as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Co-operation, Development and Education, relative to the Universities for Blacks, Technikons (Education and Training) and Education and Training Amendment Bill [No 69—85 (GA)], as follows:

H J TEMPEL,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

7 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, relative to the Health Amendment Bill [No 66—85 (GA)], as follows:

N W LIGTHELM

p. Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

10 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, relative to the Pharmacy Amendment Bill [No 67—85 (GA)], as follows:

N W LIGTHELM,

p. Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

10 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, relative to the Social and Associated Workers Amendment Bill [No 76—85 (GA)], as follows:

N W LIGTHELM,

p. Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

10 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, when the Committee rose yesterday evening, I was discussing the question of the financing of private schools. I was trying to explain the impact upon the educational structure of South Africa and upon the finances of this country if these schools through financial strictures were forced to close. In respect of the Jewish schools in Transvaal alone, some five schools, I mentioned that if these schools were forced to close, it would cost the taxpayer some R3,5 million per year in running costs to maintain the education for those children and perhaps a further R50 million in capital expenditure to build or buy the premises that would be needed.

If we look at the situation countrywide, we find that private schools of all denominations save the Government over R35 million per year in running costs and perhaps some R300 million in capital expenditure. I say that the collapse of the private schools in South Africa would be a calamity for the Government and the ordinary taxpayer.

There is, however, another aspect. The Government has always advocated the concept of religious and cultural diversity and freedom in this country. That means the preservation of the values of our multi-faceted society. What does this mean in real terms? It means, surely, the preservation of the values of Catholics, of Jews, of Protestant English-speakers, of Germans, of Greeks, of Indians and so on. Yet, by taking so long to come to grips with this problem, the Government is endangering the very means to attain those ideals; and this in the knowledge that the private schools are providing an inestimable service to South Africa and our people.

By speaking in these terms I am not asking for charity and I do not believe that the schools concerned are asking for charity at all. I am delighted to see that the hon the Minister of National Education is also present this morning.

No, he is the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education.

Of course, he has changed portfolios.

I am not begging for charity and neither are the schools. What I am asking are the following three things: Firstly, that this hon Minister urge the hon the Minister of National Education to give favourable consideration to an enlightened and supportive policy on the subsidization of private schools; secondly, that he uses his good and influential offices to ensure that the delays and prejudices of the past which have obstructed the finalization of a policy for so long be put aside immediately and that this matter be given the highest priority. Thirdly, I ask that this Minister take the initiative. He should not wait until crises force him to react. He should make contact now with the various bodies governing private schools. He should acquaint himself in detail with the contribution these schools make to education in South Africa and with their problems and needs. Only then will the hon the Minister be in a position to give serious consideration to playing a positive role in that vital aspect of our educational structure. That is my plea to this Minister today.

Mr Chairman, allow me at the outset to say something about the chairman of the education group on this side of the House, the hon member for Virginia, and his management of affairs. I should like to convey many thanks to these hon members for the support they and all the members of the study group have given the department and myself during this session, which enabled us to take up the positions we occupy at present with relative ease. I thank them for their excellent support, goodwill and expertise. These things are appreciated.

†The hon member for Bryanston tried to make out a case for one Ministry of Education or for a unitary education system. In doing so, he referred to the report of the Human Sciences Research Council. He also tried to create the impression that the Government in its White Paper on the provision of education rejected the recommendations in the report in this regard. I want to say that I do not agree with him. His argument is not valid. The recommendations contained in the report of the Human Sciences Research Council in fact imply that there should be more than one education department. The principles in the report place particular emphasis on the balance between what is common and what is diverse, and between centralization and decentralization. It also gives positive recognition to the religious and cultural ways of life and the languages of the inhabitants. I therefore suggest to the hon member that he must have another look at that report and the deductions he made from it.

From the speech of the hon member it is clear that he wants to make use of education for political purposes, and I say this in a good sense. I realize that there is a good and a bad sense, but I mean it well when I make this statement. There was a complete lack of an educational argument in the address which the hon member made.

His recommendations that mixed school sport should be promoted, that private schools should be integrated and that tertiary institutions should be transferred to the level of general affairs are also not substantiated by educational arguments, but are based upon the hon member’s political viewpoints, and I accept that he has good intentions in his political viewpoints. The question, however, is: What about the educational arguments which should be taken into consideration?

*In the very first place I think one should realize that the education of the youth should constitute a unity. The child should not be a commuter between two systems of education, the one at home and the other at school, while the two have little contact with and do not support one another. Consequently there must be a natural link between the education at home and the education at school. The school and the parent community must concur in respect of language, culture and values in life.

That these arguments are valid is substantiated by the fact that multinational states in general have differentiated education systems. This is the case in the United State of America. This is also the case in West Germany, with 11 ministers of education. [Interjections.] This is the case in Switzerland, with 26 canton departments of education. It is also the case in the United Kingdom with its Scottish and Welsh Offices of Education. It is also the case in Yugoslavia which differentiates its education according to its language and cultural diversity. This is also the case in Belgium with its Flemish and Walloon education ministries. Furthermore, this is the case in countries in the East and in Africa, for example India, and, I gather, Nigeria as well. In all these countries South Africa has examples of realistic adjustments of education to the diversity of the national population.

One would also be able to point out the disadvantages of excessive centralization of education as a reply to the hon member’s argument. I could point out the danger which lurks in a unitary education system in which minority groups will be dominated by dominant groups. An example of this is the Russification of all Soviet education where, in spite of strong administrative decentralization, an inevitable watering down of the language, the culture and the identity of the minority groups is nevertheless taking place.

I also want to tell hon members who think that politics and education should be more readily mixed that, while I concede that the House of Assembly is a political body in which politics are discussed, I also say that that does not give anyone the right to disrupt or to disturb the calmness and the tranquillity which is a requirement for good education. Therefore I repeat that education structures should not be misused for political advantages, to the detriment of education. That is all I mean by that.

The hon member for Bryanston also spoke about mixed school sport. I want to react to that. It is the policy of this Government that control over school sport—including sports meetings between White teams and schools and those of other population groups—is exclusively the responsibility of the educational authorities and their parent communities. It is after all school sport. This is at the same time a fine example of the devolution of power. The responsibility in this case rests with the education authorities and their parent communities. School sport is regarded as an integrated part of the school programme. That is why such matters are under the control of the department concerned.

In principle the respective provincial education departments have no objection to mixed school sport, provided it is practised within the framework of the applicable guidelines of the department concerned. Such sports meetings do in fact take place. This means that the parent community and the school authorities concerned gave such meetings in these cases their approval. Consequently as far as school sport is concerned—which forms part of the school programme—scope is allowed for the practising of sport in which members of other population groups also participate.

