In accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, I wish to announce that the undermentioned Bills will be introduced in the Senate during the current Session of Parliament:

1. (i) Expropriation Bill;
2. (ii) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill;
3. (iii) Land Survey Amendment Bill;
4. (iv) Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Amendment Bill;
5. (v) Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill;
6. (vi) Admission to and Departure from the Republic Regulation Bill;
7. (vii) Archives Bill;
8. (viii) Heraldry Bill;
9. (ix) Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill;
10. (x) Registration of Pedigree Livestock Amendment Bill;
11. (xi) Artificial Insemination of Animals Amendment Bill;
12. (xii) Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Amendment Bill;
13. (xiii) Marketing Amendment Bill;
14. (xiv) Iron and Steel Industry Amendment Bill;
15. (xv) Explosives Amendment Bill;
16. (xvi) Conventional Penalties Bill;
17. (xvii) Evidence Bill;
18. (xviii) Extradition Bill;
19. (xix) South African Citizens in the Antarctic Bill; and
20. (xx) Police Amendment Bill.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, last year when this Bill was submitted to this House, this side of the House registered its protest. After discussion the motion was accepted and a Select Committee was then appointed, a Select Committee, however, which did not reach any finality. Hon. members might well point out to us that after this Bill had been accepted and after we had raised our objections, we did serve on the Select Committee. But this motion which is before us to-day, once again gives us the opportunity to state our objections to the contents of this Bill, to its trends and to the plans which the Government has up its sleeve with reference to the educational system in South Africa. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to register our protest against the main aims of this Bill. We have the Bill and we know what it provides for. Normally when leave is sought to introduce a Bill, we do not have the Bill before us. But here we have the Bill before us. We know what it is, and we are able therefore to appreciate and determine its trend and its direction.

Yes, but the hon. member knows that at this stage he cannot discuss the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the contents, but I just want to repeat that in most previous cases we were not aware of the contents of the relevant Bills when leave was sought to introduce them. In this case, however, with all due respect, we know what it is and we also know, therefore, what the objections are going to be.

How do you know that some other Bill is not going to be introduced?

In reply to my hon. friend I would point out to him that what is proposed to be introduced here is precisely the same as the measure introduced last year. The wording is the same. If the hon. Minister is able to tell us when he gets up that this is going to be a thorough and decent Bill, from the educational point of view, then of course we will withdraw our objections. But knowing, as we do, the contents of the Bill which this Government is going to submit to the House and which it is going to submit to the Committee, which I assume is going to be appointed, we know that one of its main aims is interference in provincial matters, interference in matters vested in the provinces in 1909-10. We know what a contentious matter this is. We know how the provinces feel about it, not only Natal but also the other provinces. In this connection I also make bold to mention the Free State. We know that this Council will be able to meddle with the activities of the class-room, of the principals, of the school. From what has been submitted to us we know that it will be able to do so. In other words, this appellation, “Advisory Council”, creates an entirely wrong impression. It will not be an advisory council. It will not be a council giving advice to the Administrators of the provinces. It will be a council that will concern itself with educational matters in the provinces.

Order! The hon. member is now going into the details of the Bill.

And then it is not even correct.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose my hon. friend, the member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), thinks that he knows more about it than I do. I can give him the assurance that at this stage I know more about this matter than he does. I know more about it at this stage because I know what the Government’s purpose is in connection with this matter, and because we know that its purpose is interference—because that has been said time and again; it was said outside this House by the previous Minister himself …

Where?

Outside the House. That is why we on this side of the House say that we cannot tolerate the establishment by this House of a body which will be able to interfere with provincial matters and with the rights and privileges given to our provinces, particularly in connection with education. And these plans which the Government has up its sleeve go even further. It will not be a council, such as there is at the moment, which is appointed by the provinces. The hon. the Minister already has a council. Why does he not seek the advice of the council which he has at the moment? Why does he not call together the Advisory Council which he has at the moment? Why has no meeting of that council been convened during the past three or four years? What sort of confidence does that display in the Council, and what sort of council does he want now? What is behind it? It is because we are suspicious as far as that is concerned that we are again opposing this matter from the very beginning. We know what the Government’s object is and we are opposing this motion because we know that the people of South Africa will not tolerate a situation in which this Council will be able to meddle with the affairs of the provinces.

