like to examine. The hon. member for Kensington has just once again spoken of a national character which ostensibly it was not necessary to include in this Bill, because, as he said, the children of South Africa already had a national character. That, indeed, is no reason why it may not be laid down in the Bill that the general policy of education shall have a national character. Is it not a fact that South Africa as a whole also has a Christian character and that, in view of that Christian character which South Africa has as a country, it was once again laid down in 1961 in the Constitution of the Republic that South Africa has a Christian character? If something is already in existence, that surely is no reason why that may not be reconfirmed in legislation. The hon. member for Kensington referred to the attempt being made by this Bill to bring about a division between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking children. That statement simply is not true. In this Bill there is no attempt to bring about a division between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons. Educationists throughout the world accept, and there is no need to quote their statements once more, that from an educational point of view it is best for children to be instructed through the medium of their mother tongue. In South Africa we have attempted to maintain schools on the basis of different policies.

In the forties there was an attempt to introduce dual medium education. That obviously resulted in a failure. Consequently there remains the system which is at present used in all schools throughout the country, namely either single-medium schools or parallel-medium schools. In the case of parallel-medium schools children of both language groups may attend one school but they are instructed in their mother tongue. The hon. member for Kensington insinuated, however, as other members also did, that this Bill was aimed at dividing the children of the two language groups and was withholding from them the opportunity of coming into contact with each other in the schools. We have the position that we also have a number of parallel-medium schools in Natal just as we have in the other provinces. Indeed, there is not a single province where there are no parallel-medium schools. I may just mention that according to the latest figures at my disposal there are 174 parallel-medium schools in the Transvaal. What is interesting, is an analysis of the figures of the number of children who attend those schools. In the Transvaal 8,407 English-speaking children attend parallel-medium schools whereas there is a total number of 106,607 English-speaking children in the Transvaal schools. Of that number only 8,407 attend parallel-medium schools. Therefore, only 8 per cent of the grand total attend parallel-medium schools. But what is the position as regards Afrikaans-speaking children in the Transvaal? Altogether there are 256,219 children. Of that number 51,780 attend parallel-medium schools, with parallel-medium classes. That gives one 20 per cent, as against 80 per cent, attending single-medium schools whereas 92 per cent of the English-speaking children attend single-medium schools in the Transvaal. Let us examine the position in Natal. I have the figures of the actual number of children in parallel-medium schools and single-medium schools according to official information of the Provincial Secretary who released the figures by order of the Executive Committee in a letter dated 15th January, 1967. Out of a total number of 53,017 English-speaking children, 14,163 attend parallel-medium schools, i.e. 30 per cent as against 70 per cent who attend single-medium English schools. The position in regard to Afrikaans-speaking children in Natal is that out of a total of 20,138—this figure only relates to Afrikaans-speaking children in Afrikaans-medium classes and does not include those who are in English-medium classes—11,638 are in parallel-medium classes—that is, 57½ per cent.

Surely you know why that is the case. They are in the minority.

I am not speaking of minorities and majorities now. I am speaking of the percentages of those specific language groups in their respective schools.

What is the reason for that?

The reason for that is that there obviously is not a sufficient number of Afrikaans-medium schools for Afrikaans children who may want to attend single-medium schools.

Nonsense.

I shall quote further figures which may satisfy the hon. member for Durban (Point). I shall now quote the figures in respect of the schools in Natal. Out of a total number of 48 high schools, 19 are in Durban. There are four single-medium Afrikaans schools, 15 single-medium English schools and not a single parallel-medium high school in Durban. In Pietermaritzburg the position is as follows: Two Afrikaans-medium high schools, five English-medium high schools and not a single parallel-medium high school. In the rest of Natal, in the rural areas, it is impracticable to establish single-medium schools for English-speaking children and Afrikaans-speaking children, respectively, on account of tie numbers of children who attend such schools, but it is desirable as a result of purely practical considerations, and not on the grounds of policy, to establish parallel-medium schools. In the rest of Natal there are one Afrikaans-medium high school, nine English-medium high schools and 12 parallel-medium high schools. The position as regards primary schools is similar. In Durban there are five Afrikaans-medium primary schools, 35 English-medium primary schools and only eight parallel-medium primary schools. In Pietermaritzburg there are three single-medium Afrikaans primary schools, 13 single-medium English primary schools and only one parallel-medium primary school. Therefore it is clear that in Natal it is not a question of policy or principle to establish parallel-medium schools in order to bring children of the different language groups together. On the contrary, it was officially stated in a letter to a parents’ board in Durban in 1964 that if more than 250 children of one language group attended a certain school, it was the policy to establish a single-medium school for those children. That was the official policy which the United Party followed in Natal in 1964.

I merely mention these figures in order to denounce one aspect and that is the statement which the United Party makes from time to time, namely that it is its policy to have parallel-medium schools. It is not their policy. It is for the sake of convenience that they have such schools. I accept that certain circumstances make it desirable to have parallel-medium schools where the numbers do not justify single-medium schools. There is another aspect. That is the question of what the object is of having parallel-medium schools. It is to effect a better understanding between English and Afrikaans-speaking persons? I then ask myself whether that is the best way of doing so, or even whether that is the only way of doing so? To me it is clear that while it may perhaps be a contributing factor to bringing about a better understanding between English-and Afrikaans-speaking children, it is by far not the most effective way of doing so. The way to bring about a better understanding between English and Afrikaans-speaking persons is par excellence the improvement of the attitude which the child acquires in its home environment, because no amount of mixing children in schools can bring about a better understanding if the attitude which the child has acquired at home is not suitable for building on. I have seen time and time again that the artificial mixing of children who have acquired an attitude of bitterness in their homes merely aggravates that attitude of bitterness. On the other hand I want to contend that as regards children in single-medium schools such as the Port Natal High School and the Glenwood High School—a single-medium Afrikaans high school and a single-medium English high school—relations are excellent. As a matter of fact, the relations are much better than those which exist, for example, between the children of Glenwood and of D.H.S., to single-medium English schools. I mention this in order to prove one statement and that is that it is not necessarily essential for children to be mixed in schools in order to bring about a better understanding. That better understanding depends entirely on the nature of domestic circumstances as well as the attitude adopted by the parents and transferred to their children for bringing about a better understanding.

We know that a better understanding has come about between English-and Afrikaans-speaking persons, particularly in recent years. There may perhaps have been various reasons for that. One very important contributing factor is the threat from abroad. Another contributing factor is that the constitutional struggle as to whether we should be a republic or a monarchy is something of the past and therefore no longer is a contributing factor to division. Now the question is whether it is desirable to give expression once more to that division which bedevilled our political history as well as our social history in the past—because that is precisely what it did. I say that it is very undesirable to do something like that. In this regard I want to level a charge against the United Party, particularly against the leader of the United Party in Natal, and by implication against the Leader of the United Party in this House who allowed the leader of Natal to guide him in this respect, for having turned this debate into a debate of bitterness, of aversion, practically of hatred. I think that it is scandalous that the United Party wants to use this debate, a debate which is purely and simply concerned with sound educational principles which meet with the approval of prominent educationists, to try and drive in a wedge between English-and Afrikaans-speaking persons, particularly in Natal, for the sake of scoring a short-term political advantage. I level the charge against the United Party that it is trying to spoil that understanding which has been built up over years and which is so absolutely essential for our entire future. It is a very short-sighted policy and they will feel its detrimental effects at the next election. About one thing I am very grateful, and that is that this legislation was introduced this year and will not only be introduced in three years’ time. We now have three years before the next provincial election …

In which to indoctrinate the children.

Children who are at school now will not be able to vote at that time. Therefore that is not a factor. We now have three years in which to prove to the voters, and particularly to the mature English voters in Natal who are also now learning to think for themselves, that these bogy stories which have been told here by the United Party, in conjunction with the Press, are absolutely groundless. We have heard that type of bogy story throughout history. I just want to quote in brief from bogy stories which appeared in the policy of statement of the United Party in 1960. The following is taken from the introductory paragraph—

Even on that occasion they used various tactics of intimidation. They said that if we became a Republic the following things would happen—

This is the type of bogy story they have told throughout their political history. But not on one single occasion has any one of their bogy stories ever come true. Now again they have come with a collection of bogy stories about our education, about the indoctrination of children, about interference with the rights of parents, and various other stories. Not one of them is true. I have here a few cuttings. The hon. member for South Coast said, “It is wicked”. A M.P.C. of Natal said—

The hon. member for Wynberg said—

Surely it is scandalous on the part of so-called responsible politicians to come to light with suer statements, to make insinuations against a policy which has been accepted by educationists since 1910 as a direction in which we must move. In framing the Constitution of the Union of South Africa in 1910, provision was made to make it possible for education to be taken over and be handled by the Central Government within five years. In 1917 the Jagger Commission suggested that education should be controlled by the Central Government. There were commissions throughout the years that always made the same recommendations. Now that we in South Africa have reached the stage where we have a large degree of unity and where the old casting of suspicion is something of the past, the United Party comes along and tries with everything at its disposal to re-open the old wounds of the past for the sake of a few constituencies in Natal which it may possibly lose at the next election, particularly the constituency of Port Natal. The hon. member for Port Natal made the most embittered speech I have ever heard from him and saw to it that his speech would receive publicity in the constituency of Port Natal, something which will be to his own detriment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it was high time for us to pay attention to the division of the past, particularly where that hampered us in the sphere of education. I am grateful for the good and positive work which was done by many leading educationists to lay down and suggest a sound education policy. I now want to make an appeal to all hon. members of the House of Assembly, and to the Press in particular, to stop sowing suspicion against this legislation. There is nothing suspicious about it. This is an educational measure which is being placed on the Statute Book for the sake of the future of our country, a country with tremendous potential. A great future awaits us. The other day I saw certain films which were released by the Information Service. Many hon. members opposite also saw them. Now I want to ask whether they did not feel proud to be South Africans, to be members of one South African people; and whether they did not feel a pulsating feeling of unity? Why is it necessary, in spite of that inner feeling which is the embodiment of our growth as a nation, and while we have that pulsating feeling of unity as South Africans, to try and drive in a wedge between the two language groups? I want to emphasize it that we must now go forward and look at the future. We are a united South Africa and we cannot afford to stand divided. Let us not try to make of this Bill a wedge which divides us.

We on this side of the House consider that the hon. the Minister’s handling of this Bill, the so-called milestone in South African education, has been thoroughly hamhanded, and if I may say so—I hope it is not unparliamentary—it has been a little unscrupulous. [Interjections.] It has also been incompetent. The reports in the Press make that quite clear. I am afraid I am going to talk on rather different lines from those of the hon. member who has just sat down. It seems to us on this side of the House that there was absolutely no need to have three separate Bills dealing with education this Session. We are only dealing with one at the moment, but we have had the Advanced Technical Education Bill, now we have the National Education Policy Bill, and then we have the other one dealing with the delegation of administrative powers to the provinces. The correct way, surely, to have dealt with this whole matter would have been, as the hon. member for Kensington quite correctly said, to have one composite national education Bill which could have been quite concise, brief and specific and which could have laid down policy on a broad basis, and could have been acceptable under certain conditions, but not this Bill. Sir, what was needed in this Bill and what is missing in this whole debate is a lack of the presentation of an imaginative, vigorous reform of the whole education system in South Africa. If we had a Bill of that kind, a broad, vigorous reform of education, geared to the developments which are taking place in this country, and particularly the industrial development in our changing society, we would have given our people in South Africa what might rightly be called a new deal. If the plan had embodied any sort of intention, as I think it should have done, to co-ordinate—and it could have done so quite concisely—the professional, technical, executive and agricultural training requirements of the country into one composite Bill, making provision at the same time, as they have done overseas in a large number of countries, for the greatest possible diversity in both curricula and administrative control within the framework of one composite Bill, it would, without question, have been acceptable to this side of the House. But the Government has failed miserably in this matter. We are not legislating for 1910, as some hon. members seem to think; we are legislating for the realities of the 1970s. As the Prime Minister said, surely we should be trying to lead South Africa, in the educational field or any other field, into a wider international context so as to be in a position to cope with our industrial and labour requirements and problems on a proper basis. Once again, I repeat, that I think the Government has completely missed the bus. The hon. member for Kensington made a point about dealing with the positive side. I want to spend what time I have at my disposal dealing entirely with what I think should be some of the positive aspects—aspects of education which should have been provided for in this Bill and about which we have heard absolutely nothing. They may be sitting in some dark corner of the Minister’s mind, but nobody knows anything about them.

What are some of these positive things that we consider to be absolutely vital and which should be incorporated in our legislation? Where is the plan for our industrial and economic future in this Bill? It is only a woolly ideological hotch-potch, and that is all. I now want to list very briefly some of the positive things. The hon. the Minister, in terms of the legislation he has, no doubt, seen from overseas, from Canada and the United States and the United Kingdom, could have included a number of similar provisions in this Bill, with its ten principles, which have almost become the ten commandments. These are some of the things I think we should incorporate.

First of all, there should have been specifically laid down plans for State assistance on a large scale to be given to boys and girls in the secondary, the vocational and the technical high schools to enable them to continue their studies as long as possible within their competence to carry on. This should have been one of the main principles. Together with that should have gone a system of State bursaries and grants for this particular purpose. I think that in this Bill also the State should have established a bursary fund, not merely for children who leave school after Matriculation or Senior Certificate—technically that has already been done, I believe—but there is no money in it. What there should be is a fund established by the State to assist children who leave school after Std. VIII. That is what we need most, but there is no mention of anything like that at all, not even in the Bill which grants certain powers to the Provincial Councils. I think the State should also consider, and it could have been incorporated in this Bill as a principle, financial assistance to selected and approved university students whose parents cannot afford to send them to a university, but who are able to study and who should be there. That is the kind of practical thing for which the people in this country are looking, and not a lot of woolly stuff which nobody can diagnose or understand. Then, what about in-service training with a view to our industrial situation? Why is no provision made in this Bill, as one of those ten principles, for this? It can be done on the initiative of the Education Department, if the Minister cares to deal with these matters. There should be an extension of the system of in-service training in the form of part-time classes for adults to encourage them to improve their qualifications and to give them a greater incentive to earn more money and to improve their positions, so that they can make way for the youngsters who are coming on. This is a practical suggestion. The Minister laughs, but this is being done in the United Kingdom. Why can it not be done here?

I thought you were advocating a very brief Bill.