For mixed teams, not so? Integration in sport!

Ostensibly normalized sport!

If those two hon members do not wish to listen to me, they need not do so. In any case, Mr Chairman, I wish they would just try to understand. [Interjections.]

Order!

A clear distinction must be drawn between school sport and junior sport.

†When youths of schoolgoing age participate in sport their participation is only regulated by their parents and by the body that organizes the participation in a particular event.

Local option!

Mr Chairman, the NRP was the father of local option. However, we shall probably see the end of that now, with the demise of that once celebrated political party. [Interjections.]

Therefore I want to put it to the hon member for Bryanston that junior sport out of the school context affords all pupils and opportunity—subject only to the parents’ consent—to compete on a national basis against the best available practitioners—from whatever population group—of that particular sport in a specific age group. Therefore I believe that fair guidelines exist which create opportunities for all young people of the respective population groups to make contact with one another in a healthy way. Incidentally, I want to agree with what the hon member for Bryanston said in this respect. We must help and encourage our young people from the respective population groups to get to know one another. This is an aspect which we must definitely promote.

†I will now deal with the speech delivered by the hon member for Sandton. He referred to the question of private schools and also to the subsidization of private schools. I listened very carefully to what the hon member had to say. However, I want him to know that I had the privilege of receiving a visit from the representatives of the community on whose behalf the hon member spoke. They have, during the past few weeks, given me full particulars in regard to their problems. I also had a visit from the Greek community who have similar problems. I was also visited by representatives of other private schools. So I am fully informed of the nature of the problems, and I am fully informed of the urgency of the position. And I have sympathy for the problem.

What are you going to do about it?

I shall tell you now. I have already told the people concerned, so perhaps the hon members in those benches are not as well informed as they thought they were. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member that parents of pupils attending private schools carry a severe financial burden. I wish to express my sincere appreciation of the sterling work that these communities—the Portuguese, the Jewish, the Greek and other communities—have been doing over many years to promote the educational and the cultural development of their children. This matter has now been fully investigated. The HSRC investigation in education recommended 11 principles for the provision of education in the Republic. All these principles were accepted. Principle 8 spells out that the education system should make provision for the subsidization of private schools. In the White Paper the Government announced that an investigation was being undertaken to determine a co-ordinated policy for the recognition of private schools and the granting of financial assistance to such schools by the provincial education departments.

This department conducted investigations in this regard and our findings were submitted to the hon the Minister of National Education who also received inputs from the departments of education of the other population groups. Extensive discussions have already taken place. The private schools’ associations have made their inputs. There are quite a number of them, and I think they have made their inputs very ably, very well, and very convincingly. The hon the Minister of National Education is at present considering the issue and it is anticipated that he will soon be in a position—during this year—to finalize a formula for financial assistance. Unfortunately I cannot give any more information but my impression at present is that we will be able to implement a financial assistance scheme in the next financial year.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether, in these plans for private schools, any thought has been given to making the amounts paid by parents in fees in any way tax-deductible? In other words, is there a taxed-based incentive or any tax advantage to be obtained on this basis?

Mr Chairman, that question has been asked, and it is being considered.

*The hon member for Brentwood spoke about compulsory parents’ contributions, and the hon members for Bryanston and Umhlanga also discussed this matter in detail. It is a matter which has given all of us a bit of a headache during the past few months. Please allow me to refer briefly to the basics. In his introduction the hon member for Umhlanga referred, and I associate myself with him, to the HSRC report of 1981 in which it was accepted that the State bears responsibility for the basic financing of education, while the parent by implication may contribute the rest. Subsequently the interim education working party motivated the principle of involving parents in the financing of education as follows in 1982:

That is the point that the hon member for Umhlanga made.

Provision was made for this in the White Paper by the following resolution, which I should also like to quote:

It is clear from these quoted passages that parents are not taking over part of the State’s obligations to meet the basic requirements, but that they are becoming involved in the additional provision of more sophisticated, that is to say, supplementary services.

I also want to refer to the very important Act of 1967 the National Education Policy Act, which was appropriately amended for this purpose. The following Government Notice appeared on 24 August 1984, and I quote:

†A number of discussions took place under my chairmanship with the Administrators of all the provinces, the members of the executive committees and the Directors of Education to establish whether there is a need for such a contribution and if so to determine the way in which to obtain it and the amount of the contribution. The matter was referred to the Committee of Heads of Education, and a special committee investigated all the technical problems. It would seem therefore that we have just about achieved what we have been trying to achieve, namely to identify all the facts and problems relating to such a compulsory contribution. There is quite a difference of opinion among the various provinces about the manner in which the contributions should be collected. We have now achieved reasonable unanimity about the amount, namely the 10% to which the hon member for Umhlanga also referred. However, there is still much detail which must be obtained and clarified.

Another issue about which I am not quite happy is the fact that the teaching profession has not as yet been fully consulted. We have not yet obtained all the views in all the provinces. The same applies to the parents associations; I am not satisfied that they have been fully consulted in this regard.

Finally, we are awaiting the new formula in regard to the financing of education which our colleague the hon the Minister of National Education is preparing. If we know to what extent we are going to be financed in future, it will enable us better to judge what our financial needs will be. At this stage, therefore, I want to say that we are tying the knots. We are proceeding with negotiation and consultation with the teaching profession and with the parents’ associations and we are obtaining the final facts which will enable the department to draft a plan which will be submitted to everybody concerned.

The hon member for Umhlanga made some sound suggestions which I have noted and they will also be taken into consideration.

*I should also like to associate myself with the hon member for Gezina who referred yesterday, inter alia in reaction to my statement, to the rapid development of technology. With reference to that I just want to say that in this connection he focussed attention primarily on the negative effect of technology on the way in which children spent their leisure times. I share the hon member’s concern in this regard but am of the opinion that he will also agree with me that the technology can also be utilized in a positive way in education. I just want to add that as far as this department is concerned, the utilization of the computer as a technological educational aid is considered to be very important. It has decided possibilities for the effective administration of education. Yesterday, in my statement, I emphasized that the available funds should be spent judiciously and that we should really strive for a cost-effective education system. This can only be achieved if education is made as streamlined as possible. The time of the teaching staff should be utilized as productively as possible, and a prerequisite for attaining this objective is that they should be relieved of as much time-consuming administrative routine work as possible.

To achieve this aids such as the computer will have to be utilized to an increasing extent. The efficient computerization of the administrative tasks of the teacher, and of a school’s administrative work, afford the teaching staff an opportunity to devote more time to the professional aspects of their task as teachers.