The invalid arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) against the granting of leave to introduce this Bill amount to a farce. In spite of the fact that this Bill was introduced previously and in spite of the fact that they promised their wholehearted co-operation on the Select Committee which was then appointed, and in the full knowledge that Select Committee would again be called into being, the hon. member now comes along with the invalid arguments and says that they now have reason to object, that they now have this opportunity of objecting to the contents and the trend of the Bill and the plans which the Government supposedly has up its sleeve.

He is objecting to himself.

They have no right to object at this stage to the contents, because the contents are not under discussion now.

Are the contents going to be changed then?

The hon. member used the expression that he objected to the contents of the Bill.

I know what the contents are.

He said that in the first instance he objected to the contents of the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke), when reference was made to the hon. member for Hillbrow, used the expression “bobbejaan” (baboon). I should like to know whether that is parliamentary language?

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here without uttering a word; I did not use that word. If any other hon. member used that word, let him say so.

Order! The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the effect of this Bill is perfectly clear to all the members who served on that Select Committee. All those hon. members, of whom the hon. member for Hillbrow was one, clearly understand what the establishment of a National Education Advisory Council means. They know as well as I do that the people in the rural areas and throughout the whole country unambiguously declared themselves in favour of the establishment of such an advisory council.

Their own leader did so.

Their leader did so. But those bodies on whom they rely, did the same thing. Certain higher authorities did so; certain Cape Provincial Council members of the United Party did so publicly. They now want to tear themselves away from those persons who have already, in unambiguous terms, expressed their approval of the establishment of an Advisory Council. The nature of this Council is still not known to the hon. member because the nature and the functions of that Council are to be determined by a Select Committee. He says that he protests against the Bill because it is tantamount to interference with provincial matters. Even before 1910 it was laid down in the Constitution of the Union, which was then to come into existence, in terms of Section 85—the hon. member for Hillbrow knows as well as I do what I am going to say now—that after a period of five years Parliament would decide—and since that date Parliament has so decided every year until 1962—on educational policy matters, not only vocational education, but education …

Is that the Government’s intention?

In other words, what the hon. member for Hillbrow is trying to do is to oppose and to try to take out of its hands rights of this House, rights that were laid down in the Constitution. This House had the fullest right to deal with any matter in connection with education, and to do so without interfering with rights vested in the Provincial Councils. He says here that the privileges of the Provincial Councils will be interfered with. So far nothing at all has been said, or set out in the previous Bill, about interfering with any privilege of theirs. The hon. member knows that. But the hon. member relies on what was habitually done by his Party in the past and that is to make a mess of education through the Provincial Councils. They did so specifically in attempting to introduce the dual medium. The United Party, because they are such experts in that field, are now looking for ulterior motives in this Bill. To come to the Council itself, the hon. member says that a Council already exists. That Council is not an advisory council.

What is it then?

The council or body to which the hon. member refers—if perhaps he has the memory to be able to remember it—is a consultative body. They have to consult with the provinces, particularly in regard to monetary matters, something with which we have nothing to do at the moment. This Bill, as its title indicates, is concerned with advice on education and purely education. How this Council, as a purely advisory body, could interfere with matters concerning the provinces, is completely beyond my comprehension. The hon. member has candidly admitted that he is suspicious. Of course they are suspicious. That is implicit in all the arguments advanced by them, and, Sir, when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) jumps up in a moment, you will hear the same refrain of suspicion from him, because the Opposition realize that as soon as we start going into the question of education—and everybody admits that there are certain things in the education of our country which are wrong and which have to be rectified—we will expose tragic mistakes and very great blunders committed by the United Party in the past. The very purpose of this Bill is to rectify those blunders and mistakes.

No, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that this Bill be placed on the Order Paper immediately, that leave be granted to introduce it and that the Bill be read a first time, in a proper manner, as already decided by the House last year. We do not want to go back on it now and repeal that decision. The arguments which have been advanced here, or rather the accusations which have been made here, are entirely invalid and they do not fit into this picture at all.

I should thank the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) for anticipating what I have to say. He seems to be a thought-reader, even at this distance. Mr. Speaker, I wish to confine myself to the manner in which the hon. the Minister has asked for leave to introduce the Bill. I do not wish to discuss the contents of the Bill because that is quite out of order. In asking for leave to introduce this Bill, the hon. the Minister should have made an explanatory statement to the House. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has assumed—and to some extent I think the hon. member for Witbank has done the same—that it is the Bill which another Parliament dealt with last year. But we have had no explanation from the hon. the Minister to that effect. Surely it was his duty to come forward to this hon. House and to tell us that he intends to introduce the same Bill and that his plan is the same as the plan of his colleague, the hon. Minister who is now sitting next to him, but we have not had that explanation. I think that explanation was due to the House. What we are anxious to know, Sir, is not the detail of the content of the Bill, but we would like to know this: In introducing an Advisory Board for Education in this country, is it to be an advisory board to cover the whole gamut of education for the whole of South Africa? Is it to cover, for example, the education of White children, Native children, Coloured children and Indian children? Is it to cover them all? And if it is to cover all White children, are there to be two boards now that the Nationalist Party has, very successfully, introduced apartheid in White schools? Are there to be two boards? I think that is a fair question. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister as well: Now that the hon. the Minister has asked for leave to introduce this Bill, does he intend to follow the same procedure as was followed by his colleague last year? Is it his intention, after the Bill comes before this House, to refer it to a Select Committee before the second reading? That is a very important question, because last year when a Bill was introduced—that does not mean to say it is the Bill before us now—does he intend to follow the same procedure and refer it to a Select Committee immediately, that is before the second reading? Because in the report of the Select Committee which sat last year, we found there were 75 authorities that had submitted memoranda. It must be a most important Bill if 75 authorities throughout South Africa think it necessary to submit memoranda. Therefore I think that the hon. the Minister has not treated this House as he should have treated it. He has not shown this House the courtesy that he should have shown in introducing the Bill. I think, therefore, that we should call upon him now to make the explanatory statement I have asked for.

The only matter that is at issue at the moment is the establishment of a National Advisory Board of Education. We are not in the least concerned with the details and that being so I wish to confine myself strictly to the attempt to bring a National Advisory Board into being. I do not know why the United Party is getting so excited. As long as that party has existed up to the present it has been in favour of a National Advisory Board of Education. I should like to remind the House that as long ago as 1945 the Leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council has expressed himself in favour of such a board. In that year already the South African Teachers’ Association (S.A.T.A.) appointed a commission and that commission investigated the whole matter. They strongly recommended the establishment of a National Advisory Board of Education and that recommendation was signed by the Leader of the United Party of that year. The official publication of S.A.T.A., whose attitude hon. members try to interpret in this House, made out a very strong case for the establishment of such a body and there has never been any objection to it from any side as far as the United Party is concerned. I myself had the doubtful honour, as some people would say, all the years that I belonged to the United Party, of being the chairman of the education group in that party and year after year in this House that group expressed itself in favour of a National Advisory Board of Education. That has always been the policy of that Party but now they are objecting to the very thing that they have always advocated. In other words, the United Party is once again objecting to its own existence. It is objecting to its own existence, its own past and everything it has built up.

Order! That has nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that the principle which is embodied in this Bill, is a principle which, in the past, has enjoyed the approval of all sides of this House, and this attempt on the part of the United Party to renounce its own past, deserves nothing better than to be ignored.

In regard to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), who has just sat down, there is nobody in this House who is more able than he to speak with authority in respect of principles which he has held in the past. The hon. member is in a privileged position in that regard. I do not think anybody has had the experience that will put him in the position where he can attack past principles with more vehemence than the hon. member who has just sat down.