Such a Bill could have laid down a very good foundation for education. Then I think special mention should have been made by the Minister about the establishment of technical colleges in the large rural centres to encourage our children in the platteland not to leave the platteland, to discourage the drift from the platteland and at the same time to encourage the decentralization of industry on which this Government is so keen. Those technical colleges could then issue the necessary diplomas and certificates to these children from the rural areas whose parents do not want them to go to the big cities, but who particularly want them to become well qualified in agricultural matters. But we have had nothing practical like that. Not a word is said about that. I think the Minister could have had as one of his principles the basis on which our teachers should be trained, that all primary school teachers, for instance, should have three years’ training throughout the Republic.

I told you during the Second Reading that I would very much like to do that, but I have not received the Report yet.

The hon. the Minister seems to have taken draconian powers in practically every direction. I fail to see why he could not take powers in this instance to do something about teacher-training which is absolutely vital. Then there is another thing which he does not seem to have thought about and which would give the European population the best deal of all in terms of education, and that is if we begin to think in terms of what they call overseas the ancillary services in education. We have medical inspection in certain places but only under certain circumstances. It is not a proper, full medical inspection. There is the provision of milk and meals at schools. In some cases this has proved not to work adequately but properly controlled it could. This could give enormous assistance to people living on fixed salaries, who have no margin whatsoever. Then there is the question of board and lodging for semi-indigent pupils. Believe me, Sir, there are thousands of semi-indigent pupils to-day even amongst the European population, with the cost of living as high as it is. May I say that we could very well have taken a leaf out of the book of some of the countries overseas, where the authorities provide school uniforms if it can be proved that the family’s income does not allow for the initial lay-out for expensive uniforms. I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes how grateful some of our people in South Africa would be if they were to derive this type of practical benefit? But we hear absolutely nothing in this Bill about this type of proposition. We get nothing but a series of dreary ideological considerations with a few practicalities thrown in, for good measure, here and there. Sir, I consider, as the hon. member for Kensington stated earlier on, that the State should take some responsibility for pre-school education as well because this in itself would fit in with the economic pattern of things in terms of working mothers as well as of the initial training of the children, Then, Sir, why is there no mention of the principle, throughout the Republic, of a post-senior certificate or a post-matriculation year before going to university? This is something in regard to which the hon. the Minister must not say that he has not had time to consult everybody. He has had four years in which to consult everybody.

He is not listening to you.

What I say will go down on record and it makes no difference whether he has the courtesy to listen to me or not. We feel very strongly too that the curricula in all schools should be broadly conceived to suit the needs of different areas. Pretoria cannot possibly conceive what is needed by the Cape, by Natal, by the Free State and by other parts of the country. The only people who can do that adequately are the local leaders of commerce and industry, labour and the educationists themselves; they are the people in whose hands this should be left. We disagree fundamentally with this rigidity with regard to curricula that the hon. the Minister is now introducing.

Sir, I have just mentioned some of the practical things which I think should have been incorporated in this Bill. Another one is something that we never hear anything about: Why cannot the State, as a matter of principle, assist with the provision of adequate laboratory and workshop equipment and instructors for the technical schools and the vocational high schools? This could have been part of a new deal. It could be of enormous assistance to these institutions, and it could have been laid down as a principle that the Government will assist actively in providing equipment for these laboratories and workshops and that the Government will assist in training the instructors as well, but there is no mention in this Bill of anything as practical as that. Sir, what about the conversion of farm schools? I am not going to labour that point, because I have already talked about technical colleges in the rural areas. I must say that I personally refuse point-blank to participate in what I consider to be an unprofitable and thoroughly sterile discussion on the question of language medium. I do not think it gets us anywhere in South Africa to-day. I am sorry to say it but that is my view. I think it is the positive and constructive things that we need to consider in this country at this stage, going into the 1970s as we are. Sir, if only this Government would give education priority and not politics all the time—politics are inherent in every line of this Bill—then, I think possibly we would make the grade in regard to education. Since World War II we have undergone an industrial revolution in South Africa and the thing about it that we have to remember, from an educational point of view, is that no sooner is one industrial technique mastered than it is out of date and superseded by another and the youngsters have to learn another. Provision has to be made for this.

Read clause 2 (1) (f), which refers to the needs of the country.

I have read all the principles and they can be interpreted in a thousand different ways; that is the point. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that future generations in South Africa are going to say of this hon. Minister: “We asked for bread and he gave us a stone,” as far as this Bill is concerned. I would agree with the hon. the Minister and with hon. members opposite if they tell me that science and technology are not enough. That is quite true. Much has been made in this debate of the need to produce balanced personalities in South Africa. May I say that we need balanced personalities just as urgently as we need specialists. Heaven knows, we need them more urgently in South Africa than almost anything else. But it is a pity that the Bill does not make provision for unity in a positive sense as opposed to division, which it very definitely does. It is a pity that it does not make more room for diversity, for decentralization of control, not merely administrative control but policy control.

Before I sit down, Sir, there are two other positive aspects that I want to deal with. I think one of the principles that should have been written into this Bill is the question of the employment of married women as teachers. They should no longer be forced to resign on marriage. The Government should be far-seeing enough to accept this proposition. Furthermore, they should have the right of permanent appointments; they should have the right to pension benefits, as they accrue on a sliding scale, like anybody else, because make no mistake about it, Sir, never, as long as we live, are we going to be able to run the educational system in this country without the assistance of married women teachers. Finally our teachers should be given a proper professional status. They should be given a teachers’ board or council like the Bar Council, the Medical Council or the Nursing Council. This should be a statutory body with statutory protection and statutory backing, a body representative of all sections, a body that would be able to negotiate with the Department and that would give the teaching profession a status which it does not have in South Africa as things are to-day, with the result that we lose hundreds of teachers almost every year to commerce and industry.

My last point is this: The hon. the Minister may smile but he introduced a new principle himself as far as the Public Service is concerned; there should have been written into this Bill the principle of equal pay for men and women teachers for equal work. The question of dependants is an entirely different matter; these can be assessed on the basis of merit for men and women. If the qualifications and the experience are the same, the basic salary for men and women teachers should be identical. A woman principal looking after a big girls’ school has just as much responsibility as a male principal looking after a big boys’ school.

I conclude by saying that if any attempt is made in South Africa to condition the thinking of our children in our schools either to the left or to the right—the one is as bad as the other—it can only be disastrous in a country like South Africa where the real need is for objective, balanced thinking and adaptability to change, particularly in a country which is moving forward as rapidly as we are in South Africa to-day. Sir, we condemn this Bill out of hand as being a negative measure which produces nothing remotely like a new deal for education in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the contents of the hon. member for Wynberg’s speech I feel that it would not be out of place on this occasion, where we have before us the prospects of the new dispensation which this legislation is going to create, to see in it the possibilities of in future being able to discuss education on a sound basis. The hon. member gave us an example of that to-day. In that respect I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg for having succeeded in getting away from her usual pattern. She made a few practical suggestions here which, in my opinion, have no place in today’s discussion but for which there will be ample opportunity for discussion under the dispensation which this Bill will create. However she could not help returning to her old ways towards the end of her speech and referred to regimentation and to how negative this legislation supposedly was. She simply could not forget about those days in 1954 when she fought a provincial election on this matter. I shall not refer now to all the things she said at that time. I want to congratulate her for having, generally speaking, outgrown that state of mind. She has outgrown it politically and also as far as her views on education are concerned. I want to congratulate her on that.

As I have said, the hon. member made a few practical suggestions which, in my opinion, are out of place in the discussion of this legislation, but which may be discussed in future whenever the opportunity presents itself. It will be possible not only to discuss these practical suggestions, but even those spectres which other hon. members chased up in this House. If there are going to be such spectres as they imagine they see in this legislation, they would surely have the opportunity of bringing those spectres to the House. [Interjections.]

I am aware that that hon. member does not know how to catch spectres, but he certainly knows how to see them. The hon. member for Wynberg saw a similar spectre when she said that the hon. the Minister was in this legislation giving us a stone while the people were asking for bread. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever heard of the saying that man cannot live by bread alone. It is true that they cannot live on stones, to which the hon. member referred, but I know of people who should not throw stones because they live in glass houses. The saying goes that man cannot live by bread alone, and we can learn that in this legislation. We can see that the day has arrived where there are more things at stake for the youth of South Africa than merely the material things and the bread he eats. This legislation is ushering in a new era in which we will have discussion of education on a much higher level, removed from politics, than has been the case up to now.

Thanks to this legislation education will now be in the hands of people who have the most knowledge of education, namely the educationists themselves. The profession itself will deal with the stipulating of what is practical and what is useful and what is necessary. That is why I want to say to-day that there is great rejoicing in the ranks of our educationists and of our teaching profession at the coming of this legislation. I do not want to tire myself with quotations. There have been quotations from all sides, even of our friends there in Natal—those of them who do have a little knowledge of education—have said in regard to the need for a national view of and a national approach to our education. When I speak of a national view of and a national approach to education, I cannot help referring to the suspicion which was sown in regard to the word “national” contained in this legislation. The hon. member for Kensington did so again this afternoon. If hon. members still have any doubts in this enlightened year, 1967, they must ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what it means. The hon. member is laughing now; he knows how he fought this same United Party, approximately 20 years ago, when he pleaded that the party to which he belonged should try and make the youth more nationally conscious and should try to inspire them more with a love for South Africa. That is why he was at loggerheads with the leaders of that party. It astounds me now, in spite of all the growth and change which has taken place, that there can still be such an attitude in that party. I am not blaming the hon. member, but they cannot understand what we mean by a national outlook for a matter such as education as well. The hon. member for Kensington said here this afternoon that he could not become excited over the question of mother-tongue instruction. He said that it was not of great importance to him. I think the hon. member for Wynberg said the same thing. This dispute over the question of mother-tongue education was over years ago. I regard it as closed.

There is nothing wrong with the Cape system.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the Cape system and neither is there anything wrong with the Transvaal system. That is also based on mother-tongue education. [Interjections.] I understand very well what mother-tongue education implies. The problem is that hon. mmbers of the Opposition do not always understand what it means. It strikes one that hon. members who made those remarks to the effect that the mother tongue is not of so much importance, consistently choose mother-tongue instruction when it comes to their own neighbourhood and their own children. Now it is being stated at great length that the mother tongue is not of such great importance. People who know something about education, the educationists themselves, all prescribe mother-tongue education as a pedagogically sound principle.

Hon. members have once again used that old parrot cry in respect of parental option which they used 15 years ago at a provincial election. They have said that parental option should now go further and be of more importance than mother-tongue instruction. I want to ask hon. members whether parental option—the option which parents have of having their children taught as they choose—carried enough weight with them in the days when they controlled certain provinces and were experimenting with dual-medium education—that absurdity in the world of education. They compelled each parent to have his children instructed through the medium of dual-medium education. In other words, no parents had an option in respect of the medium of instruction. I also want to ask hon. members this: Is parental option not as important to-day in respect of the type of school which the child has to attend? The parent has the option of sending his child to whatever school he chooses. There are parallel medium schools and there are mother-tongue schools—single-medium schools for English-and Afrikaans-speaking people.

You just said that you were not going to talk about this.

The hon. member for Wynberg’s Afrikaans is not yet as good as she thought. She misunderstood me. After all, the parent has the right to send his child to a parallel-medium school, even if it is in another neighbourhood, or to a mother-tongue school. Is it not that which is really the important thing for the parent? The question of the medium of instruction does not affect the parent. If it affects the parent, it only affects him if he has preconceived prejudices. The medium of instruction affects the child, his future and the country which he must serve. Hon. members set an entire dispute in motion in this debate in regard to the small group of parents who, one can almost say, have a distorted view of the requirements of their children in respect of mother-tongue instruction. However, they did not plead in the interests of the child and for what was the best means of conducting the child from the stage at which he attended school to the stage where he should mean something for his country.

The emphasis for them fell on a small group of parents who have a distorted view of things.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked a question the other day in regard to what the position in respect of Afrikaans speaking parents would be. It appeared from the Wilkes Report that it was Afrikaans-speaking parents in particular who sometimes had such a distorted view. I know parents like that who believe that it would be better for their children if they are taught through the medium of a language other than their mother tongue.

Must they not have that option?

The hon. member still does not understand me. It is my contention that the hon. member wants to satisfy that small group of parents, and for the benefit of that satisfaction, the interests of the child can go hang. Our point of departure is that it is the interests of the child which must count.

Have you no confidence in the parents?

Sir, this hon. member was a member of the Executive Committee. It is a very good thing that he is no longer one, because what would have happened to our children here in the Cape, seeing that we have heard what his approach is now? I make it my duty to talk to English-speaking parents as well. I have argued about this matter on many occasions. I came to the conclusion that English-speaking parents who differ from us on this point, and sometimes even those English-speaking parents who support the National Party, do not understand the situation correctly and do not realize that the background to this so-called parental option is something quite different from what we are actually dealing with, i.e. the education of the child. The background to that is hidden in an unexpressed fear, a fear which was not expressed here either, for the English language in South Africa. It is the fear that the English language in South Africa is going to deteriorate. That fear is being cunningly encouraged by the suspicion-mongering, as we have also experienced in these debates, of hon. members of the Opposition. It is a fear which need not exist.

You will protect us.

We will not protect you if you do not want to protect yourselves. The problem of English-speaking people in South Africa in respect of their language and the role which their language can play in the schools arises from the dearth of English-speaking teachers in those schools. I now want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I feel as concerned about that as she does. I also want to tell her that if she really wants to do cultural upliftment work for her language group, the English-speaking community which is the group which speaks one of our two national languages which are our dual heritage, then she should try and allay this suspicion-mongering which she herself was not guilty of here this afternoon but which was certainly perpetrated by her colleagues here. She must go out and tell the English-speaking South African: “There is nothing to fear in this Bill. If there is a task awaiting us then it is to see to it that a pro rata share of English-speaking people in South Africa play a part in the education of the country.” The shortage of English-speaking teachers is the problem for English-speaking South Africans if they do have a problem in respect of their language and do not have the good faith such as that displayed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) who believed that a group of Afrikaans parents who thought that by having their children taught through the medium of English they could make better people of them, could strengthen the English-language group.