A computerized education information system must therefore be developed so that the information pertaining to every school, for example the pupil’s subject choices, the fields of study, the progress, the career possibilities and the medium of tuition, may be fed into a computer. The transfer of this information from one school to another or from a school to the post-school or tertiary educational institution to which the pupil proceeds may then be disposed of without any further administrative processes.

The underlying principle which must apply to cause this system to function as effectively as possible is that the data must be available at the points where the user frequency is the highest, for example at the school, the school board or the education department. All the various centres must then link up with such a computer network. With such a computerized network system it will to a great extent be possible to bring about greater effectiveness and it will be possible to eliminate time-consuming administrative processes.

The network will be planned by the department and the provincial education departments will be incorporated into it. The data, for example for calculating the State subsidy to an educational authority, may then be retrieved directly from the computer. The first step will be to write a programme for a computerized education data system. The department will regard this as a matter of high priority.

Mr Chairman, we have listened once again to a speech made by the hon the Minister. The more we listen to the hon the Minister the clearer it becomes that in all its policy standpoints and speeches the NP is simply preparing the way for the movement of the NP principles to the principles of the PFP. [Interjections.] For the past few years the NP has been preparing the public at large—also in the sphere of education—to move over from the old standpoint of the continued existence of the White people as having a specific identity to the NP’s new concept of a nation. Initially it involved the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, but now the Blacks are being added too.

The hon the Minister gave us no explanation of the so-called “non-negotiables” of the Government in which at least the Government is still telling the people that it is sticking to the standpoint of separate schools. The hon the Minister in no way told us what the content of these separate schools is. He did not say which principles the education policy adheres to or how he is going to project a policy on those specific principles. He did not do that.

Why do you not tell us?

If I had the time the hon the Minister has, I would be able to give an explanation of our policy. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has spoken for a long time and has been sitting here for quite a few months. He is already busy with his by-election, after poor Pierre Cronjé was manoeuvred out.

What is bothering you?

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he is the Minister and he must tell us what his education principles and the policy he is composing are. He did not do so. On page 4, para 1.3 of his report he wrote that in terms of certain paragraphs of the Constitution, the Department of Education and Culture is responsible for education at all levels as well as art, culture and recreation, mainly affecting the White population group.

I am asking the hon the Minister please to listen just a little. We are not at Petrus Steyn where so much nonsense was talked [Interjections.] That is why we won Petrus Steyn. The report continues:

I do not know who wrote this paragraph.

It was not you.

I know it was not I. I would not write such an incoherent thing. This little paragraph has absolutely no meaning. I must mention to the hon the Minister that in the days when the “Broederbond” still had an influence on education, I had understanding for it. Now that the “Bont Broeders” are looking at it, we no longer understand it. [Interjections.] The “Bont Broeders” are compiling an education policy at present. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is arguing with the PFP about why there cannot be one Minister and one department of education. In the meantime, however, there is already only one department in control of education. That hon the Minister does not sit in the general Cabinet, after all. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is not a member of the general Cabinet. The people who decide about you, who decide about White education, also include Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, as well as the so-called Minister of National Education. You are not the one who decides on it. You know that the Minister of National Education can also be a Coloured or an Indian in future. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to the hon member for Rissik to address himself to the Chair and not to hon members.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is trying to imply that he controls so-called own education for us. He does not even sit in that Cabinet, however. Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi probably have to assist in making grants to White education. He knows that a Coloured or an Indian will become the eventual Minister of Education in the broad Cabinet.

They do not even sit in my Ministers’ Council.

The hon the Minister is subordinate to the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to tertiary education. The standpoint of the old National Party was that there should be White universities. Now the universities have been opened to non-Whites. The previous Minister, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, emphatically replied to a question I had put that the non-Whites become students in their own right at those universities. They can take part in the students’ political activities. They become members of the old students’ union. Eventually they also help to appoint the chancellors. With the abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, surely it is the place where the future associations between young people are going to be established. Now the hon the Minister comes and continues to pretend to us and the public at large that education is an own affair. I want to tell the hon the Minister to stop this game of bluffing, not only here in the House, but also outside.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that his own report says that education on all levels is subject to any general law in connection with the following things … [Interjections.] This education is inferior!

No.

Of course! [Interjections.] It says that it is subject to any general law in connection with … [Interjections.] … Listen to this … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members. I am not going to allow dialogues.

It is subject to:

of current and capital costs of education.

In other words, hon members will grant me that own education is subject to this.

[Inaudible.]

In the second instance it is subject to:

Own education is subject to this. In the third instance, norms and standards for syllabi, examination and certifying of qualifications is also subject to it. [Interjections.] That is why I want us now to reach a point where the NP will admit that there is no longer anything like own education for Whites.

Rubbish!

The hon member still says it is rubbish and he may continue to do so, but it is subject to the general Cabinet.

He is satisfied with that!

The hon member is satisfied. He acclaims loudly that the Whites have their own self-determination, but now I want to ask the hon member who is going to speak after me whether the self-determination Whites have over education is the same as the self-determination the Vendas have. Is it the same? Do we have the same self-determination over education as Bophuthatswana does? Is the self-determination the Whites have in South Africa the same as that of the Swazis?

Practically speaking it is more!

Yes, practically the answer is “no”.

The means at our disposal are greater.

Listen to this absurdity of the NP, viz that the Vendas have less self-determination over their education than the Whites in South Africa have! [Interjections.] I can understand that there is complete confusion in NP ranks throughout the country. The NP succeeds in causing confusion, tension and uncertainty in the minds of the public. [Interjections.]

I want to make the statement categorically, and I invite the hon member for Virginia: Let all the parties go to Bloemfontein …

What about Bethlehem?

To Bethlehem as well. Gladly! [Interjections.] Let us go there and debate these points. I want to tell those hon members: Rise after me and explain to me exactly what the Whites’ self-determination is in respect of education and what difference there is between the self-determination over education of the Vendas whom we made independent, and the self-determination we have. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik, it appears to me, is now the leader of the “Freedom Fighters” for own affairs among the CPs. It is very clear to me that the does not understand what it is all about when we speak about own affairs. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether he has anything to add to the definition of own affairs, and whether he wants it changed as it stands in the Constitution. [Interjections.]

Of course! We voted against the Constitution!

No, I am asking the hon member if he is satisfied with the definition as defined in the new Constitution? Is he satisfied?

The definition is correct, but it is mutilated by other provisions. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik made the point that nothing has come of own affairs. We shall speak to these hon members next year and then they will see what has happened to own affairs now that the decision on local government has been taken. [Interjections.]

I want to make a second point arising from the derogatory manner in which the hon member for Rissik referred here to the “Bont Broeders”. This very same member for Rissik will not, if ever he should come into power in this country, be able to govern in this country if he does not negotiate with those “Bont Breeders”. He is spoiling his chances.