In regard to this matter before us, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said that the Minister should have given us an explanation when he introduced this Bill this afternoon. But I would like to go further than that. The feelings that have been roused, not only during the past few months, but during a long time, in regard to this matter are well known. A Select Committee was appointed last year and as far as I know its work has never been submitted to members of Parliament nor before the public. And I think that in a matter of this kind the public were entitled to be taken into the confidence of the Government through the issue of a White Paper timeously, well in advance of the re-introduction of this measure. I want to ask the Government, through you Mr. Speaker, whether they are trying to gain the confidence of the people and whether they are trying to take the public with them in this matter or is this just another case where the Government is going to steam-roller its views through Parliament, put an Act on the Statute Book and not mind what the people think about it? Here was a golden opportunity for the Government to have taken the public into its confidence timeously. They should have put their case before the people and if there were evidence led before the Select Committee which was appointed last year, which was valuable in regard to this matter the issue could have been put before the public and it could have been discussed and thrashed out so that when the Government came to Parliament and proposed, in terms of its own statement which it could have made timeously in advance, to proceed with the matter—even in the form in which it appeared last year or in a different form—we would all have been aware of what was taking place. I submit, Sir, that this is the very way to create discord, hostility, bitterness and trouble ab initio, when a Bill is introduced in this manner, a Bill which has the background which this Bill has. I do hope that in matters of this kind the Government will act differently in future. The Government is not in the position that is has a parlous majority, it is not in the position that by one or two votes it can lose the day. The Minister knows that he has a Government majority that can carry the day whatever the determination may be. I do ask the hon. the Minister that now at the start of this new Parliament, to try to take the people with him in regard to matters of this kind, matters which strike so deeply in the heart and the felling and the sentiment of all our people in this country.

I deeply regreat having to make my bow as Minister of Education in a debate such as this. I also regret that so much suspicion should be sown against a measure such as this. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) has dealt very effectively with what was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) now objects to the fact that details in connection with the precise objects of the Government were not given at the introduction of this measure. I do not know under which particular rule of this House the hon. member for Kensington thinks it is possible to do so. What was possible, and what I as Minister did in the first instance, was to consult the Secretary of the House as to precisely what should be done, and I did what the Rules of this House allowed me to do. I went a little further out of my way. I did not run after the hon. member for Kensington, but I went out of my way to inform the Chief Whip of the United Party that three of my Bills would come before this House; that all three of these Bills—the first reading of one of which has already been agreed to—would be referred to a Select Committee after the first reading. The hon. member accuses me of having treated the House very discourteously by not informing it of what had happened. The hon. the Chief Whip was indeed informed by me. I asked him whether I should put it into writing, and I repeated it twice, and he told me that he had it in mind and would remember it. The Bill being introduced now was already introduced during the previous Session. This is a new Parliament. It starts anew. I am resuming precisely where we left off. I told my Chief Whip that I would like the members of this side of the House who served on that Select Committee to serve on it again. I told the Chief Whip that it would probably be arranged at a later stage, but that I hoped that the United Party felt the same way about it, replacing people who have fallen away, so that there may be continuity in these activities. This Government is not accustomed to take a matter halfway and then to leave it there. This House knows precisely what it ought to know at the first reading of this Bill, as was the case when the first reading of this Bill was passed by this House last year. It knows precisely where it stands and we are just proceeding further and it is unnecessary, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) contended, for the Government to take the people of South Africa into its confidence. How can the hon. member expect us to take the public into our confidence more than we are doing now, when there will be an opportunity for them to give evidence and to submit documents, and that this will be done before the principle of the Bill is accepted? Does that not reveal the greatest confidence in the whole of the public outside? Everybody from far and wide is being invited to give evidence. The hon. member also spoke out of his turn. Surely he knows what the procedure here is. He is an older member than even I am, and is one now to teach him what the rules of the House are?