The hon. member for Kensington repeated the story here again this afternoon that this legislation and our approach to education is dividing the children of the country. I have made it my task in regard to this point as well to talk to many English-speaking people. At a meeting an English-speaking person asked me: “Why do you divide the children of the country?” I tried to tell him as best I could that it was not true. I told him that is what members of the United Party were telling him. After the meeting I had a conversation with that person at which an Afrikaans-speaking parent of that child was also present. I then told him that I would try and make it easy. I asked my Afrikaans friend: “Where do your children attend school?” He then replied: “Here in town at a parallel-medium school.” I then asked the person who had levelled the reproach at me that the National Party were dividing the children of the country to tell me where his children attended school. He lowered his head and said: “It is rather a personal matter; they are at Michaelhouse.”

He was not ashamed.

No, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a very good school. The hon. member must understand me because that is not the point I am trying to make. It is a very good school. My point is that the people who accuse us of dividing the children of the country send their children away to a one-language school while the Afrikaans children are waiting on the playgrounds to mingle with them and build up unity. They have every right to do so, but then they must not level the reproach here at this side of the House that we are dividing the children of the country. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who stated here this afternoon that real unity, not the unity of the United Party, but real thorough-going unity and not political unity, is not developed by forcing people into certain schools. I believe in a parallel-medium school. I am myself a product of a parallel-medium school. I have nothing against them. I believe that in a certain neighbourhood it is a very good thing. But now the English-speaking South Africans must concede that I am right, because it was they who first began to work for English medium schools in certain urban areas. They must not reproach the Afrikaner for doing the same thing. The belief which is sometimes raised here, but which is not a valid one, that unity can be built by herding people together in the same school is not correct. Unity, and I want to support the point of view of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, can only be built if it is cultivated in the heart and in the homes of the parents of those children. If there is an attitude in the heart of a parent or in the homes of parents which does not promote unity and if there are parents who tell their children, “you must not associate with the other section”, then unity cannot be built up. That is why I say that our attitude in regard to this legislation, which is laying down a pattern for the future for us, is that which is supported by educationists, i.e. that the interests of the children must receive pride of place and not those of parents who have distorted ideas, nor those of a certain Party which also has distorted ideas and which wants to exploit prejudices. The interests of the child and how the child can be of service to South Africa, is of primary importance. If we implement in this way the golden rule which is being laid down in this legislation, I believe that South Africa will be grateful for the day we received this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I really did not think that at this stage we would hear any hon. member from that side of the House talk about unity in relation to this Bill. The hon. member for Stellenbosch wanted not political unity but real unity. If there was ever a Bill which killed unity in this country, it is this Bill. Surely one must at least give our children a chance to live together and to work together. Surely it is better that they play rugby together in the same team rather than that they play against each other in different teams. Is this not what it is here, a regimentation of Afrikaans-speaking children from kindergarten to Std. X on one side and a regimentation of English-speaking children into another camp from nursery school to Std. X.

Where do you find that in the Bill?

If the hon. members will look at the Bill they will see a clause relating to mother-tongue instruction:

[Interjection.] If the hon. member for Maitland would look at the Bill, he would know what it means. Here is an hon. member who is from the Cape. I thought that it had been made very clear by the hon. member for Green Point what the Cape Ordinance provided. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said, “Daar is niks verkeerd met die Kaaplandse stelsel”. But what is the “Kaaplandse stelsel”? [Interjections.] The hon. member must listen and tell me whether I heard the hon. member for Green Point wrongly. The Cape system passed by a Nationalist administration in 1956 provides that the language which the child knows best, he shall be instructed in up to Std. VIII. If he knows both languages then the parent decides. Between Std. VI and Std. VIII there may be a change if there is a good report that the child is in fact able to do so. In Stds. IX and X there is complete parental choice. That cannot happen in terms of this Bill. How can this hon. member now say, “Daar is niks verkeerd met die Kaaplandse stelsel nie”.

But there is nothing wrong with it.

I agree with you. Of course that is so. It is an awful lot better than what is in this Bill. But what is in the Cape system can never happen under this Bill. And it is not intended that it should happen.

It can be still the same.

How can it? If the hon. member for Randfontein can tell us, we will be delighted to hear. He is the chief spokesman on educational matters for the other side. Will he tell us how, if the hon. the Minister is to be guided by the following principles, one of which is that the mother tongue shall be the medium of instruction, he can frame regulations different from that, because they would be ultra vires of this measure, and the hon. member knows very well they would be. That is not what the Minister wants any way. The hon. gentleman was the architect of the education system in the Transvaal. He was the architect of many things up there, but particularly this was his baby. The Transvaal system is what is in this Bill, and that is what the Minister is going to apply under this Bill in relation to the whole of the country. That is his object.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need the hon. member for Stellenbosch to read us, the English-speaking people, a lecture as to what we should do for our language and what we should do for the cultural well-being of our people. We do not need a lecture from him. What he said in effect we should do, if we wanted to do that, was to accept this Bill. Well, can he tell us how doing that is going to help? Can he tell us? The hon. member must just leave us alone. We are quite able to develop our community and our cultural values. We are quite able to do it, and we have done it all along. We certainly do not need this Bill. We certainly do not need the guidance of this hon. Minister. We certainly do not need his principles, his thoughts, in all our homes, through our children. We do not need that. We do not want it. I want to tell the Minister a secret: We are not going to have it any way. [Interjections.]

When hon. members on that side talk about “national”, when this hon. Minister talks about “national”, they mean something a little different from “South African”. I am very surprised to see anything in a Bill relating to education about Christianity. The Bill talks about Christian. Samuel Taylor Coleridge said something about Christianity which I think is very apposite of the attitude some hon. members of this House have exhibited during the last few days in these debates on this Bill. He said that: “He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end by loving himself better than all”. Do you know, Sir, that there is an awful lot of truth in that. When one starts trying to apply Christian principles deliberately to inculcate or imbue them in a system of education, then one is going to get into trouble, simply because of the diversity which is Christianity. The unity and the diversity within the unity, is that not exactly what South Africa is to-day? This Government, and this Minister particularly, have wanted to control South Africans, every aspect of every individual’s life right from the cradle to the grave. This is their obejct and this is their intention.

That is a figment of your imagination.

No, it is not a figment of my imagination. Every now and again I see the hon. member for Maitland and I feel that he must be a figment of my imagination, but unfortunately the hon. member is real.

You wish I were a figment of your imagination.

I do not know how real the hon. member really is, but all I can say about the hon. member is that he does not even do as well as Frankie does. Now, Sir, how is this control to be achieved? It is to be achieved, of course, by direct control where this can be done. Here it will be done by means of an induced conformity,, starting as near to the cradle as it is possible for the Minister to start. We have had no concessions, we have had no answers throughout this debate from the Minister. We have had a few answers from hon. members, we have had a few cats let out of a few bags here and there, as to what hon. members really think this Bill is for. I think that the hon. member for Kensington made a very valid point, a point which I hope the hon. the Minister is going to answer, because this was put to him once before and he did not deny that he had said it, when he was installed as the Chancellor of the “Pot-chefstroomse Universiteit …”

“Vir Christelike Hoer On-derwys.”

Yes.

And I am proud of that.

Yes, of course you are proud of that

Order!

I am sorry, Sir—of course the hon. the Minister is proud of it. Of course he is—and he is quite entitled to be proud of it. But he must remember that he was dealing there with a special case, and he must try to see to it that his mind becomes divided when he deals with the national education policy.

What do you know about my mind?

This is the trouble, Sir—the Minister will not tell us what is in his mind?

You do not know your own mind.

I know that I do not know what is in the Minister’s mind, but we have been trying for days to get him to tell us what is in his mind in relation to this Bill, and he has not. Why not? [Interjections.] Of course the Minister has not. He knows jolly well he has not. What the hon. member for Kensington quoted regarding this hon. the Minister when he was installed as Chancellor of this university of his, was his statement that it was because of divided control that we do not have a national character. The Minister has not denied having said that; he cannot deny it and he will not deny it.

Why should I?

Will the Minister than please tell us what we have been trying to find out? If there is not a national character now because of divided control, in what respects do we not have a truly national character, in what respects and where?

It that the latest innovation?

No, it is not an innovation.

Of course it is.

That is a fair question on this statement of the Minister when he was at Potchefstroom. What is wrong with the national character? In what respects does the divided control not produce it? This is what we should like to know. What does he mean by at? It is no good the Minister pulling faces.

Why do you want divided control? Tell us why you want divided control.

This is what we want to know. [Interjections.] Why did the Minister say that? Will he tell us why he said it? Will he tell us how divided control has prevented a national character? Can he tell us that Natal was producing a different system, that it was producing something that was not national?

Yes.

Who said “Yes”?

I did.

Ah! Perhaps the hon. gentleman will get up and tell us why? What an impertinence for an hon. member over there to tell us that we do not have a true national character! Why not? Because we are not Nationalists? Because we are not “ver-kramptes”? Because we do not have the attitude of the Minister, never mind the attitude of the hon. gentleman over there? No, Sir. Let him get up and say why, and, better still, let the Minister get up and tell us why. Someone else asked me why I wanted divided control. You know, Sir, the South Africa in which we live, whether hon. members like it or not, is, and will always be, a diversified South Africa. It is no use pretending that there are no differences between us—of course there are. There are cultural differences between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking peoples. It is the richness of that diversity which makes this country what it is. Surely that is why we have become the country we are, that is why we have unity as we have it. If divided control reflects our diversity, which it does … [Interjections.] Of course it does. You have a different system in Natal, supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Natal. You have a system in the Cape quite different from that of the Free State and the Transvaal, because the people here are different. Are they unnational here? Does the Cape system produce something which is not national? But the Minister does not like those things because they are not national. Surely one is driven to this conclusion. What does he regard as national, except the thing that he himself is the architect of, and that is the Transvaal system which will give us a narrow concept?

Of course that is exactly what he wants to impose on the whole country. If we are only to get one of those diversified outlooks, which one is it going to be? I will give the hon. members from the Cape one guess. It will be the Minister’s Transvaal system, and his image and his outlook. The Minister is the man who is going to decide, according to this Bill. He will have every power that there is in relation to policy. The Minister alone can decide. It is no good saying that he must consult with his Committees. He may consult with them, but if he does not agree with them it makes no difference whatever, and he is going to appoint every single one of them. Now, what does the Minister feel about Christian National Education? We want to know.

You are seeing bogies.

No, we are not seeing bogies, but we want to know what the Minister thinks about it. I believe he believes in it. Will he get up and deny it in this House? I am talking about the C.N.O. principles. [Interjections.] Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he thinks about C.N.O. when he replies. Will he tell us whether he believes in those principles or not? You see, Sir, there are some things you cannot run away from. Tell me, Sir, whether the Transvaal language ordinance was not part of the programme and principles of C.N.O.? Then we had the Bantu Education Act in 1953, in terms of Articles 14 and 15 of that programme of principles. The Government Chief Whip shakes his head in agreement. The technical colleges were taken over. Was that not also part of that programme? Then we had the Extension of University Education Act, as it was called, when the open universities were virtually abolished. [Interjections.] That is part of that programme of principles. The principle was that you shall not have Whites and non-Whites learning the same things at one university. That is also part of the C.N.O. programme of principles. The last one was the Advisory Council Bill. The idea of that was to freeze the position until the Minister could come here to-day and administer the coup de grace. Nothing more is left now to legislate upon. It is all accomplished. Every single step has systematically been pursued and every item of that policy has been applied until we now have the application of this to the whole country.

I want to say that I believe that the sort of uniformity which is aimed at here, the uniformity of thought which the Minister seeks to achieve here, produces and has always produced in this country intolerance, intolerance such as we see every day from the persons who have come out of the machine of the system of education which that Minister created and nurtured and enforced in the Transvaal, intolerance such as one sees nowhere else in this country. You do not see such intolerance as this system produced in the Cape or in Natal, or even in the Free State. [Interjection.] If you are going to have uniformity of approach, you will have intolerance of everything that is not in accordance with that uniformity which you have imbued in people’s minds. If this intolerance of everything which is not Nationalist—that is what this is going to be—is allowed to grow, there will be no hope for unity in this country. There will be no hope for us to resolve any i the problems we have, and because of the very diversity which exists we will no longer understand, and instead of appreciating it we will hate it and fight it. That is what the Minister is doing. It is no use the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development laughing like that. I-must ask himself whether there is not a difference between Transvalers and Free Staters and “Kapenaars” and Natalians. Of course there is, and one hopes that there will always be. But we hope, if we are all to be cast in one image, then it will not be the image of the Transvaal. There are many differences of legitimate thought and attitudes. This Bill is intended deliberately to destroy it. I do not know whether the Minister thinks he will produce anything from this system of his. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow put it magnificently when he said that the aim of education must be to produce children who have judgment without bias, who can think independently. The Government Chief Whip shakes his head because he does not normally encourage independent thought, but I appreciate that because of his position. [Interjections.] I think that all one wanted to say about the contents of this Bill has been said in the Committee Stage, but I want to say that if hon. members think that when the division bells go at the end of this debate and they go and sit in their seats and dutifully vote this Bill through its third reading, they have achieved anything, they are wrong. They will have achieved nothing. The Minister has a Bill and it will be passed and it will go to the Other Place and it will become law and eventually it will be proclaimed and then the Minister will have his powers to dictate what children should think or should not think and what places they should go to or not go to. But that is just the beginning of the matter. Then the real battle will start, because then he will have to fight every person who wants his child to have judgment without bias, who wants his child to be an independent thinker.

Are you without bias?

We are probably none of us without bias, but some of us have the capacity to think and to look objectively at something, and you can never look objectively at anything unless you have the capacity and the training to look at the other side, and that is just what this Bill will not allow our children to do. The situation is impossible. The Minister must not think for one moment that my children are going to be indoctrinated by his narrow-minded, sectional Transvaal thoughts. He must not think that for one moment.

If we did succeed, we would make better children of them.

You mean you are going to try.

Sir, when I say that the battle is going on I mean exactly that. When my child comes back from school I will want to know what he was told and this is ping to be a running battle between me and this Minister. It is going to be difficult but I am going to win the battle because my child is going to know the other side. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members must not laugh at this. They are going to produce more bitterness in more people’s minds and homes by this Bill than by any other single measure introduced by this Government in the past, and for precisely that reason this Government will never be forgiven for what it proposes to do under this Bill, and for precisely that reason the people will reject this Bill and this Government and return the United Party to power. The day will come—and it is not very far away—when we will have to resolve our difficulties. [Interjections.]

What happened in Johannesburg yesterday?