I shall negotiate, but I shall not sacrifice my sovereignty! [Interjections.]

Order!

We can state rightly and without fear that the RSA is a rich country. We can narrow that field and say the Transvaal is a rich province. That is also true. We are so rich that we can even sacrifice the Currie Cup on occasion and get along without it. In talking about the Currie Cup, I want to say that it seems to me that the manager of our catering section is the barometer here in the Cape. If I look at his face, the WPs chances seem very slim. [Interjections.]

To return to the Transvaal, I want to say that there are incredible riches under the earth’s crust of which we are only scratching the surface. It is the very rich natural resources and other resulting development which resulted in the fact that large numbers of people are settling in that area. Naturally the largest percentage of them are children, children who form part of our most valuable commodity, viz the human resources.

This is what I want to say something about. I want to say something about the responsibility that this House too has towards those little people, people who will be grown up tomorrow and have to lead, people whose interests we must look after scrupulously, people who have the right to expect that their interests will be well taken care of. If it is our concern to make a land of promise of this Southern Africa, we shall have to take care of the interests of tomorrow’s adults conscientiously and thoroughly. We want to tell each one of them and their parents here today that we are in earnest and that we accept the challenge because there is one matter about which we do have clarity, viz that everything possible should be drawn from a child to make him the most stable citizen possible, for the future will make ever greater demands on that generation. It is our duty and responsibility to mature this generation in all respects.

I want to refer to the development in the Transvaal. For various reasons that province is bursting out of its seams and that rapid development is placing an enormous responsibility on those people who have to supply the needs of the school-going children. I need not quote figures of how many schools have to be built for example and of the facilities that have to be created in a place like Secunda—and there are many similar growth points. The all important question is how one is to supply these needs. The answer is very simple: One does so with money. Money here is indeed a ready medicine. It became clear a long time ago that something was wrong with the allocation of funds for education requirements in the Republic of South Africa. It appeared very clearly that it was unco-ordinated and the present system of provincial subsidies showed deficiencies. It is generally known, as pointed out by previous speakers, that indeed, every province had its own basis of subsidization and that in the Transvaal for example certain group schools were subsidized and others were not. In Natal higher subsidies were paid in certain respects.

As an expert said, they subsidized as the spirit led them. The Minister of National Education at the time thought it was not a good idea to subsidize in this way, because problems occurred. He spelt out that problem himself. I do not know whether he himself used the word, but he was not a Minister who liked discrepancies. That Minister then decided to investigate, in conjunction with the four Administrators, a satisfactory subsidy formula for an executive education authority. The task was delegated to a certain group, viz the Directors’ Conference in co-operation with the National Education Policy Branch of the Department of National Education. They came forward with a formula which appears to be a satisfactory answer to the problem and which seems to hold promise for the rapidly developing Transvaal. The hon the Minister referred to it as such in response to a question put by the hon member for Sandton.

The Transvaal does not ask for everything. There is a saying: “We are not greedy, but we like a lot.” It is actually a case of: “We are not greedy, but we need a lot.” The working party kept the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the RSA next to them as a guideline when they were seeking a formula. The important point was made in the White Paper that the allocation of autonomy contributes meaningfully to administrative effectiveness as long as it is backed by sufficient financing. This should be seen in the well-known context of meaningful devolution of authority. As we have heard, that structure and formula have been accepted in principle and their application is being considered at present. The hon the Minister replied in part to the question I wanted to put, viz whether there are any obstacles in their implementation, when he said that at present the question is being considered by the hon the Minister of National Education.

I do not want to take up the Committee’s time with a discussion of the detail about the determination of the formula, but I do want to point out certain important factors which have been taken into account in the determination of the formula. Clearly the golden thread of a satisfactory standard of education in schools is the objective in the fair allocation of available funds. The formula is sophisticated enough to grant recognition to the diversity and quality of education in the country and does not only take cost escalation into account automatically, but also conforms to with the budget by objectives system of the Department of Finance to supply the means of a modem budgeting procedure in this way. It appears that in future the hon the Minister of Finance will not be able to look for trouble with the responsible Minister when there is an excess in the expenditure of funds, but that he will have to deal with a formula.

Inevitably the following fact also had to be addressed in the formula, viz that the provision of differentiated education to pupils of the senior secondary phase requires additional outlay, but apart from that, in an area with a small population, the provision of schools to a certain minimum number of pupils also requires enormous outlays. The formula has been designed in such a way that one really gets the impression that an effort is being made to bring the schools to the pupils. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have very little time at my disposal and I therefore hope that the hon member for Rustenburg will accept my apologies for not commenting on any of the points that he has made.

The matter I want to deal with has, in part, been referred to by the hon member for Sandton. If he were in the House at the present time, I would have assured him that he should not be too worried because as far as Natal is concerned, we can still provide accommodation, in our public schools, for certain of his young constituents.

I wish specifically to refer to the role of private schools in Natal which have accepted the responsibility of providing a somewhat specialized form of education for their pupils and which, until now, have relieved the provincial administration and the provincial education department of an obligation to provide additional schooling facilities had these pupils not been absorbed in private schools. The Natal Education Department has appreciated the role that private schools have played in Natal by voting an annual subsidy for pupils being educated at these schools. While I realize that the hon the Minister in his previous post had a say in this matter, I also realize that the thought in this regard must have emanated from certain members of the NRP executive in Natal. However, be that as it may, these subsidies have been of considerable benefit to the schools concerned. My appeal today is that provision be made in this vote for the continuation of the payment of annual subsidies to the private schools concerned because these schools have become dependent on this important source of revenue.

I wish to make it clear that when I referred to special education earlier in my speech, I did not intend to give the impression that I considered the standard of education in private schools to be superior to that in State schools. The point I wish to emphasize though is that private schools have endeavoured over the years to extend the base of education beyond the parameters of specific curricula in an attempt to broaden the whole scope of education. This has only been achieved by expanding the academic infrastructures of tuition which in turn have involved schools concerned in considerable expense.

It is not surprising, therefore, that parents of many private school pupils in Natal find themselves having to pay enormous fees if they wish to avail themselves of the privilege of sending their children to such schools.

On reflection I discover that two of South Africa’s most prominent senior private schools for boys, Hilton College and Michaelhouse, as well St Anne’s College for Girls, fall within the Mooi River constituency. It is interesting to note that in spite of the very high fees, these three schools as well as other senior private schools in Natal are well supported. Some, in fact, are able to boast of waiting lists for pupil vacancies.

The question that might be asked here is: For what reason then are these private schools so well supported? Let me deal briefly with some of the answers. Here I refer specifically to Natal private schools, realizing that they may have a common factor with certain private schools in other provinces.