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to be said at the moment about the contents of this Bill and its import. I regret that an attempt has been made to sow suspiction and actually to deny the necessity for such a measure. If only the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) would remember that he was also once a teacher, and that the educationists of the country, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking and to whatever party they might belong, are very concerned about the confusion prevailing in educational matters in South Africa, he would realise that it is high time that this House devoted proper attention to it. By means of the Select Committee proper attention is being given to it, and if he finds that this is not in the proper form, the Committee can change the Bill. The Government is not bound to any of these provisions. The Select Committee is at liberty to report to this House. But if the hon. member seeks to evade the issue in order to create suspicion and to frighten people with something which is not yet in existence, he will not succeed in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I must also oppose leave to introduce this Bill and I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that perhaps if the next time he takes other parties into his confidence about his intentions, the matter will be recognised in the House.

Who?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said that a lot of people in this House had changed their minds about the principles of education and he attacked the official Opposition on this score, but he himself has changed his mind on at least two important issues dealing with education that I can remember. When I first came to this House the best speech made against the introduction of the Bantu Education Bill was made by that hon. member. Since those days he has become a keen supporter of it.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) states that the contents of this Bill are not under discussion now, but we do not really need the Bill to know its contents. The hon. the Minister is surprised that this House is suspicious of the introduction of a Bill which he has told us will be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading, and that the principles embodied in the Bill can be changed and that the Bill can come back from the Committee to this House with any changes it desires to make. Unfortunately we are suspicious about this, and for a very good reason. However impartial a Select Committee of this House may be, it is still a Party Select Committee which does not consist of independent educationists. That is why we opposed the introduction of this Bill last Session and we oppose it now.

Who are “we”?

I am talking of the Progressive Party. The hon. member may laugh, but I talk for thousands of people in this country, and not only for my own constituents. We oppose this Bill because the Government’s reputation in the field of education is notorious. We know of statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister. In 1959 the Prime Minister told us that there would be uniformity in the sphere of education; it could not be otherwise “because the nation could maintain only one ideal in this sphere”. Now, as the hon. the Minister has told us this afternoon, this Government does not start something and then leave it half way, and all of us know from our experience of the Prime Minister that he is not one to start something and then drop it half way. He is after one ideal and it is an ideal which is not supported by thousands upon thousands of parents of school-going children in this country. That was demonstrated last year when some 80,000 parents signed petitions against a Bill of this nature.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I am opposing the introduction of any Bill dealing with education…. [Interjections.] I will tell hon. members why. It is because I believe that what this country needs is not a Select Committee to examine education. It needs an independent Commission of education experts before any Bill is brought to this House, be it sent to a Select Committee before or after the second reading. We need a thorough, independent examination of education by educationists, and not by politicians. I agree with the Minister when he says that many things in our present education system are wrong. We need, it is true, some co-ordination in education. Perhaps we need to examine the whole question of the multiplicity of matriculation examinations. But that is as far as I go. I say that we need an independent Commission of educationists to examine the ills that are attacking our educational system. We may agree with coordination of efforts, but we do not want uniformity in education, and that is what is aimed at by this Government. Whether the Bill has it in its clauses or not, we know from past announcements by the Prime Minister, by the Administrator of the Transvaal and by various Nationalist members, what this Nationalist Party aims at. It aims at uniformity in education. Other countries are moving away from it, towards diversification of thought amongst the younger people, to make them adaptable to the changing systems in our modern world. It is only in Soviet Russia to-day that you get centralization.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

I am pleading against uniformity, in favour perhaps of co-ordination, but most of all what we need is an independent commission of inquiry by educationists. For that reason I shall vote against leave to introduce this Bill.