The day will come when we will have to resolve our difficulties; we will have to look at them; we will have to marry them together; we will have to provide an answer, and this Bill is not going to provide us with an answer. This Government cannot go on legislating for every problem that it has. This is no answer to the problem that we have. The problem we have is one of diversity; the problem we have is to find a system of education which can take us through the age in which we are living, and if we cannot get what for want of a better word I would call a liberal approach as opposed to a “verkrampte” approach to the diversity of our problem, then there is no hope for us, and for that reason I have no doubt whatever that when this Bill is passed and put into operation, it will be rejected not only by the people but by the circumstances which it purports to meet. The unreality of the considerations which prompted the introduction of this Bill must make it fail and must make this Government fail with it.

Mr. Chairman, all educational work is a labour of love, and an hon. member whose heart is so full of venom ought not to speak on such a Bill. He does untold damage. He said that what we wanted was that education should result in an unprejudiced person. Does he not know what the aims of a sound education system are? Does he not know that the aims of a sound education system are not only to achieve intellectual development? It also includes moral, physical, aesthetic and social development. The hon. member forgot those things.

He does not know much about education.

I just want to dwell for a moment on a few thoughts which the hon. member expressed here. He stated that he is against the concept of “Christianity”.

He never said that.

Then why this attack against the principle of “Christian and national education”?

No, you do not understand English.

No, I did understand the hon. member. It is typical of the United Party. They have always been against the concept of “nationalism”. Their clarion call in 1948 was: “Wipe out nationalism.” What I am objecting to is that when we come to the education system and use the word “national”, hon. members of the Oppositon then oppose us. The hon. member said that he was going to fight and that we was going to fight and win. It will this time not be his clarion call as it was in 1948; it will not be his slogan; it will be his death cry. It is not, as the Opposition is saying, that the public do not welcome this Bill. All lovers of education will welcome this Bill. All the children and the teachers will welcome it.

What about the teachers’ associations?

All educationists in South Africa will welcome this Bill because it is based on sound educational principles.

The hon. member spoke of this Bill as, “a Bill which kills unity”. Sir, where are we tearing the children apart here? We are treating them all alike. The hon. member spoke very piously of “cultural differences”, but provision is being made here precisely so that cultural differences may be taken into account.

To keep each one pure and separate.

Naturally. But what keeps them pure? Just in order to get them together the hon. member is willing to violate a sound, acknowledged educational principle, the principle of mother-tongue education. Is the hon. member not aware that mother-tongue education is the perfect instrument for imbuing the child with knowledge? If a child is behind in a subject and he is behind because he is studying that subject through the wrong medium, then he is not only behind in that subject, he is also behind as far as character formation and personality development are concerned. I want to prove that to the hon. member by quoting from a book by Dr. Meyer entitled Moedertaal en Tweetaligheid. Dr. Meyer emphasizes the need for mother-tongue education. We are making provision for mother-tongue education for both English-speaking and Afrkaans-speaking children. We are not setting them apart as far as the educational method is concerned; we are treating them all alike. What does this learned man ss (translation)—

I say that the child must receive instruction through the medium of his mother tongue. The hon. member for Kensington was a popular school inspector in the Transvaal. He was also an inspector in my school, and now we are both sitting here, but the difference is this: I am still an educationist but he is developing political lockjaw. I do not know that hon. member any more. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is one to talk about being “unprejudiced in your approach” now. That is not what the hon. member for Kensington does. Look at him sitting there laughing at himself. He knows that he made a great fool of himself in this House. He is unfaithful to the educational profession because he has been taken in tow. I want to state the position very clearly to-day, also to the hon. member for Pinetown who is now interrupting me. What does the hon. member know about education?

I went to school.

What have hon. members of the Opposition been doing the last few days? They have created an atmosphere of hate and venom around one of the best and most meritorious Bills ever to be introduced into this House. Why did they do so? They did not merely do so with ulterior political motives; they cannot help themselves; it is attributable to the typically unnational spirit of the United Party. What do they have against the word “national”? Why are they so allergic to the word? “National” to them is like a red rag to a storming bull. Sir, when is one’s education system an efficient one? The education system is the ideal one when it is such that the child can develop intellectually, morally, physically, etc., so that when he leaves school one day he will not only lead his own life but lead the life of his nation. But that is not what the Opposition wants, because they know that if that is the end result, then those people will pronounce a damning judgment on the spiritual attitude which is typical of that side of the House. That is what lurks behind their opposition to this measure. Sir, I do not want to elaborate on mother-tongue education. It is an acknowledged educational principle and I shall let the matter rest there. The hon. member for Kensington said that this Bill will practically destroy the provincial system. Is the hon. member not aware that the Provincial Administrations are classified as Government Departments in the Public Service Act; is he not aware that the Education Departments are merely sub-departments of the Provincial Administrations? They are therefore also sub-government departments. In other words, they are part and parcel of one’s state machine, and what is wrong with that? We are not violating it in this Bill. The hon. member wants to imply here that there will now be a deadly uniformity and that there will be no opportunity for diversity. Do they really think the country will allow itself to be threatened in such a way? Do they really think the country will allow itself to be treatened in this way? Are they not aware that we are retaining in this system the four points of growth, the education administrations, in the country? There is, for example, the point of growth in Pietermaritzburg—a beautiful one. The other points of growth are in Bloemfontein, Cape Town and in Pretoria. With this national education policy plus decentralized administration we are retaining four points of growth in education, points where initiative takes place, where new things are experienced. Things which can be correlated and consolidated by the Education Advisory Council. The system allows considerable leeway. The separate educational departments are still there. All that we are now doing is to have one direction, one purpose, because there will now be a formulated national policy. But within that set-up there is still room for diversity, not so? Why do they not tell that to the country and outside? Why do they come here and throw dust in the people’s eyes? Surely that is not honest or fair. No educational system can be national if it moves in two, three or four different directions. Then that educational system is dividing the country, no so? Such an educational system will surely fall apart. To have the same direction, the same course, one must give one’s educational system a fundamental educational basis. That is what we are giving it here. How? We are giving it that basis by means of a formulated national policy, but by leaving the implementaiton hereof to the experienced provincial administrations we have growth points and there will be development and progress in South Africa. Why do hon. members opposite not tell the people of this meritorious aspect of the legislation? They do not do so because they are engaged in playing politics. The hon. member for Kensington knows something about educational heads, i.e. the Director of Education in each province. Here we are now getting a committee of educational heads who will be invested with a very important function. This committee of educational heads I regard as being one of the most meritorious aspects of this measure. It is the statutory and official body which will to a large extent have to help to implement this formulated national education policy. What is wrong with that? It is the first time in the history of our education that we are creating the machinery … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kensington must not kick up such a fuss now. He must display some courtesy to me too while I am busy making my speech. Why does he not ask a question, if that is what he wants to do?

Where in this Bill does it state that the Advisory Council will consist of heads of schools?

The hon. member heard me incorrectly. I made a distinction between the advisory council and the committee of educational heads. I am dealing with clause 6, while the hon. member is dealing with another clause. The hon. member is not as keen as he was in his young days when he could concentrate on a thing. His thoughts are undisciplined, particularly now that he has been caught up in politics.

They are heads of departments; therefore officials.

Yes, but take a man like Mr. Koen, who was an educational head, and who is to-day director of education precisely because he was such a good educationist. We can say the same of Cape Town, of the Orange Free State and also of Natal, not so? There we have, as it were, the flower of our education in South Africa. They form this body and they must co-ordinate and bring this educational policy to fruition through their experiences of the diversity within that framework. But now the hon. member comes along and, for the sake of political lockjaw, as one possessed by politics, he no longer speaks as an educationist, but asks me such stupid questions, he who was formerly an inspector and the principal of a school. Surely that does not make sense.

I did not intend participating in this debate. [Interjections.] I shall tell you what that hon. member cannot recognize. He cannot recognize what is valuable and what is good in this educational measure. He is totally blind to that. The hon. member for Wynberg said: “We asked for bread and you gave us a stone.” Can you imagine: Where is this stated in this Bill? I admit that there must be bread—“An educational system should reflect the needs of the people.” I put this question to the hon. member for Kensington. He also taught it to us—“An educational system should reflect the needs of the people.” But is it not also stated in clause 2 that education must be provided in accordance with the ability, the aptitude and the interest of the pupil and the requirements of the country? But hon. members cannot realize that. They do not dwell on that, but make all kinds of accusations and allegations. That is precisely the difficulty. I say, Sir, that we should not merely give bread. An education system asks for something else as well. I think three of the world’s greatest education systems can be summarized as follows: The one asks, “Who are you?”—here we therefore have the emphasis on the character; another asks, “What do you know?”—in other words, an emphasis of the intellectual; and the third asks “What can you do?”—in other words, for what have you been trained, what was your vocational training. I think the best is to have a combination of all three. But to come here and say that a request was made for bread and that a stone was offered—just imagine! Do you mean that education must merely give the child bread? Education is something entirely different—it is character development, personality development: Those fine aims which are inherent in any sound education system. But this is how I have known the United Party all these years. Time and again they give a new objective to an education policy. At one time they idolized bilingualism. They elevated bilingualism to an aim in education. However, they did no more than pay lip-service. I challenge hon. members to tell me where in this Bill there is a violation of sound educational principles? They cannot do so; they cannot produce one piece of evidence to prove that. I challenge the hon. member for Kensington to state where in this Bill there is a violation of a sound pedagogical principle.

It will be administered by one man only.

But if that man acts on the basis of knowledge which is educationally sound, knowledge which he has obtained from an educational advisory council, a council on which practically all the major educationists in the country are sitting—what right does the hon. member then have to make objections? The question is not who controls it from above—the question is what is the policy which is being controlled. The question is whether it is a national policy and whether it is the right policy. [Interjections.] That hon. member who is interrupting me is the hon. member for Quisling, not so? I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word. Unfortunately it made a lasting impression on me the other day when the hon. member spoke about a Quisling. The hon. member is saying that the people in this House are yes-men. But surely that is not so? The hon. member himself is part of this House, not so?

We are talking about the Education Council.

That is a reflection on a statutory and official body. Let me tell the hon. Member this. That council consists of authoritative experts. That hon. member is not an authority, not even on politics. He is a jack of all trades, but master of none.

I want to state very clearly here to—day that we have, for the first time in the history of education, an educational measure which is an honour to the teaching profession and to Afrikaans—speaking and English—speaking children in the country. I want to say that if a parent in his love for his child wants to smother that child by means of the wrong medium of instruction, then the State must protect that child against that parent. Thank God we still have a number of good parents in South Africa. The majority of the parents in South Africa have good intentions for their children, and will see to it that their children are provided with the right medium of instruction, namely the mother tongue. Then the hon. member for Kensington recites so mockingly, “O, moedertaal, o soetste taal, jou het ek lief bo alles”.

Not mockingly.

I am not a student of physiognomy, but the expression on his face was that of one who was mocking. Judging from the expression on his face now it seems that I am speaking the truth. Look at him. I want to tell the hon. member that mother—tongue education has been established to bring English— and Afrikaans—speaking people together. If one allows people to acquire knowledge which contributes to character formation, and one is dealing with developed people …

Now you are mocking.

You are the pathological phenomenon in your Party. I want to make it very clear that there is no discrimination in this Bill. This Bill is giving both sections a medium of instruction which is pedagogically sound, one is through the medium of mother—tongue English and the other through the medium of Afrikaans as the mother tongue. What is wrong with that? It is the perfect instrument for gaining knowledge. What right have hon. members to launch an attack here and say that there are a few parents—exceptional cases—who are not in agreement with this. I say that the vast majority of parents in South Africa would see to it that their children receive instruction through the right medium. If there are a few who take educationally criminal steps against those children, then we must have an Education Act to curb those parents so that we may obtain the best results. Capital investment in the education of children is the best capital investment in our mother country. It is the most productive capital investment.

What right do we have to spend money on education if that education is defective and if the education system does not rest on sound pedagogical principles? Now hon. members are making this a political matter. The hon. member who was so fond of marching is not here, and it is now the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) turn to march. They bring confusion to the country. He says that national unity will not be achieved. What is nationalism in this country other than a communal sentiment for good English— and Afrikaans—speaking South Africans both? If that is so, why may we not have the word “nationalism” in this Education Bill? Why do they want to eliminate this word “national”? What fault do they find with it? If we educate a child so that that child’s mind is developed to such an extent that he is morally strong and that he can have successful social intercourse, whether he is English or Afrikaans speaking, after he has left school, if he is a balanced person, then we will have friendship between English— and Afrikaans—speaking people. But do you know what they are doing now? They are using this wonderful Bill to try and arouse antagonisms amognst English— and Afrikaans—speaking people. I say that it will be one of the nails in the coffin of the United Party. “From the cradle to the grave”, the hon. member for Durban (Point) said. I think we will still play the undertaker for that party. It is a dying party. Education must not only be from the cradle to the grave. It must be so Christian that also in the Hereafter if the hon. member should arrive in the wrong place, my children will arrive in the right place. Derogatively and sneeringly, that is not the way to talk about education policies such as this one. I say that it is a piece of politicizing from beginning to end. The hon. member spoke about bigoted people, but when I listened to the hollow laugh of the minority, then they are the narrow—minded people, because they have been narrowing down to nothing since 1948. They are narrowing down because they cannot support a piece of educational legislation which is an embodiment of acknowledged sound pedagogical principles. That is why the nation will reject them and why this Bill which they are fighting against in this way to—day, will, just like the dual medium of 1944 which they championed, be just another nail in their coffin. Mother—tongue education educates a child. But the United Party is ruining the child with dual medium. It is high time the nation of South Africa gave the United Party a drubbing and chased them from Dan to Beersheba for waging such a ridiculous campaign against this beautiful and ideal Bill which we are considering here.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Chief Whip has just stated officially that this Bill is designed to protect the child from the parent.

The exceptional parent.