Firstly, several private schools in Natal have gone out of their way to cultivate and maintain strong traditional ties within their own framework. Consequently strong bonds have been built up between ex-scholars and their schools. The benefits of this have been enormous in that many ex-scholars, filled with a sense of loyalty, continue to serve their schools in advisory and administrative capacities in later life. One finds too that some of the best financial brains in this country serve on the boards of these schools.

Secondly, private schools enjoy a sense of independence in that they are able to appoint their own staff and at the same time they offer a wide choice of public examinations.

Thirdly, the greater flexibility of education that private schools offer is an attraction to many parents who see considerable benefit in a school being able to educate its pupils according to its own principles and philosophies. Furthermore they also see merit in a school’s ability to provide an opportunity for innovative education.

I know that it can be argued that certain private schools bear a strong similarity to public schools in the United Kingdom, but I must emphasize that our own private schools cannot in any way be accused of not having a true South African character. What is significant is that private schools in South Africa are unique in that many have a specific character of their own, which may be the reason why certain Provincial Administrations have not seen their way clear to grants to the private schools.

My plea therefore is that the grant to Natal private schools be continued on the same basis as in the past and until such time, as the Government has formulated a policy in regard to financial assistance to private schools as a whole. Let me reiterate the economies of private schools in Natal are dependent on receiving this form of annual income.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will excuse me if I do not respond to his speech as he spoke exclusively about private schools and in the time at my disposal I should like to speak about a different topic.

Man in his totality is soul, body and spirit. It is for this most important reason that the education situation should be characterized by equilibrium. Education in the classroom and that on the sportsfield are not separate units. Taking part in sports activities therefore forms an integral part of the child’s education process. [Interjections.] It seems that the hon member for Kuruman agrees with me. I shall return to him later. Put briefly, school sport therefore makes an important contribution to the general education of the child.

As far as the application of the national sport policy is concerned, specifically in connection with participation on a multiracial level or the utilization of facilities for such occasions, a distinction should be drawn between official school sport and junior sport. I believe the hon the Minister referred to it in his reply this morning. As far as official school sport is concerned, it is the Government’s policy that the control rests exclusively with the respective education departments and parent bodies. Each province has laid down its own guidelines to regulate these aspects. I should like to quote one such an example. I want to ask the hon member for Kuruman to listen to this and then to ask him whether or not he agrees with it. I quote from a circular of the Cape Education Department—only one paragraph—as follows:

Now I merely want to know from the hon member for Kuruman whether he agrees with this standpoint.

I shall reply to you on that point in a moment. I am going to speak about that. [Interjections.]

You see, Mr Chairman, the hon member will give me a reply to that in a moment. All I am asking him, however, is whether he agrees with this circular or not.

We are not traitors, as you are! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall tell hon members why the hon member for Kuruman cannot reply to this question of mine. [Interjections.]

Come now! When did you become so clever? [Interjections.]

Order! I must just point out to the hon member for Newcastle that I shall not allow the hon member for Kuruman to reply to that question now in any case.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman had only to say yes or no. [Interjections.] The reason he cannot reply to this, is obvious—I need only refer to the date of this circular. It is dated 22 February 1980. That, of course, is the problem of hon members of the CP. They make much of this matter now, but in the meantime—when they were still members of the National Party—they agreed with these things.

You know as well as I do that I never agreed with the sports policy and with integration in sport; not even when I was still in the National Party.

Order!

Did you hear that admission, Mr Chairman? [Interjections.]

I never agreed with it either! [Interjections.]

The other provinces have similar guidelines, which amount to the same aspect in principle. In summary, one can say, therefore, that competition is possible and that facilities can be made available if the permission of the respective teacher and parent bodies has been obtained. The procedures do differ according to the separate provinces, but the principle remains the same.

Junior sport falls outside the authority of the education departments, and is organized and controlled by management bodies, which, with or without the help of the education departments, are grouped together in their personal capacities into management committees or organizations. Participation in junior sport—individually or on a team basis—is therefore not a school matter. The choice of participation rests with the parent and the child. The main objective is to promote good race relations and mutual understanding, and not to create points of friction. In the words of the Director of Education in Natal—and I quote him:

One cannot neglect to mention the excellent work done by the SA Rugby Board, in co-operation with private sponsorships, in this connection.

The success achieved with the development and improvement of knowledge, facilities and attitudes is absolutely phenomenal. Since 1982 more than 92 separate clinics have been held by more than 37 000 sportsmen, coaches, referees and sport administrators. Those clinics are open to all, regardless of colour, age or affiliation, and are presented in all parts of South Africa.

As hon members of the CP do not want to respond, I must deduce that the CP does not support those clinics. The interesting thing, however, is that at the most recent clinic, held at Newcastle, it was significant to see how many of the local supporters of the Conservative Party were the leaders of those clinics. The Conservative Party will therefore have to speak to its own supporters because when it concerns matters of this nature—about these aspects of sport—the supporters of the CP do not do what their party prescribes to them at all.

Willie, those chaps are the left wing of the CP.

Oh, are they the left wing? [Interjections.]

We do not have an American wing, as the National Party does, in any case! [Interjections.]

Just listen to that! [Interjections.]

Talking of confused talk and of rugby, it is very interesting to see what the hon member for Rissik’s newest standpoint is in connection with the All Black tour. He says—and I quote from Die Burger of 3 May 1985:

That statement is just as ambiguous as the ones we normally hear from them.

Old Daan is becoming liberal! [Interjections.]

I think mention should be made of the excellent work done in this connection inter alia by people like Mr Ian Kirkpatrick, Mr Dougie Dyers and Mr Piet Kellerman of the department. We want to express thanks to Dr Danie Craven and the other Springboks who are doing this work and through it—as evidence shows—are promoting sport on a scale which cannot be equalled anywhere in the world. [Interjections.]

One of the additional advantages of the new education system under the new department, is that of standardization and resulting uniform policy. As far as school sport is concerned, there are certain aspects which should receive attention in this connection. I want to point out a few of these.

The first is that uniform guidelines for the application of official school sport on the one hand and junior sport on the other hand should be established. There is no need for differences in provincial procedure. The purpose and scope of and principles for the provision of school sport should be dealt with together with this.

A second aspect is that the norms of sport facilities for school sport as well as the financing thereof should be laid down. In this connection a policy should be compiled for joint responsibility of local authorities for the objective of school sports facilities, as well as for making school sports facilities available to the community; in other words, a policy for the shared use of school sports facilities should be compiled.

A third aspect is that coaching of sport, whether by teachers themselves or by professional coaches and coaches from outside, should be considered carefully. Guidelines are necessary for the sports training and remuneration of sports teachers and sports coaches from outside.