The hon. member who has just resumed her seat has also advanced reasons, on behalf of her party, as to why they oppose the introduction of this Bill. I want to set the matter right immediately. Her argument is that the matter should have been referred to an independent commission of educationists to investigate the whole matter. I just want to ask her whether she is not aware of the fact that this matter and education as such have already been investigated by various independent commissions of educationists, and that those commissions have submitted numerous reports. I want to mention a few examples. I may mention the Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Hofmeyr in 1924, when he was Rector of the University of the Witwatersrand. In its report that Commission specifically recommended that such a board be established. It specifically recommended it. The De Villiers Commission of 1948 confirmed it and recommended that a Union Education Council should be established, and now that the Government seeks practically to implement the suggestions and recommendations of these independent commissions for which this hon. member is asking, they object to the manner in which the Government wants to do so. Are we continually to appoint commissions without ever making any progress? Must we continually refer the matter to commissions, with all the attendant red tape, and never take action? I feel that here we are dealing with a matter affecting the whole country and its education, and the sooner the matter is finalized the better. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter further, but I want to come back to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), who adopted the attitude that the Government should take the Government into its confidence. Since the hon. the Minister has spoken, our case is even much stronger than it was before. The Chief Whip of the Opposition was aware of the fact that directly after the first reading the matter would be referred to a Select Committee. In other words, the Select Committee can change even the principle of the Bill. In other words, only the idea recommended by the various commissions, namely that such a body as a Union Education Council should be established, is before the Select Committee for consideration, and for the rest its constitution and its functions, where it may interfere and where it may not, can be determined by the Select Committee. What broader field does the Opposition want covered? Added to that, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has already pointed out, 75 memoranda have already been submitted. As a member of that Select Committee I am aware of the fact that several of those people said they would like to give evidence before the Committee. I am convinced that if this matter is referred to the Committee there will be an opportunity for giving evidence and that the public outside will therefore have the fullest opportunity to state their case. Now the question, to my mind, is this. The hon. member for Houghton says that this matter will be heard by party politicians and not by educationists. I want to correct that immediately. These party politicians happen to be the representatives of the people of the Republic of South Africa, who themselves will decide in the best interests of their children, and many of them are educationists. The members of the Select Committee are Members of Parliament who have just been elected by the public to deal with these matters. The parents of the children of South Africa have appointed their representatives, and they are better able to judge as to the future education of the nation than educationists who have not been appointed by the people. It is the choice of the people.

I want to conclude with my last thought, that this motion is merely a skeleton which is being provided, which can be developed from all sides. Evidence will be heard from all those who are interested. There will be an opportunity to discuss the matter and the Select Committee has the power, if necessary, to come to this House with a brand new Bill; to abandon principles and to recommend others. I want to ask the Opposition to make use of the opportunity given to them by the State, and to stop complaining about matters which do not concern them at all. The only reason why they have adopted this attitude is because they did so last year and suddenly received tremendous publicity in the Press, and now they dare not disappoint their English-speaking Press.

The House is apparently under the impression that when the Government comes forward with something with the innocent appellation of Advisory Board, every member of this House must accept it summarily. If we want an Advisory Board for education, nobody will have any objection provided it is advisory in the true sense of the word. But during the recess even the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) himself said that what we wanted in South Africa was a national educational policy. [Interjections.] In order to carry that out, surely a certain measure of control must be exercised.

That has nothing to do with the motion.

It has something to do with the arguments raised by hon. members opposite, Sir, namely that it has such an innocent name that we must accept that this board will only be advisory. If we were to carry out what the hon. member for Witbank said and also what the hon. the Minister of Justice said prior to the 1959 Provincial election, namely, that a policy should be applied whereby Natal will also be compelled to introduce mother tongue education …

Hear, hear!

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

The policy as laid down by the other side of the House and as embodied in this Bill will not produce an advisory board for education.

Why not?

It will embody a principle whereby control will be exercised over every aspect of education of the White people in the country.

In conclusion I want to say this, that no Bill has contained a principle which has evoked as much opposition outside this House as this one. The fact remains that a great number of memoranda, compiled by people who are interested in education, were submitted to the Select Committee last year, people who were not, as the hon. member for Witbank said, all in agreement with it. Naturally there are many people who agree with the principle of advising, but the crux of the matter is how this advisory board must carry out the policy of this Government. That is the principle which this side of the House is opposing and that is the reason why we are even opposing the granting of leave to introduce.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—96: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diderichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché. NOES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE thereupon brought up the National Education Advisory Council Bill.

Bill read a first time.

I have much pleasure in moving—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.