I do not care if there is one or 100 or 3 million. The hon. the Chief Whip has stated that this is a Bill to protect some children in South Africa from their own parents. [Interjections.] I warn the hon. The Chief Whip that we will tell the parents of South Africa what the opinion of this Government is about them, namely that the parents of South Africa cannot be trusted with their own children and that this Minister and this Government must bring in a law to protect the children. The hon. the Chief Whip spoke of four directions in education. He is of course quite wrong. There is one direction in education. There was provincial control, and that is what is being taken away. I notice that the Chief Whip is not listening now. I am not surprised. He said he did not intend to speak. It was quite clear that he did not intend to speak and it is quite clear now that he did not know what he spoke about. The Chief Whip, a responsible official of the Nationalist Party in this House, stands up and says that this Bill does not attack provincial control. What an incredible statement. Has the Chief Whip not read the Bill? Has he not listened to his own Minister, who said that there was no question but that control was now being taken over by himself. Yet the hon. the Chief Whip says that this does not bring about central control. He attacked the hon. member for Wynberg for saying that when we asked for bread we got a stone. I shall tell him where the stone is. The stone is in paragraphs 2 (2) (b), (c) and (d)—the stone which hits on the head the provincial control of education throughout South Africa. Provisions were put into this Bill without reference to the provinces. The Administrator of the Cape said yesterday in the provincial council that he had never seen the final draft of this Bill. That is the stone in this Bill. I want to come to an earlier speech made in this debate by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Yesterday I did the hon. member an injustice when I alleged that he had said that education would not be centralized as Bantu education was. I accept that the hon. member did not say that, but I realize why it was that he became so upset that he should have been accused of making an incorrect statement like that.

It was not true.

Of course it was not true. I am glad the hon. member admits it. It was not true. It was an untrue statement, and I accept unreservedly that the hon. member did not make it. It was made of course by the Administrator of Natal Mr. T. J. A. Gerdener, on the 8th December. He is reported as follows:

What are you quoting from?

This is a statement by the Administrator of Natal in the Natal Mercury on the 8th December, 1966. I accept that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana did not make that untrue statement but that it was the Administrator of Natal who made that statement.

He was talking about the administration of education.

I cannot read the mind of the Administrator. We have before us a Bill and the Administrator issued a Press statement saying that control would rest in the hands of the provinces. But this Bill removes control, it removes administrative control by handing over the control of administration to the hon. the Minister—both policy and administration. And so, I accept and I appreciate why the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was so upset when I accused him of making this statement. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana went on to attack the Press.

I did not attack the Press.

He accused the Press and he appealed to the Press not to publish statements which inflamed, statements which misled people on this Bill, statements which gave the wrong impression about this Bill. I ask the hon. member whether I am right?

I did not attack the Press.

The hon. member just made an appeal to the Press not to publish statements which misled the people on this Bill. I agree with the hon. member, because he himself issued a statement to the Press headlined, “No change at Natal fee—paying schools”. He stated that the Minister had authorized him to say that. The heading is, “Nat. M.P. breaks news of De Klerk Pledge”.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he saw the correction of that article, which was not true, which was not the statement that I had made, in yesterday’s Mercury?

Yes, I saw that. [Interjections.] I will come to that. I will deal with it. The correction does not correct what I have so far read out. I have read the headlines. The headlines are to the effect that the hon. member made a pledge on behalf of the Minister, with his authority, and this member’s statement was as follows—

I do not blame the Whips—

The following day the hon. member allegedly, according to the question now asked me, refuted this statement. Here is the hon. member’s refutation. He does not refute that. He explains what he meant.

Not what I means but what I said.

He says that he discussed it with the hon. the Minister and what he meant is summed up as follows in the Press report—

Not only the original statement but also the denial is untrue. The Bill states that schools cannot charge fees. The hon. member for Berea moved an amendment, using the words of this statement, namely the “nature and character of the schools”. He wanted those words included, the words which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana repeated in his alleged denial. But the amendment was rejected and those words are not in this Bill as it is before us at this Third Reading Debate.

It was rejected by the Chairman.

It was rejected by the Chairman as being destructive of the principle. In other words, had that amendment been passed it would have destroyed the principle of this Bill. The amendment was designed to preserve the character of fee—paying schools. But it was ruled that by preserving the character of fee—paying schools, the principle of the Bill would be destroyed. Therefore, the principle of the Bill destroys fee—paying schools. Even my amendment, asking for the retention only of their rights and privileges, not of their fees, but their other rights and privileges, and the amendment of the hon. member for Berea asking for the retention of their character and status, were destructive of the principle of the Bill which destroys these schools. And this is the hon. member who appeals to the Press not to mislead the people! Let me go further. On Wednesday, 1st March, yesterday, there is an article in The Natal Mercury by “Mr. V. A. Volker, National Party M.P. for Umhlatuzana”. This is the Press that is misleading the people. This is the Press that is giving a false impression of this Bill, that is trying to stir up incorrect emotions over it, this is the Press that is not giving the true picture! And this is the gratitude of an hon. member who yesterday had a seven—column article published. I assume that the hon. member gets paid for writing this article, yet the gratitude which he expresses is to attack the Press for giving one side of the picture only. He starts off the article as follows—

We are going to have three articles. This is the first one. This is what is going to put the Bill before the people of South Africa and before the people of Natal. This is going to give them the true facts on the Bill. Let me quote what he wrote. He said the following in the first article—

I challenge the hon. member to prove that. I say that it is untrue—it is utterly untrue. There was no agreement by the Natal executive to all the points contained in this draft legislation. I repeat the words, “and finally reached agreement”, and I say that there was no agreement. The article goes on to deal with free education and books. This was after his statement which the hon. the Minister correctly repudiated. Dealing with fee—paying schools, the hon. member wrote—

This was on the same day that our amendment simply stating that the status and character of the fee—paying schools be retained was found to be out of order. On the same day that the Chair rules that we cannot move that amendment, that hon. member tells the people of Natal that the character and status will not be changed. He goes on in the same column—

Why does the hon. member omit to mention school boards and the other items in that clause? [Interjections.]

Because that applies in the Transvaal.

No, that is untrue. Does the hon. member not know that this Bill applies to the whole of South Africa and not to the Transvaal, and that this clause applies to Natal?

I mentioned various possibilities.

Mr. W. V. RAW: This is the sort of proof that is being put across. The article continues, and this is what I charge the hon. member with. He writes—

I repeat, Sir, “were basically accepted”.

Yes.

I challenge the hon. member to produce one tittle of evidence that these ten principles were basically accepted. Some of these principles were accepted, but that is not what the hon. member says. He says the ten principles were basically accepted. I deny it and say it is totally untrue and I say that that hon. member was in the House when the Minister quoted the letter from the Administrator of Natal in which Natal rejected a whole host of those points. It totally rejected mother—tongue education. [Interjection.]

The Administrator asked for clarification on certain points.

Another letter was signed by Mr. Wilkes, which totally rejected it. [Interjections.] I am sorry, the Minister is wrong. This letter by the Administrator says—

I just want to ask the hon. member whether what he is reading out there now does not deal with mother—tongue education? But that is not the whole thing.

The heading is: “Artikel 2 (2): Moedertaalonderrig.” Fee—paying schools and school boards were not accepted, and requests for stationery were to be excluded, but that hon. member, and now the Minister, are trying to give the impression that these things were accepted. But this is the hon. member who accuses the Press and the United Party of misleading the people of Natal. It is just as well that the Minister flatly repudiated him. Then the hon. member got up in the House and quoted a mass of figures to try to prove what? To prove the obvious, that parallel—medium schools depend on where the children are to be found, and where you have a concentration of children, by parental option, by the choice of the parents, those children attend the schools which the parents wish them to attend within the area. But what the hon. member did not tell the House was that he himself and his provincial councillor have organized among parents to split existing parallel—medium schools into separate schools for English and Afrikaans. [Interjection.] I charge that hon. member that in his own constituency he took part in the undermining of the existing parallel—medium schools.

You lie.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that an hon. member is lying?

He has been lying all the time.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw those words irrevocably and shall repeat them outside the House.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) entitled to say that the hon. member has been lying all the time?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw those words.

The hon. member himself edited a newspaper during the election where he published a letter dealing with the splitting up of schools, following requests by groups of parents to split them into separate English and Afrikaans schools—not to establish another parallel—medium school but to split them up into separate schools. I say that the machinery is there to have parallel—medium education in every school in Natal, and it is the political agitation of the Nationalist Party and its organizers which drives the parents to split the existing schools when they get too big, not into a boys’ school and a girls’ school, both parallel medium, but into separate schools, English and Afrikaans. Because we believe in parental option in Natal, we acceded to those requests. This Bill takes away the right to do that. It is no wonder that when that hon. member left the Chamber, the first person to congratulate him with enthusiasm and endearment was a former leader of the Grey Shirt movement. [Interjections.]

Sir, we are dealing with education. That hon. member has attacked us for being unnational. I am stating a fact. It is true that as he walked out of the Chamber he was congratulated in German by a former Grey Shirt. I am not prepared to have my patriotism questioned. I have fought for my country and I will not have any hon. member, least of all that hon. member, question my integrity as a South African. I challenge anyone on that side of the House to match me in patriotism when it comes to service to South Africa.

What this Bill has done is to demonstrate the fundamental difference and philosophy between the Nationalist Patry and the United Party. Forget the details for a moment. It indicates the fundamental difference between a party which is determined to have everything rigid and bound and tied within narrow limits, a party which is determined to destroy flexibility which is determined in everything it does to concentrate more and more power and which, having succeeded in the Transvaal where one of its own M.P.C.’s, Mr. Gelden-huys, admitted that in the Transvaal education is used to politically indoctrinate people … [Interjections.] Did any one of those hon. members repudiate Mr. Geldenhuys? Not one of them did. But they talk of national unity. Has one of them repudiated this statement reported by SAP A last week?

Yes, I did. Look at my Hansard.

This is what the report says—

Not one of them repudiated it. They talk about stirring up racialism. This is the gentleman who sent a memorandum to the Cabinet. [Interjections.] The Minister is a member of the Cabinet. I ask him whether they received a memorandum from Dr. Terblanche and whether he has repudiated that memorandum. I ask him whether he will repudiate now publicly this statement that Afrikaans will become the national language of South Africa? While these statements are being made, let that side of the House point their finger at us and say that we are raking up racialism. Let them first repudiate the racialists in their own ranks. Let them first repudiate the narrow section in their own ranks who want to see only one thing in South Africa, and that is language domination by one section of the population. Let them get up and openly and publicly say to these people: There is no place for you in the political thinking of South Africa. Throughout the history of our party we have fought for equality and for mutual respect between the two language groups, and we practise it within our own ranks because we have English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking members sitting together on these benches and working together, not like two showpieces, two pieces wrapped in cottonwool and put in a glass window because they are so rare among the 126 Government members.

We are part of one party, living and thinking together as South Africans. That is what we stand for and that is why we are so bitterly opposed to this attempt to take over the education of our children, to indoctrinate them and to impose upon them a system of education which is alien to South Africa. [Interjection.] That is why I say that what this Bill has done, apart from the detail, is to point out this fundamental difference in the approach to nationhood and to true South Africanism, the approach to our future as a people which has been so highlighted by this determined attempt to destroy the local control by the provinces—control by people not so involved in the controversial politics of Central Government, people who live in a calmer atmosphere, in the calmer atmosphere of these provincial councils. They can deal with education without passion and without bitterness and without getting involved in the sort of partisanship in which one gets involved when politicians at parliamentary level deal with it. That is being taken away by this Bill. Even the right to determine administration is placed in the hands of the Minister and then the Minister says he challenges us to name one child who has ever suffered in the field of language because of a Nationalist-controlled administration. The hon. member for Kensington quoted an example. He quoted an example where children suffered because they could not get their education in English.

The Minister ought now to stand up and withdraw this Bill, because that is the undertaking that he gave. The Minister said that if one English-speaking child suffered, he would withdraw the Bill. Was that not suffering, which the hon. member for Kensington read out? He mentioned 30 children in a school who were English-speaking and they could not be taught in their own Language because there were no books. I say that is the answer to the Minister’s challenge, and be should drop this clause. It is also clear from the way the hon. the Minister is steamrolling this measure through the House that he did not dare to allow it to see the light of day so that public opinion could form around it in the proper way. This is a Bill which was rejected outright by Natal, a Bill which I am prepared to bet that the other three provinces will reject as far as the provisions in Clause 2 (2) (b) (c) and (d). I would like to see the reaction of the other provinces to that. It is a Bill which was rejected by the South African Teachers’ Association, a Bill which has never been before the thousands of parent associations, a Bill pushed in quietly and secretly, seen only by persons appointed by the Minister, and the people who are appointed by and are responsible to him. It was seen by the Provincial Administrations who were bound to secrecy. It is no wonder that the Minister does not dare to let this Bill see the light of day, because he knows that if it had seen the light of day, if the people of South Africa had had time to study this Bill, it would have aroused a storm which that Minister himself would not have dared fight against. The Minister may force it through this House, but I warn him that he cannot force it into the hearts of people—the narrowness which this Bill gives him the right to try to force upon us. We will continue to fight for freedom for our children and for the control of children by their own parents.

Just as there is no need for me to call in the assistance of an engineer to help me distinguish between a wheelbarrow and a motor car, so easy it is for me to determine that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is no educationist and that he knows absolutely nothing about education. I shall tell the hon. member what he is. He is not an educationist and he knows nothing about teaching—he is a political opportunist. Hon. members of the Opposition severed the words of hon. members on this side from their context and branded this Bill a Bill to protect children against their parents. That is untrue, of course. What the Bill seeks to do is to protect the children against the political wolves sitting over there. There is nothing left for them to scavenge nowadays and now they go about like a pack of wolves; they scavenge on the rubbish heaps and they want to see where they can snatch our children away from what is dear to them. Surely it is a fact that even while a child is still in the cradle the parents have already decided what that child’s mother tongue will be, even before it has said its first word. Why would the Opposition change the parental choice when the child has to go to school at the age of five or six? Surely the parent decided, even while the child was still in the cradle, what the child’s mother tongue was going to be, and through what medium the child would one day receive its education. I can understand that the hon. member tried to join battle with the hon. member for Umblatuzana. To me all that merely points to fears for the future, because the hon. member knows that this small band of United Party members representing Natal here are now living on borrowed time, and that their days here are numbered. The hon. member referred to things which Dr. Terblanche was supposed to have said outside, and he said that no-one on this side had repudiated him. But I want to ask the hon. member why he did not repudiate an hon. member on his side the other day, one who called an hon. member on this side, who is a good South African and who is sitting on this side from inner convictions, a quisling?

Order! The hon. member may not refer to quislings.

To-day the hon. member emerged as a racialist. He spoke about disunity. Mr. Sepaker, surely election upon election has been fought on mother-tongue education, and the hon. member knows as well as I do what the results of each of those elections were. Are not the result of those elections the fact that they are as shrivelled as they are to-day? I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the results of the municipal election in Johannesburg were? Does he know that the National Party increased its majority by 50 per cent? Where previously the National Party had ten representatives in the council, it now has 15 representatives, and I predict that within five years the National Party will take over Johannesburg. The hon. member talked about disunity, but hon. members of the Opposition are the people who want disunity. Let us consider what is happening in the Transvaal. During the past week-end I saw a fine sports meeting there at which Afrikaans-and English-speaking children competed on the track. The children taking part in the competition were not only the children from Afrikaans-and English-medium schools; there were also children from private English-medium schools.

Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Education Council was established in 1962, and surely hon. members of the Opposition knew even then that we were aiming for a national education policy. Surely the general election last year was also fought on that platform, and what was the result of the election? The National Party gained a tremendous victory, and now hon. members on that side want to come along afterwards and say that this policy will be rejected. But I am grateful for one thing, and that is that there is none of our teachers’ corps and children present on the gallery to hear on what level hon. members of the Opposition are conducting this debate on a matter which is so dear to us, teaching and education, to us matters of national interest. One may not say the word “national” to hon. members of the Opposition, but I wish the hon. member for Durban (Point) would listen to these definitions of the word “national”. I went to the trouble of consulting some dictionaries on the word “nasionaal”. In the first dictionary “nasionaal” is defined as follows: “Wat die nasie betref.” Another dictionary says: “Wat kenmerkend van ’n nasie is, byvoorbeeld ’n nasionale vlag, ’n nasionale volkslied.” Everything which is true to South Africa and characteristic of South Africa is national. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) who makes such a fuss about “national” still drives on our national roads? Are “national” roads also something evil? Here the Opposition makes a fuss about the word “national”, but last year during the election they hawked the word about. Then they were not the “United Party”; they told the people that their party was called the “United National Party”. It is because they will not accept this word “national” that the youth of South Africa has rejected them completely, for what does the United Party offer the youth of South Africa? Even after the establishment of the Republic they are not contented. In Natal the portrait of a foreign queen must still be hanging next to the portrait of our State President. They are not satisfied with our national flag. On certain occasions the flag of a foreign country must still be flown next to our flag. Is that what they are offering the youth of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise the debate to a somewhat higher level than the level on which hon. members of the Opposition conducted it. The education of future citizens is one of the most important tasks of the modern state. Apart from the increasing needs and the shortage of scientists, technicians and other leaders in every sphere of a nation’s existence, it is also essential, with a view to the adaption and assimilation of future citizens, that the training and education offered by schools shall be of the utmost efficiency, and for that reason it is also an accepted fact that education is the most important longterm investment for a state and its government because it forms the basis of every state and every nation in the world. For that reason it is also imperative that education, from kindergarten education to the most advanced studies at a university, should form a unit. Such a unit may best be formed if all education is regarded, organized and controlled as an entity. Fortunately we now find, in 1967, that as far as education is concerned we shall also have a national education policy; for what we used to have was divided education on both the horizontal and vertical planes. On the horizontal plane we have that division between primary, secondary and university education, and on the vertical plane between our various provinces. That division merely caused all kinds of problems of which the child was the foremost victim and the greatest sufferer. We are now getting a policy which will not vary if one crosses a river or an 8" barbed-wire fence separating one province from another.

Mr. Speaker, the parents apply certain criteria to this legislation. The greatest test for any legislation is whether it meets the requirements of the people outside, and I think this legislation has indeed passed that test, because it gives our parents and our children that which they have been asking for so long. One of the demands made by the parents is that divided control shall be abolished, because their parents were the victims of that and suffered most under it. The United Party complains day after day that expenditure is too high and that the Government is not curbing expenditure. Is divided control not also a cause of more expensive education, because it has the result that educational facilities in the provinces are duplicated? Divided control hampers the planning of educational programmes, the erection of buildings, the provision of equipment, the training of teachers, etc. A third demand made by parents to this legislation is the following: In view of the fact that the teacher has to act as the child’s guardian for the major part of the day, the parent demands that the teacher shall interpret and convey the parent’s view of life and the world in education, and that view is a Christian view. I believe that teaching and the education of children should take place on the basis of the parents’ view of life and the world, and to us that means that they should be educated on the basis of our nation’s Christian view of life. The Christian basis for this view of life and the world is founded on Holy Scripture, and by Christian teaching and education for the child we mean teaching and education presented in the light of the Revelation of God in the Bible, and in order that the light of the Revelation of God contained in the Bible may shine in schools, I believe that religious instruction in accordance with the Bible should be the key subject at school. It must direct the spirit and tenor of all other subjects at school, in order that all instruction presented at school may be founded on the Christian basis of our people’s view of life and the world. It must not be a mere subject of knowledge; it must also direct the spirit and tenor of the other subjects. Mr. Speaker, is not the school the only place where many of our pupils get to know religion? Therefore provision must also be made for those children, in view of the fact that parents sometimes neglect their duty so badly at home.

A considerable deal has been said about the mother tongue. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. It has been determined by educationists themselves what is best for the child, and not by political opportunists or political wolves like the ones we have here. What is more, what is in the interests of the child is also in the interests of the State, because so much money is spent on education. We must not retard the child’s progress and prevent him from deriving the fullest benefit from the facilities offered at such great expense. Surely it is axiomatic that the best use should always be made of all human material. The child will now derive the greatest possible benefit from school training, and in view of the fact that through his mother tongue the child will derive the greatest benefit, the State will also derive the greatest benefit from that.

A third demand made of our education by the people outside is that it shall be national. By national education in teaching we mean teaching and education in which the national principle of love of one’s own on the basis and within the framework of the Christian principle is realized effectively, and, in general, the tenor of teaching and all the activities of the school, in order that the child may thoroughly and proudly develop the spiritual and cultural heritage of the South African nation and become a worthy bearer of that cultural property. Teaching cannot divorce itself from this, but should derive from it its power and inspiration in all its aspects, inside and outside the classroom. On behalf of the teachers’ corps, the parents and the children of the Republic of South Africa I want to thank the hon. the Minister for clause 2 (1) (g), which provides for the co-ordination of syllabuses on a national basis. A uniform syllabus must be one of the most important demands made by the teachers, parents and children. Until now the provinces have been separated by the width of a river or the thickness of a bar-bedwire fence, as far as education was concerned, and we are therefore particularly grateful that the drafting of uniform basic syllabuses for certain subjects has already been commenced with. When parents are transferred from one province to another or from one town to another, it has always been their greatest fear that their children will become the victims of divided control in education and of its concomitant problems. Until now one of the greatest problems has been the very fact that syllabuses differ from one province to the next. I know of three reasonably intelligent boys whose parents moved from the Transvaal to the Cape. Each of those three boys failed the year they studied in the Cape—which is not attributable to less competent teachers, but to adjustment problems. But in this way problems were created not only for the parents and the children, but also for the teachers who had to teach arrivals from another province. And yet the teacher and his school frequently have to take the blame for the education system. But not only that—not even the same subjects are presented from one province to the next. In the Transvaal we even have the position that if a child has to move from one school to another, he may experience difficulties as a result of the different order in which the work is dealt with at the various schools. I now hope that in the implementation of this Act the hon. the Minister will also see to it that apart from uniform syllabuses the order in which the work is offered in terms of those syllabuses will also be uniform. We should not like to smother the initiative or individualism of the teacher, because they may cause stagnation, but I do not believe that uniform syllabuses and a uniform order in the presentation of subjects should deprive the teacher of his own initiative and individualism.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

It is clear that the differences between this side of the House and that side of the House will not be smoothed out simply by dealing with this measure. This is very clear to me after the debate which we have had on this measure and which has lasted for days. It is also very clear to me why this is so. All of the speakers on the Government side confined themselves to the educational principles which are at stake, the principle that this legislation is directed at and is centred upon the child. On the one hand, these questions were asked: What are the interests of the child and therefore of the nation, and by what methods can they be attained? On the other hand, the trouble with hon. members on the other side of the House is that they used this opportunity for politicking, for trying to rouse a great deal of suspicion about petty methods which were applied, or rather, which from the nature of the case could not be handled differently, and for trying to bring this legislation into discredit with the public. Unfortunately for them they did not succeed in this. The future will bear tesitmony to this—as a matter of fact, I make so bold as to say that the Opposition will yet become strong supporters of this legislation in the future. Unfortunately the time at my disposal for replying to this debate is also limited, and consequently I shall not be able to reply to all the questions which were asked. However, I should like to try once again to clarify a matter which has been raised repeatedly, namely the position in respect of the fee-paying schools. It struck me that confusion existed, and that is why I want to make a last attempt now to clarify this matter as much as possible. In clause 2 (1) (e) of the Bill, the principle of providing free instruction, training, books and stationery in public Government schools, is being laid down. We all agree on this—this is the point at issue in that clause. This provision does not apply to private schools, irrespective of whether they receive a subsidy from the State—a subsidy from the provinces is also to be included here, because the provinces form part of the State. In other words, this provision does not apply to private schools at all. In every province there are a few schools in which a well-established practice has developed over the years, namely that parents pay a considerable amount of money in respect of school fees. The provinces keep back part of these fees as partial repayment for the usual services provided in Government schools, while the rest is paid into school funds for the purpose of defraying the cost of extra services and facilities, such as the maintenance and provision of sports fields, additional library facilities, teaching aids, film projectors, films, wall maps, models, etc. The basic principle in this clause is to grant to the children of all citizens of this country the right to free education, books and stationery, just as is the case in a Government school. But this does not mean that parents who insist on paying for the education of their children, in spite of the fact that they are taxpayers, are to be forbidden to continue doing so. Now I want to put it this way: If the provinces and the National Advisory Education Council, when I consult them in regard to the determination of the policy in respect of this matter, were to recommend that schools in which the levying of fees is compulsory, should continue with that practice. I shall consider it sympathetically. I hope this satisfies hon. members.

May I ask a question? Will that include the right to determine who will be admitted and the exemption from the zoning provision which they enjoy at the moment?

That is irrelevant. All that is relevant here, is that these fee-paying schools should be granted the right to charge fees. In the event of that being recommended to me, I shall consider it sympathetically.

The fees are not the point at issue. It is the rights which are important.

First of all there is another problem I have to eliminate immediately. I cannot confine myself to arguing about one matter only. We have quite a number of them here. The hon. member for Kensington said that I had failed in my challenge; that there was an English-speaking child to whom justice was not being done. I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of providing the English-speaking child with the education he wants in his mother tongue, and also of text books which are temporarily unobtainable at the moment. It will take 18 months to translate them. It was short-sightedness on the part of the Department concerned to prescribe text books which were not available in the language in which the children could use them. But this may in fact afford me a very good argument to the effect that such cases do crop up and that it is high time a national education policy was determined in terms of which the children …

What about your challenge?

My challenge stands. Those children are not being wronged by their having to use those Afrikaans text books; the teacher concerned has been charged with the task of immediately translating that book page for page and with teaching them that subject in their own mother tongue. In my time I had to translate many English books of which Afrikaans versions were unavailable. That was not the point. The point was the injustice which was being done to the child, namely that he wanted to receive his training in his mother tongue, but was unable to receive such training. The hon. member is measuring my corn by his own bushel, but I think his own bushel is suspect.

The hon. member, continually called attention to these teachers’ associations and the way they felt about this Bill. Fortunately there was only one member who did that. I suppose I shall be permitted to read a letter I received from one of these teachers’ associations on 1st March. It was from the Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie. The executive of the S.A.O.U. wrote to me as follows—

In this morning’s Burger there was a statement of which they sent me a copy and which I shall not read again here.

When the hon. member refers to the School and Home Council which said that it was wrong and which stated that they could not get hold of the legislation, I just want to furnish the following information: 1,300 copies of this Bill were printed, and they can be obtained from the Government Printer at 5 cents each. If the School and Home Council is such an old institution, they ought to have known long ago that copies are obtainable from that source, if they were as curious as that. I am furnishing this information because the hon. member complained that they could not get hold of a copy at all.

I want to help the hon. the Minister. On a point of explanation, may I say to the hon. the Minister that it was not the Home and School Council. It was the Council of Education.

Well, only the name is wrong. It is the Council of Education. However, they were also unable to get hold of the Bill. The hon. member said that they dated back to the previous century. They are one of the oldest bodies and they could not obtain it. Then we should merely tell them that if they are curious in future, the Bill is quite easily obtainable from the Government Printer.

About the hon. member for Wynberg I cannot say anything but that her whole argument was founded on totally wrong principles. This is her trouble; nowhere in this legislation a fixed policy is set out in detail. Principles are being laid down here on which a policy is to be developed. Let me mention to you just one example of her ways—I can mention many. The hon. member wanted to know what we were going to do in regard to technical and other types of education. It stands to reason that this is a point of policy with us, namely that every child will receive his education according to his aptitude. The child’s aptitude in various spheres will now be developed by means of the various types of schools. That is something to build on for the future. I am sorry that the hon. member rendered herself guilty of that.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that I think that Natal should be glad that the Mitchells are so few in number, because it is in fact a good thing for us that these people are so few in number. The speech he made here, really reminded me of the story of the mice which drank the brandy in the saucers and then said: “Let the cats come now!” I say that because he struck a defiant pose here and said: “You can make these laws, but my children will never do those things. I shall watch whether you indoctrinate them. I shall do this and I shall do that.” He displayed open rebellion and resistance. These people do us a lot of good, because if one is a responsible member of this House—because he accuses me of not being a responsible member; he says that I am not even a member here at all and that I have nothing to say here—one does not talk that way. Then one has to shoulder one’s responsibilities. Soon, when this Act is passed, it will be in the Statute Book. The hon. member does, of course, always have the right to criticize, and, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I want to say of this Act that it is a good one. I need not furnish any reason for saying that this is good legislation. But this is also a defective law. It lacks something.