In conclusion, close co-operation and liaison between schools and regional and national sport control bodies is imperative. All the aspects I mentioned will now be co-ordinated and standardized much more easily. We have the system, the system is correct and so is our Minister.

Mr Chairman, in answer to the hon member for Newcastle, let me just make one point quite clear. He has obviously not been listening to his own Minister. His own Minister is extraordinarily sensitive to the particular nature and character of provincial differences. Then he comes along here and calls for general guidelines for school sport, “riglyne”, to be laid down that will be applicable to all. I can think of nothing worse. I also find it interesting that he made considerable mention during his speech of matters which obviously fall under general affairs and thus under the control of the hon the Minister of National Education.

At the start I should like to extend our best wishes and thanks to Prof Jooste, Prof Stone and to the staff of the department. Certainly we in our ranks know how much work they have put in during the past few months to reach the stage we are at today, and their work is much appreciated. The hon the Minister must also be wished well in his appointment, although I unfortunately cannot say that my best wishes extend as far as Port Natal. We in the ranks of the PFP—and I personally—extend to all persons involved in education, those 55 000 teachers and 12 000 lecturers who work in 2 500 so-called White schools and with 950 000 White pupils, compliments and thanks for their work during a very hard and tough year. To the officials of the federal council—and I know some of them are here today—to these who have recently ended their term of office, to their chairman, John Stonier, and their vice-chairman, Chris Heese, we also express our thanks. The hon the Minister knows very well what they have done and what they have won for teachers in the past year. We from the PFP certainly congratulate them. To the new appointees to the federal council, Hennie Maree and Dudley Schroeder, our very best wishes and also, of course, “sterkte” to the indefatigable Koos Steyn.

The hon the Minister’s explanation for the alteration of the structure of White education must be welcomed on the one hand for the high degree of sensitivity which it evidences for the feelings of others. Let me put this into perspective. Hon members must listen to the following quotations and decide whether the hon the Minister of Education and Training could say, and I quote:

Or, and I quote again:

This is from this Minister. I only wish some of his colleagues could say the same. It does sound good. Can Natal do its own thing? Is this still true? Can we be assured that the determination of educational planning will rest at regional level? I must say that this ministerial sensitivity gives me a chance to raise a matter of serious sensitivity to my constituency and to the greater community.

I have previously discussed this matter with the hon the Minister. It concerns the distribution of senior promotion posts in his department and in all provincial education departments. I believe it is true to say that of all the posts of Deputy-Director and above in these five departments—I think there are 25 posts in all—only one is held by a person whose educational views correspond to the so-called “English” view of education. I think every educationist in South Africa will acknowledge that there is a major educational divide within the White population. Prof Jooste and the hon the Minister will know from their provincial experience how profound this divide is. I must make it clear, before anybody interrupts, that it is not an English versus Afrikaans clash. It is not. It is also not a conspiracy theory of staffing. It is a fact which cannot be denied that his department and all other White education departments are almost totally staffed at the senior level by persons who represent a particular educational philosophy. That is a fact. The hon the Minister knows that I have previously discussed this with a past chairman of the Commission for Administration, the appointing body, which could offer no practical solution in this regard.

Whatever the reason for this state of affairs—it may well be that certain educationists are not coming forward and making themselves available for promotion to these senior posts or that because of special circumstances excellent men and women stick to the school level, or because of a definite policy—something has to be done. The trust of 40% of the White population is being put seriously in doubt if one asks them to believe not only that there are insufficient educationists of merit—I want to emphasize that—from their ranks to fill 40% of senior posts but also that there are not enough to fill more than 4% of senior posts. So it is a perception problem and the hon the Minister must face it. Either he believes that the system is working well and so loses the trust of many people or he acknowledges that provision has to be made and tries to do something about it. He cannot merely ignore the problem.

It is important to see whether we can fill the gap the hon the Minister left in his initial speech, a gap, I am afraid to say, big enough to drive a bus through. Could we have answers to some questions arising from that speech of his? He spoke about the incorporation of Ordinances into Acts covering general educational policy, budgetary, personnel, co-ordinating and broad executive policy. Does this mean that the sundry regions—I think we can take a figure of eight regions—will submit annual reports to this Assembly? May their affairs be questioned in this Assembly? May I also assume that the hon the Minister accepts responsibility for all actions carried out in those regions? I also presume that it means the appeal of Act 32 of 1961 which has blocked me from asking questions about what the hon the Minister and the provinces have been up to this year. Furthermore, what does the hon the Minister mean when he states that devolution will “include policy-making authority over functions which this department allocates to provincial education authorities”? Does it mean that they will take nearly everything into their department and give the provincial education authorities matters to attend to which they do not want or need?

I am extremely pleased to see that the hon the Minister refers to the role and responsibility of parents. In connection with the principle of consultation with each province or region, I am pleased to note the apparent success of the Paces which have been set up and which bring together educational authorities and the organized teaching profession. One element is of course missing from the traditional trinity of department, teacher and parent, and that is full recognition of organized parent groups. I understand that in one province full recognition has been granted and representatives of parents have fully participated in all discussions on matters such as tuition fees. However, this has not happened in all the provinces, and I hope the hon the Minister can give us the absolute assurance that this aspect of the Government’s White Paper will be put into effect.

In connection with these consultative structures, perhaps the hon the Minister will inform us in more detail about MAE and its role in the overall formulation of policy for this department, and of all the other liaison bodies.

With regard to the proposed education councils in the different regions, every hon member here should note that these are also going to be duplicated for other racial groups. Although regions may not coincide, we could end up with 30 education councils around South Africa. In this regard there are also questions to be asked. For example, from where will the partners be drawn to serve on these councils? Will they be full representatives of the bodies from which they are drawn? Will second-level liaison mechanisms be brought into existence to liaise among the education councils of the various major population groups? Will—as the De Lange Committee suggested—these councils have the power to appoint their own Director of Education? The latter is a very, very important point. Will education departments be obliged to consult and take advice from these bodies?

The hon the Minister has also made reference to “diversity as required by circumstances” among the provinces. In this regard one of the more curious aspects involving the conditions of service of teachers which occurred during the past year was the evolution of the “mandjie” principle. This, in brief, is to allow a degree of autonomy to executive education departments. This will at the moment, for example, allow each department to determine for itself the basket of posts it wishes to establish with the money Treasury makes available. I am not surprised at this but what I find curious is that in other areas there is still a demand for uniformity. The hon the Minister must tell us on which matters there must in his view be uniformity, on which matters there can be a degree of autonomy and on which matters each department can act fully independently. These guidelines will be of great value to us and others in determining the actual functional effectiveness of this department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown will not blame me if I do not pick up from where he left off, for I should like to raise a different topic. It deals with the shortage of natural scientists in South Africa.