The basic defect in this Bill is the fact that it does not contain a provision in which the matter of teacher training is also brought to finality. This matter was mentioned here, and it is a fact that in the Republic of South Africa no fewer than 117 different teachers’ certificates are being issued by the various provinces and my own Department. What I advocate, and I hope that hon. Opposition also does so, is that, if we want to make a success of any system under this Act or anywhere else, we should raise the teaching profession to the level of a true profession. One cannot merely do so by adjusting salaries. There are opportunities for doing so in this legislation, but we were unable to cut the Gordian knot. In my Second Reading speech I said that if one wanted to do that, they would also have to comply with professional standards and write examinations with equivalent certificates. What is happening at the moment, is that each province claims that its teacher training is the best. They are stealing a march on one another. The members of the legal profession, the medical profession and so many other professions who unite themselves into one large professional association, are the people who succeed in having their legal, medical and other certificates recognized by one central body. I want to express the hope once again—and not only the hope, but also the expectation—that we shall be able to introduce amending legislation next year and that this advice which has to be given to me in regard to the training of teachers, will be given in time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is being expected of me—not only in this House, but also in the country as a whole—to state how I intend to carry this measure into effect. Now I should like to request the Opposition to stop being prejudiced and to listen to me. I want to make a very serious statement here. I accept the fact that this legislation confers very wide powers upon me in my capacity as the relevant Minister of Education, Arts and Science. I realize that by using those powers wrongly and by applying them unwisely, I may render myself guilty of offences, because that would amount to betraying a profession. I want to state—and I should also like to commit my successors to this—that in applying this legislation and carrying it into effect, care, a great amount of fairness and caution will have to be exercised, because we shall always have to bear in mind that certain practices have been in existence for as long as 57 years, and that such practices cannot, as it were, simply be stamped out, demolished and destroyed by a sledge-hammer. I hope that hon. members of this House will accept that from me.

We run into many difficulties in drafting legislation such as this, and every now and then we have to go to the trouble of finding out whether the legislation is still good. One person obejcts to this and another to that. Drawn-out procedures will not be necessary in the future, but everything will take place after proper consultation with the Administrators, the Education Council and/or the Committee of Educational Heads, because now we are concerned with the interests of the child, the interests of the country, and we may not simply set about this matter in a topsy-turvy fashion—advice has to be obtained. I shall see to it, when this measure is enacted, that all white pupils belonging to the two language groups, as well as white immigrant children, receive the best educational training. With the assistance I am being given by this legislation in the form of the advisory bodies, I shall do everything in my power to see to it that the child receives his training and his education in his mother tongue and that there is equal treatment in respect of the two language groups.

I am taking note, and I have taken note, of the current educational practices which are being applied in various parts of our country. I have taken note of specific practices in certain provinces which have been recommended to me. I have also taken note of specific educational practices in other provinces which have been condemned by some people and defended by others. I understand and I realize only too well, seeing that I myself was a member of the teaching profession, that each province has, over a period of 57 years, become particularly jealous of its own system, that each province has also been rather narrow in its outlook and blind to the merits of other systems and that it has been imagining its own system to be the best. We should therefore take that into account and realize that we cannot simply sweep them away all at once. That will most definitely not happen. That is why consultation and the task of convincing them will have to take place all the time, not on political grounds, but on educational principles. Those educational principles will be laid down and determined by educationists or competent people who are sufficiently informed about education. Now I want to give hon. members a small piece of advice. Let this legislation be a lesson to us—we may not, we dare not, nor should we ever again make education a political matter in future. We have enough other spheres in which we can fight. Let us approach this matter with pure principles, even though we may differ from one another. The only pure principles we discussed here, are really such that I am unable to mention them, because we succumbed to the temptation of making them the subject of politicking.

I want to conclude, Sir, by saying that I am inviting all educationists, irrespective of the language groups they belong to, all educational bodies, everybody who has a direct or indirect interest in education, to co-operate cordially in serving the interests of this most precious and greatest national possession, namely the unshaped child, with the greatest sense of responsibility with which we should handle such a matter. Let us think of the interests of that child with our hearts first and then with our minds to see whether his interests will not perhaps be prejudiced by this or that system. Because it is the responsibility of the present generation to mould the future generation in the various spheres, in order that they may not only be an asset to their country and their people, but, as the hon. member for Boksburg said a moment ago, that there may also be assets which will count towards life hereafter. As a Christian nation it is our obligation to uphold the Christian character of this nation which is interwoven with the Western culture and the Western Christian idea which is our heritage. It is our duty to instil in them as South African citizens, next to their loyalty to God, the greatest loyalty to this country, so that they may be prepared to make every sacrifice for this country. Hon. members say that all these things are unnecessary. They say I simply want to indoctrinate. I fling that aside with the contempt it deserves, because, Sir, that was something which was ugly in this debate, that was the ugliness which cropped up in this debate. I fling that aside with contempt, because hon. members only want to discuss the national character. Just think of the progress which has already been made in the field of national unity, so much so that since we became a Republic we as political parties have already begun to show a marked degree of similarity in respect of many matters. The differences which existed between us—whether we should be bound to another country—we have already succeeded in eliminating. We no longer sought help overseas when we started having difficulties in this country. We knew that we had to stand on our own feet and use our own resources. We in this House were prepared, without any hon. member dissenting, to vote millions of rand for the defence of our country. That is why the need is as great now as it has ever been before for us to promote unity, and we should do more to foster in our young children a national character, and we should help to mould them so that they may recognize the finest attributes in every little thing in South Africa—the finest country, the finest flora, the finest rivers—and so that they may appreciate them. If we are able to do that, the next generation will not have so many differences. Therefore, once we have disposed of this legislation, let us join hands and proceed on the road of doing our best for the children of South Africa.

Last night when the House adjourned I was dealing with the question of the hardening of attitude, as exhibited by the severe penalties imposed in this clause. My question to the hon. the Minister was why there was this hardening of attitude when in fact these penalties are being applied to people in respect of their own homes which are being taken away as the result of the proclamation of a group area or by expropriation. for the purpose of slum clearance and so on. We on this side of the House believe that this hardening of attitude in relation to the expropriation or the taking over of people’s homes was quite unnecessary. I believe that our attitude towards people who have to be moved should be one of kindness and consideration and that every effort should be made to help these people to re-establish themselves in the areas to which they have to go. It does not matter what attitude the hon. the Minister adopts towards this process of moving people, the person who is moved is always the loser, because although on paper he may in fact show a profit on the deal, it costs him a great deal more to re-establish himself, and now in addition to that the hon. the Minister is providing here for penalties which are out of all proportion to the so-called crime which these people commit if they do not comply with the requirements laid down by him. If a disqualified person, in other words, a person who can no longer stay in a particular group area, commits an offence by making unauthorized alterations, he is subject to a penalty which is different from the penalty imposed on a person who does this in regard to land which is to be set aside for slum clearance or renewal schemes. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us why he wants these particular penalties and why the difference. I should like him to go into some detail in this regard because we on this side of the House are not at all satisfied with the stringency of the penalties and with this hardening of attitude towards people who do not fall in with his every whim and wish in applying the Community Development Act.

Let me begin by saying that the hon. member is quite wrong in suggesting that the provisions of this clause are indicative of a hardening of attitude on our part as far as these people are concerned. That is not the case at all. The existing Act provides that a person who is guilty of certain specified offences shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R1,000 or to imprisonment for two years, or to both. Those specified offences are the following: If such a person gives an answer to any question by, or makes any relevant statement to, an inspector or a valuator which is false in any particular material, knowing such answer or statement to be false, in other words, if he deliberately makes a false statement. The same penalty applied if a person hindered or resisted any inspector or valuator in the exercise of his powers or in the performance of his functions. Under the existing Act any person who hinders or resists any inspector in the performance of his functions is liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding R1,000 or to imprisonment for two years. If an owner refuses to say within 30 days how much he wants for his land, he is, upon conviction, liable to a fine not exceeding R1,000 or to imprisonment for two years, and all that is now being done in regard to this last example that I have mentioned is that the section is being better worded and that a new offence is being added, namely if he effects alterations to his property, makes additions, erects new structures, and so forth, without the approval of the board. I shall come to that in a moment. I maintain that such an offence in connection with the entire resettlement of people is a more serious one than merely obstructing an official in the performance of his functions.

But not for five years.

No, that is quite another argument altogether. That is the reason why provision has to be made for these penalties. Formerly that person could apply to the board if he wanted to effect alterations to his property or if he wanted to make structural improvements or erect a new structure, and if the board granted the application, the value of such alterations, improvements or new structures could be added to the basic value. If it had been done without the approval of the board, the board could in its discretion add it or not. In this Bill we are granting these persons the right to retain for themselves the full appreciation on their property for a period of five years; there is no longer any appreciation contribution, and that can easily give rise to large-scale improvements or changes to property, especially if the owner can increase the value thereby, and that will not assist in getting the removal carried out as soon as possible. Because the concession that he does not have to pay the appreciation contribution for five years has been made, we now have to place a prohibition on alterations without the approval of the board, and if one imposes a prohibition one must also have a penalty clause in case the owner does not observe the prohibition. Hon. members should remember that this has merely been inserted in the existing penalty clause, in which the exiting fine or period of imprisonment or both is prescribed. But it is only the maximum that is prescribed. What the actual fine or penalty will be is and remains at the discretion of the court of trial. If it is a person who has acted bona fide or who has made a small alteration to a house for maintenance purposes, no presiding officer of any court will impose a severe penalty on that person. Surely hon. members know that we can have absolute faith in our judiciary in matters of this kind. Such a presiding officer may perhaps issue a warning and dismiss the person if he appears before the court at all. It is important to remember that this penalty provision is not more severe than the one already standing in the Act in respect of other lesser offences than this.

As far as the second penalty provision is concerned, namely that in connection with areas which have to be renewed or slum areas which have to be cleared, etc., the fines are not the same. The hon. member said yesterday that the penalty in the first case was much more severe than that in the second case. In actual fact the penalty in the second case, in connection with slum clearance or urban renewal, is much more severe, because over and above the fine of R500 or imprisonment for one year the person may be ordered by the court to demolish the alteration effected or the structure erected by him. In other words, he can in fact be penalized more severely, and taken as a whole it is in fact a much more severe penalty than the first one. Here too it is completely at the discretion of the Court. I really think that hon. members should allow this matter to remain as it stands and to go through like this.

I may just point out that most of these areas are situated within local authority areas. I think that is an important point. The local authorities must give permission and approve of the plans. In considering such plans local authorities may only take into account their own bye-laws. They are not allowed to approve or reject a plan on account of other considerations such as the provisions of the Group Areas Act and so forth. They must consider the plan purely on its own merits within the framework of their town planning scheme. It may therefore happen that they grant permission to erect a building or effect alterations to an unsuitable person, while this Act prohibits it. It is my intention to point out to all local authorities that this provision has now been inserted in the Act, and that in considering those plans and prior to granting their approval they should warn the people concerned that they are not allowed to effect these structural or other alterations without the approval of the board, so that every person within a local authority area who wants to effect such an alteration may know before doing so that he is liable to a penalty if he does so. It is easy for us to do that with the assistance we receive from local authorities. If any person then knowingly and deliberately proceeds with such alterations, he should, in my opinion, be severely punished.

Mr. Chairman, I might have misunderstood the hon. the Minister. Do I understand that a contravention of section 32 (10), which is incorporated in clause 5 of this Bill, carries a penalty of R1,000? For exactly the same thing, that is, making alterations without the permission of the relevant authority, whether it be slum clearance or urban renewals, it is to be less, namely R500. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, in the one case there is to be publication in the Gazette in terms of section 32 (10) but in terms of clause 5 there will be no publication.

Of course there is.

Did I understand the hon. the Minister’s reason for saying that there should be a higher penalty for an offence in terms of section 32 (10), was that the persons there are receiving an appreciation contribution?

I have not said that there will be a higher penalty. I said that it is in fact a lower penalty than in the second instance because it provides for a fine or imprisonment only whereas in the other case there can be a penalty of a fine or imprisonment and the demolition of the structure, which might cost him a few thousand rand.

Will the hon. the Minister indicate to us what the position is in respect of an offence in terms of section 32 (10)? Can a person be ordered in terms of that section to demolish a structure?

No, he cannot.

That makes all the difference. He then gets, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, an appreciation contribution for whatever improvements he might have made over a period of five years. That sounds much more reasonable if that is so. Even if a person does make the alteration and sells the house in five years he may be fined for doing that without permission but he can recover the value of the property over five years and no order for demolition can be delivered.

That is so.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister is not quite correct because in the first instance if a person makes alterations or erects buildings in terms of section 32 (10), the Minister is removing the power of the board to add it to his basic value. He is removing that discretion. The position is that the Minister still has not told us why in the case of a person who has five years to dispose of his property without having to make an appreciation contribution, it is nceessary to do this at all. It should not be necessary to penalize him at all because the board has no financial interest in the matter at all. Why then impose the penalty? It is only after a period of five years that the board becomes interested. Then of course the board can impose a penalty if he has erected structures. They then impose a penalty by refusing to include the value of those structures in the basic value of the property. Then the person has to pay a higher appreciation contribution to the board, which in itself is a penalty. Those are the two aspects which I do not understand. It would help us considerably if the Minister would deal with those aspects.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear that a disqualified person is prohibited from enlarging his building or erecting a new building. If he does that he is subject to the penalty clause. If he has done that, he can still dispose of that building within a period of five years and recover the full costs which he incurred in connection with it by placing it on the open market or selling it in some other way. I have been asked why it is necessary to include a penalty clause here at all. I have already said that while one allows that, one must prevent undesirable development by disqualified persons from taking place. We have had cases where white owners erected buildings in a declared coloured area, buildings which were far too luxurious, too expensive, for members of the coloured community. That made those buildings difficult to sell. Consequently the board was under a sort of moral obligation to compensate them. It is this type of unheard-of thing that we want to prevent. Similar things have happened among other race groups as well. So, for example it happened in a certain rural town that an Indian had a business stand on fairly large premises. The premises were situated in a white area. He then erected a large block of flats behind the shop and placed Indians in those flats because occupation rights by Indians attached to those premises. It is this type of thing that we want to try and prevent.

When these people are advised that their properties are affected, does the notice include notice about the fact that they cannot make alterations or additions to their properties?

I have already explained previously that although they do not receive notice in the initial stages, notice to the effect that they may not effect alterations to their properties, all additions to buildings as well as new buildings within a local authority area must be sanctioned by that local authority. I undertake to have all local authorities circularized asking them to inform these people …

And outside local authorities?

We could also have it done there.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a very short Bill, but nevertheless a most important one. Past experience in the implementation of the Seeds Act revealed certain shortcomings in the present provisions. In this regard it became apparent in particular that the prescriptions in respect of taking samples, releasing and keeping in custody seed, and of certain powers to be exercised by the Minister, gave rise to certain problems. I want to give a brief summary of the objects of the amendments before the House. In terms of clause 1 a considerable deal of time and labour will be saved in taking samples, and it will also mean that smaller quantities of seed may be taken for sampling purposes than at present. It frequently happens that very small quantities of valuable seed are imported, and by the old methods a good deal of such seed was lost, at the cost of the importer. This measure is consequently also a protective measure for the benefit of the importer.

In terms of clause 2 the powers of the Minister are expanded to authorize him to decide in certain specific cases on what conditions seed may be imported for experimental or reproduction purposes and to exempt it from the provision that it shall first be placed on the varietal list before being released. The reason for this is that some seed varieties cultivated overseas are imported for production purposes only, and the reproduced product is then exported in turn. That is the case with green peas, for example. Green pea seed is cultivated overseas to adapt it specifically to certain tastes which may develop from time to time, almost the way feminine fashions change. Not only do skirts become shorter, but they also prefer longer green pea pods. The seed is imported and planted here, and then the product is exported in its preserved form—in other words, we are actually becoming a factory with regard to seed. We get the raw materials which are planted here, and the entire crop is harvested here and exported. This processed product earns our country foreign exchange, of course. If the imported seed has to be tested first and placed on the varietal list later, a process which sometimes takes a few years, the variety concerned will be of very little value for the purpose for which it was imported, because by that time new varieties will have appeared to suit the latest tastes of the consumers. It remains a matter of changing taste. I may just add that this arrangement is contemplated only in respect of exceptional cases, and that the control of seed to be introduced on these terms will be strictly applied. That means that such seed which is not placed on the varietal list cannot be put on the market as seed—everything must be preserved.

As for clauses 3 and 4, I want to say that although most of the importers and their agents are of great assistance to our officers in the execution of their duties, there are nevertheless persons who hamper the work of the officers, in that seed from which samples are to be taken is not always placed in a position readily accessible to the officers. In future officers will be able to demand all the necessary assistance from importers and from their agents, and it will constitute a contravention of the Act if officers are not allowed to perform their duty speedily and efficiently. Thus, for example, we have had cases where inspectors arrived to take samples of seed and were informed that the seed was in stores. As a result they had to go to the store and hunt for that seed in among scores of other bags. We cannot tolerate that. Furthermore, it is a waste of man-power.

This Bill has been submitted to all interested organized concerns, and the measures contained in it are welcomed in all quarters.

When the Seeds Act was introduced in this House in 1961, it met with general agreement. Originally the principal object of the 1961 Act was to provide for the registration of cleaners and sellers of seed. In addition it provided that the Minister could establish a seed certification scheme and a seed export scheme. In other words, the object of the 1961 Act was to make efficient control possible, whether the seed was sold locally or offered for export. In view of the fact that there was agreement when the principal Act was dealt with here in 1961, and since the Bill the Minister has now introduced does not affect the principles of that Act, we consent to this Bill. Fantastic amounts are spent annually by farmers and others on seed. Therefore the quality of seed is of the utmost importance, because it may have a major influence on the chances of success. In terms of section 16 of the principal Act, which relates to analysts and inspectors who take samples of seed, three samples had to be taken by them, i.e. one for the analyst, one for the farmer and one to be kept by the inspector himself. We agree with the Minister that that was quite unnecessary, particularly if it is borne in mind that the seed is so expensive and that three samples are therefore not necessary and that only one should be taken.

We are also in agreement with the Minister as far as clause 2 is concerned. Clause 3, through which we want to prevent people from hampering the inspection of seed, seed, for example, which is imported through a harbour or other port of entry, in that there may be agents who do not provide the necessary facilities to inspectors, is in our opinion also essential.

Because no material amendments are effected through this measure, and because these are merely administrative arrangements to improve the implementation of the Seeds Act of 1961, this House consents to the amendments introduced here.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill merely provides for the repeal of the Adulterated Leather Act of 1923. The only thing hon. members can want to know from me is why this Act is now being repealed. I shall explain briefly. There are two reasons for the decision that this Act is no longer necessary and should be repealed. In the first place, the Adulterated Leather Act was put on the Statute Book in 1923. The object of the Act was to protect the public and to enable the Government to afford such protection in respect of leather which was placed on the market. In those days leather was tanned by means of mineral and vegetable agents. The object was to prevent these agents from containing more than a certain percentage of other ingredients. The techniques and chemicals used for tanning leather in those days were not very reliable, and it was essential to protect the public. Since then tanning techniques have improved a great deal, and one can also rely upon the chemicals used at present. Consequently it is not so necessary any more to exercise control over the standard of these products, and as a result this Act has to some extent fallen into disuse.

The second and important reason is the fact that the Standards Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1945. This Act provides that the South African Bureau of Standards may lay down compulsory and voluntary standard specifications in respect of certain commodities, which may then be published with the permission of the Minister. Since then certain standards have thus been laid down and published in respect of certain kinds of leather. The present position is that the Standards Act contains all the authority that is needed to exercise the necessary control over leather, and consequently it is felt that the Adulterated Leather Act of 1923 is no longer necessary for the purpose of exercising control over the quality of leather, as provision for that is made in the Standards Act. It has therefore been decided to repeal that Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Deputy Minister has explained to us, there is no longer any need for this Act, and we on this side of the House have no objection to its being repealed.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last week I was pointing out that one of the major advantages of this measure was that it did not interfere either with the studies of coloured students or with the work of those who are employed. In other words, the Bill is actually aimed at those people who constitute the greatest problem to the coloured community and the State, namely those who neither want to work nor want to study. This legislation offers opportunities to those young coloured men who attend training camps in terms of this measure and who come from homes where the parents not only show no sense of responsibility towards their children but also do not know how to discipline their children. Not only that, but I believe that in those camps these young men can regain some self-confidence if they are able to spend a year in an atmosphere where they know that somebody and the Government are interested in them and in their future. I also believe this measure is something which we as Whites can envy them, because we have very similar problems to cope with, for example boys who are simply waiting for the day when they reach the age of 16 so that they may leave school, and who do not want to work or to study any further. Those boys in our white community enter life without any training and they will have to do unskilled work for the rest of their lives.

Something which makes this Bill even more attractive is the fact that this training will be given with due regard to the cadets’ aptitudes, educational qualifications, physical condition, capabilities, and so forth. In other words, not only those young men who are sufficiently intelligent and physically fit will be trained there, but everybody will be trained there, even those who are physically unfit or who do not have the capacity to do any other work. I think the hon. the Minister may be congratulated with the training which is being planned and which will consist mainly of training for some occupation or other, to which will be added the necessary provision for recreation and sport. What I think is also very important is that the spiritual needs and welfare of those young men looked after, in that this measure also provides for the appointment of ministers of religion.

I want to plead with the Minister that Coloureds from anywhere in the Republic be included in this measure. There are thousands of Coloureds in the Transvaal. I want to refer to Boksburg in particular, the constituency which I represent and where we have a Coloured community of approximately 10,000 people. I feel that the young men of that Coloured community should also be afforded the opportunity of being admitted to these camps. According to a survey carried out in August last year, approximately 90 per cent of the Coloured males who are working are employed in industries. I wonder whether it will not even be possible to have a training camp in the Transvaal. Under the policy of parallel development many Coloureds will be needed to supply their own services and needs. We need only think of the police services, commerce, and even the public service, where provision is being made for Coloureds to play a more important part and where they will also have to do their share.

Apart from all these things, Sir, I believe that we can increase the standard of living of the Coloureds through these training camps. They will be enabled to be self-supporting to a large extent. What is more, this is a positive step towards developing national pride amongst the Coloureds. I am particularly pleased about clause 22 of the measure, which provides that the hon. the Minister grant approval for medals or certificates to be awarded to cadets on certain conditions. If I may make a prediction here to-day I want to say that those medals and certificates which are going to be awarded to cadets will be something of which every cadet will be proud. They will be much sought-after medals and certificates.

I may just mention that the Coloured community itself welcomes this legislation, and that those of them who have a sense of responsibility support it wholeheartedly. I want to read a letter to you which I have received from a Coloured person, a certain Mr. September. He is a member of the Coloured Education Council in the Republic, chairman of the Transvaal Coloured Teachers’ Association, chairman of the consultative committee of Reiger Park—the Coloured area in Boksburg—and chairman of the “Witwatersrandse Koördinerende Kultuurraad”. He also serves on quite a number of management bodies. This is what Mr. September writes (translation)—

It may seem a little ungrateful of me to say that perhaps this Bill should have been introduced long ago, but by this very statement I want to show the necessity and my personal gratitude for this measure. It is true that the so-called “well-intentioned” will object to the fact that the training is compulsory, but because I have the fullest confidence in the Government I am sure that all sensible Coloured people will welcome this Bill with open arms.

I recall that a Railway Service Battalion (R.S.B.) was established at Kimberley more than 30 years ago, and although that limited and voluntary service training was intended only for Railway workers, there was a feeling of regret amongst the Coloured population when that training centre was closed down after a short period of approximately five years. I once again want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and to the Government for the fact that matters relating to the upliftment of our people are being expedited, and I also want to express my best wishes and gratitude to you for promoting our interests so vigorously.

May the Lord bestow his richest blessings upon you.

I therefore say that we can congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation, legislation which shows once again that this Government has the interests of the Coloured population at heart.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will always regard with a critical eye any legislation which we feel might open the door to forced or even directed labour in South Africa. I want to be perfectly frank and say that my first reaction after reading this Bill was one of extreme suspicion and distrust, because I felt that there were many very unsatisfactory features contained in the Bill. I felt too that I could not support the Bill in its present form. But I must say that after having listened very carefully to the Second Reading Speech by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I am now fairly satisfied in my own mind that the Minister has brought the Bill forward because he believes quite sincerely that its effect will be to uplift and give direction to a certain section of the Coloured community in South Africa. Obviously we on this side of the House are always prepared to support any measure which we think might have the effect of improving the lot of the Coloured people in South Africa.

Having said that, I think that in all fairness I should warn the Minister that he should not be complacent about this measure. Because it is a fact that there are many people in South Africa to-day who feel very unhappy about this legislation, and in fact would like to see the Opposition reject the Bill entirely. I think, too, that the Minister must carry his full share for this feeling of distrust which certain people have against the Bill. Because, Sir, when the Bill was first published the Minister failed to explain clearly to the people what the true objects of the Bill were. I want to say that quite obviously, the very unfortunate statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, had the immediate effect of coupling this Bill to the whole question of a restricted Bantu labour force in the Western Cape. I feel that the hon. Minister will agree that his words also lent a certain amount of stigma to the whole cadet scheme. I want to say that I find it quite deplorable that there is not a better system of liaison amongst our Cabinet Ministers. I certainly do not question the right of any Minister to make a statement when he feels a statement should be made. But one would think that when Ministers are going to make statements on controversial matters, at least they will come together and iron out their thoughts before making these particular statements.

I mentioned before that many people still feel very unhappy about this Bill. They suspect it. I want to suggest to the Minister that when the Opposition comes forward with certain amendments and suggestions during the Committee Stage, he should consider these very favourably. Because I feel that if this is done, many people who want to reject the Bill now, will in fact favour it then.

I feel, too, that possibly the Minister is being rather over-optimistic in regard to the results which this Bill will bring about. There is no doubt in my mind that possibly the Minister will find out in the fullness of time that by adopting more conventional means and by tackling the roots of the troubles which face our Coloured people to-day, he would have made much more progress. I know that he is optimistic about the Bill and that he expects much good to flow from it. I want to say that we on this side honestly hope that this will come about in the interests of the Coloured people. But I feel that the Minister himself is going to be rather disappointed at the results of this measure.

Let us look in the first place at the question of the Coloured male delinquent. I think that the Minister will find that figures show that 60 per cent of Coloured male delinquents are in the age group 18-24 years. Of these about two-thirds are employed. I think that we can assume quite safely that of the unemployed sector, at least half will seek employment to avoid being detained under this Bill. It would appear then that the net effect of this Bill will be to drive possibly one in ten delinquents into a job whilst possibly one in ten will be confined to an institution for a year or two.

I think that it is also accepted—and I think figures will prove me right—that the majority of offences committed are committed during the evening and over week-ends, in other words, during leisure time. One wonders what the effect will be of detaining one in ten delinquents on the crime rate in South Africa. Then, too, one wonders whether the legislation will have any effect on the truly work-shy Coloured. Because we know that unless there is a continuous threat of re-detention hanging over their heads, these people will seek to avoid employment again. One wonders then whether this Bill is really going to have the effect which the Minister envisages.

I want to say, too, that another aspect that worries me is that the Bill as it stands does not guarantee that recruits who go to this particular training centre will leave it with any added skills. Because the definition says that he may be trained for any type of employment. I also feel that the Minister should tell us in his reply whether he does not feel that this Bill will reduce the bargaining power of the ordinary Coloured male. We know that because of the threat hanging over their heads many Coloured males who are not ordinary delinquents will grab at any type of employment to avoid being detained. Obviously this will benefit the unscrupulous employer, and I think the Minister should give very careful attention to this aspect of the Bill.

I feel, too, that the Minister should not let this particular Bill cloud his vision. I said earlier that I do not think that the Minister has attacked the basic cause of the problems which beset the Coloured people to-day. I hope that he will give very careful attention to the whole question of doing something more constructive for the Coloured people. By this I mean that he should give very serious attention to the question of compulsory education for all Coloured children. I believe that he should see to it that proper technical training centres are provided to train Coloured youths. It is also very important—I should say imperative—to provide adequate cultural and sporting facilities for the Coloured youth of South Africa.

Finally, I feel that the Minister should see to it that added opportunities are made available in different spheres of work for the Coloured youth of South Africa. By this I mean that the whole sphere of employment should be broadened for the Coloured people of South Africa. I feel that the Minister must not think that because we have supported the principle of the Bill we are happy about it. I want to make a plea again that when we submit certain amendments and suggestions at the Committee stage he will regard them seriously and treat them accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a number of speakers in this debate. So far some of the speeches made by hon. Opposition members have been very interesting speeches.

They always are.

They are very interesting for this particular reason. Practically every speaker, in fact, every speaker, starting with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, and thereafter the hon. member for Wynberg, then the Coloured Representative, the hon. member for Peninsula, and now the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), have spent their entire time tearing into the Bill and showing its shortcomings. Every single one of them has said that they do not believe the Bill is going to accomplish the aim envisaged by the hon. the Minister, that they do not believe it is tackling the question at root …

Give it a fair trial.

I am coming to that in a minute. I think it was the hon. member for Wynberg who said it was a mix-up. The hon. member for Peninsula said that this Bill goes way beyond the initial objective that had been announced. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens expressed considerable doubt as to whether this Bill was the right measure. And yet all of them are going to support this Bill!

In principle, yes.

They are going to support the Bill in principle, although they have not told me of one single aspect of the Bill which embodies the principle of which they happen to approve.