It is generally known that there is a great shortage of natural scientists, and I need not give the Committee reasons as to why one should be worried about this. I think it is self-evident.

Many people try, however, to trace this back to the fact that too few pupils choose subjects in the natural sciences at high school. Personally I do not believe this argument to be correct. It is an oversimplification, and I want to raise a few ideas in connection with this problem.

I looked at statistics from 1964 to 1984 in respect of the respective percentages of pupils in std 8, 9 and 10 who took Mathematics, Physical Science and Biology as matriculation subjects. In the first few years after 1964 these percentages remained more or less constant, but after that they decreased alarmingly until about 1972, then rose again gradually, until today they have reached approximately the same percentage values as in 1964.

Today approximately 63% of all matric pupils take Mathematics, approximately 60% take Biology, and approximately 45% take Physical Science. In addition it is true that Mathematics and Physical Science are much more popular among boys than girls, whereas Biology is more popular with the girls. In my opinion a satisfactory percentage of high school pupils take these scientific subjects. One can therefore not seek the reason for the White population’s furnishing too few natural scientists in these percentages.

I think one should look at the statistics for university students. At the universities the situation is very different from at school. In the first place many more ladies enrol for natural sciences than one would expect on the basis of the statistics for pupil percentages. Secondly, the women achieve much better results at university today than the men do in the field of natural science.

In 1982 we had the situation at the UP that there were two ladies for every man in the Chemistry III class. At the University of Stellenbosch in the same year there were only 20 men as against 30 ladies in the Mathematics III class.

I also requested the statistics for the 1984 November examination of the University of Stellenbosch, and it is very interesting. For that examination, 240 BSc students enrolled in their final year. Of them, 126 were men and 114 ladies; there were slightly more men than ladies, therefore. In the examination, however, only 62 men passed as against 70 ladies. Of this number, three men passed with distinction as against five ladies.

If one regards the postgraduate statistics, the picture becomes even clearer. In November 1984 at the University of Stellenbosch 20 men and 32 ladies wrote the honours BSc examination. Of these, six men passed cum laude, as against eight ladies. Of eight men and nine ladies who enrolled for the MSc examination, three men passed with distinction, as against seven ladies.

These statistics confirm the fact that the natural sciences as a career are generally less attractive to men than to women. One could quote statistics to show that the best male students do not enrol for the natural sciences today, but that they want to follow applied or professional courses such as engineering and medicine.

I have stated the problem. The question now is: Where should one seek solutions to this matter? I want to say immediately there is no simple solution. I merely want to point out certain directions in which one can work in order to solve this problem.

Firstly one can look at the natural scientist’s career. One immediately thinks that the career opportunities should be made more attractive so that more students will be interested in choosing this course of study rather than medicine or engineering. In 1982 this Parliament passed legislation according to which the Council for Natural Scientists was established. It is a vocational council and the matter is in their hands. We can do no more from this side.

One can also consider Mathematics and Science teaching at school. One thinks that possibly there are insufficiently qualified teachers at school. On enquiry figures were given to me which show that since the De Lange report various recruitment and training initiatives have contributed to a considerable improvement in the availability of teachers for these subjects. This applies in respect of Biology and Mathematics in particular. There is still a reasonable shortage of teachers for Physical Science, but the situation has improved.

If one looks at the qualifications of teachers, one becomes worried. According to a recent HSRC report, only between 54,1% and 56,2% of teachers are properly qualified according to the standards of the teaching profession to teach Biology, Mathematics and Physical Science.

In this sphere I want to suggest three solutions. The first is not one that supports organized education, but I do feel one should think of differentiated salaries to single out properly qualified teachers in the natural sciences.

Secondly there is the use of the modern information technology as aids. The hon the Minister referred to that as well. The question is not whether computers and television should be used in education, but how they should be used. Their purpose may never be to replace teachers, but to be used effectively to supplement and extend teachers’ knowledge and ability, and to give more children the benefit of being taught by a very good teacher.

I should also like to refer to the SABC’s possible role in this connection. SABC TV will have to start playing an increasingly important part in the televising of programmes for education for the masses, as I should like to call it. I should dearly like to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that the SABC will liaise very well with the educational authorities so that the best teachers and lecturers and the best experts will become involved in the composition of those programmes.

A third idea that is sometimes mentioned and that I should like to support, is that of scientific centres on a regional basis. This will definitely contribute to relieving the problem.

In this connection I also want to refer to the results of the Mathematics and Science Olympiads, which I personally find alarming. Reports have appeared in the past week’s newspapers to the effect that the first 21 of the 25 best candidates in the Science Olympiad were pupils from English-speaking schools. If one looks at the results of the Mathematics Olympiad, one cannot but come to the conclusion that the Afrikaans-speaking children do not perform nearly as well in this sphere as the English-speaking children. The question is: Why does this happen? I should like to ask the hon the Minister to investigate this thoroughly. Possibly his department, in co-operation with the HSRC, will be able to institute an investigation to determine why the Afrikaans-speaking children do not perform as well.

Personally I think it should be traced back to the universities. It is known that there are various norms—and I am not talking politics, I am talking science. English universities, especially Wits and the University of Cape Town, have a much more established natural science culture than any Afrikaans university. This applies in general to English universities in contrast with Afrikaans universities in South Africa. I believe that tendency also applies to the schools, and, in my opinion, to the Afrikaans-speaking child. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pretoria East also made a very interesting and important speech and I endorse what he said. I do not want to respond to it, however, because I should like to touch on a few other matters.

I want to start off by just for a moment referring to Dr Jooste, the chief executive director who is the head of this department. I want to congratulate Dr Jooste on his appointment to this post and also to welcome him by saying that having worked very closely and intimately with him in the provincial council for several years on educational matters, I am greatly looking forward to also working with him in this new post he now occupies. Prof Jooste was Deputy Director of Education in the Transvaal for seven years, and after that Director of Education for nine years before he was transferred to his post in August last year. With Dr Jooste occupying that post in this department, I personally am confident that we have in him someone who, in spite of the restrictions that are placed on him as far as certain legislation is concerned, is an educationist of stature who will really do his best to make a success of this department. I want to wish hom everything of the best in regard to this.

Yesterday the hon member for Gezina once again made his usual attack on the hon member for Koedoespoort. He went on about what I supposedly said in regard to school committees and control boards at the CP congresses. He took exception to it because according to him it is a politicization of school committees and school boards. I do not know when the hon member for Gezina started taking an interest in politics. I do not know if he became involved at an early age and experienced what we went through, in the old NP, before 1948 and subsequently, but we in the NP of those days did everything we possibly could to rid school committees, control boards and all other bodies of the old United Party. We did our best to bring those bodies under NP control and we made every effort to get Nationalists onto them. [Interjections.] Then it was fine. It was not an offence or a crime. It was right and fitting. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Gezina, because he entered politics at a later stage, may possibly know nothing about that. I also do not know if he was ever a member of the NP in his young days, but there they sit! I want to call the hon member for Kempton Park as a witness because he could testify to how I worked to help him get on the city council as a Nationalist. However, I could also testify to how his hon colleague and namesake—he himself could also bear witness to it—who was elected at the same time to the city council, saw to it that I got onto a school committee and became chairman of that committee. [Interjections.] I am not trying to embarrass the hon member for Kempton Park. I am just trying to call on him to bear witness to the point I am making. He did well that time, and his hon colleague joined forces with him in seeing to it that the NP administrator appointed me to a hospital board because I was an NP clergyman, if I may put it like that. [Interjections.]

Now I have done exactly the same thing. It is, after all, being said that we advocate greater parental involvement, and I said the CP parents should also become involved and serve on these school committees and control boards. They should also have a share in it. Now it is an crime, however. I did exactly what the NP have done all these years and is still doing today. [Interjections.]

I shall not be bluffed by the NP. I have known them for 40 years because I was a member of the party for 40 years. At present they are still busy seeing to it that Nationalists—members of the Nat-Prog party—get onto those committees so that they can control them. As a consequence I will not be bluffed any longer, and I will not allow anyone to prescribe to me. I shall continue to encourage CP parents to get involved in school committees, control boards, etc, so that the voice of the CP is also heard in those places. We should rather not go on saying: I am not politicizing. The NP has been doing it for the past 36 years. It is nothing new. [Interjections.]

I want to touch on another subject and ask the hon the Minister, since so much is being said here about private schools, whether private schools are still closed schools today and whether they are not all integrated. [Interjections.] Perhaps I should qualify that: Is it not perhaps an exception for a private school not to be integrated? If the hon the Minister wants to come and tell me that private schools are not integrated, let me invite him to visit a private school in my constituency and to take a look at who attends that school. I shall bear the costs. If private schools are therefore part of this department of White own affairs, let me say that since private schools have become virtually completely integrated, this is the first wedge that has been driven into White affairs at school level.

For how long has this been the case?

Has what been the case?

How long has there been this integration.

The hon the Minister must not start asking again how long this has been the case. The fact is private schools are part the affairs of this department. The Government says this department is exclusively for Whites, but the private schools, like the universities, are integrated. It is all part of this department and of White own affairs. We should not come along with such foolish arguments, as if we do not know what is happening in practice. Nor should we think that we can keep up bluff that the universities are White, even though there are non-Whites attending them, and that private schools are White when they are attended by a whole lot of non-Whites.

Was this not the case prior to this?

This is a matter of White own affairs and not what the position was or was not prior to this. We have, after all, now established a so-called department which has to deal with White own education and whose interest we should jealously guard. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Newcastle has made the same mistake as did a former Minister of National Education. He came here and quoted what the Cape Department of Education had decided in regard to school sport. Why does he not quote what the Transvaal Education Department decided while I was a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council and of the NP caucus? A decision was then taken not to allow integration at school level. It is just a pity that I did not know that this matter was going to be brought up today, because I would then have brought the piece with me and would have quoted from it. I similarly asked that Minister of National Education one evening at an information meeting of the NP in the Pretoria city hall if he knew that the Transvaal had also taken a decision that differed from the Cape decision which the hon member presented here today as if it were the NP decision governing schools. The Transvaal did not take the same decision.

What year was that?

Oh, man, you only came into existence yesterday! [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall take it to the hon member. [Interjections.] The hon member always comes up with absurdities such as “what is your source?” [Interjections.]

Order!

We were not born yesterday. We know this little game of “what is your source?” My source is correct.

I also want to put a question in connection with the compulsory school tuition fees that will be paid. Is the hon the Minister prepared to turn to the hon the Minister of Finance in this regard…. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Koedoespoort has once again, in a style which appears to me to be unique to the CP, launched a tirade about all kinds of matters. [Interjections.]

Order!

As a newcomer to this House I have sat here and listened to the debates that have taken place over the past few months. I have also spent a bit of time reading the debates on the new constitutional dispensation, and in particular the debates on education as an own affair. While listening to the hon member for Koedoespoort, and to the hon member for Rissik yesterday and today, it left me somewhat dumbfounded that no new arguments had been put forward from their side since this matter was discussed for the first time and during the entire course of the constitutional debate. As a newcomer who arrived here with high hopes and listened to the arguments of the hon members, I was somewhat dumbfounded—I do not want to say disappointed—about what has been said by senior members of the House who have continually spoken about the same topics as if the other things that have been said about those topics by Ministers and other members were completely non-existent. When private schools were being discussed, the hon member for Koedoespoort again reacted typically, acting as if the world had only come into existence in 1982. What happened and what existed before this time is not of any concern at all and definitely no longer of any importance. I get the feeling that the CP’s development went through the following changes: They were first of all nationalists, then broke away and became racists and have now eventually become isolationists. They are in the process of completely isolating themselves from the realities in South Africa. They ignore the realities and carry on as if they do not exist. They also ignore certain pronouncements that are made on certain matters. Hon members who were present yesterday will be able to affirm that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture gave an explanation of what exactly is taking place and how the new constitutional dispensation is working. The hon member for Virginia supported by concrete evidence, showed that we are dealing here with an important department …

May I put a question to the hon member?

No. He pointed out that the department was in the process of taking form and that its budget was one of the largest of all the departments. The hon member for Rissik listened to that, and when he spoke acted as if those two members had not spoken at all.

I want to return to the fact that it is continually being said that the department is subordinate to another department. In this regard I want to refer to the annual report of the Department. Incidentally, I should sincerely like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Department on having succeeded in preparing such an excellent report for us in the short time that they have been functioning as an own department. I wish them every success with the rest of their work. On page 2 of the report a list of the acts appear—I am not going to mention all of them—that will be administered by the Department and the hon the Minister. There are 27 of them. And the CP says it is an own affairs department that is meaningless and unimportant.

As the new dispensation unfolds, the CP becomes all the more hysterical about the fact that in contrast to what they predicted it really is working. They are afraid that it will work, and that is why they continue to harp on the fact that it is not the case and act as if it is not working. They can go ahead and pretend it is not working, right up to the next general election when the voters will reject them because of the fact that they have completely lost touch with reality.

Let us take Act No 39 of 1967, one of the acts that has been entrusted to this department, as an example of the fact that it is untrue that it is a subordinate department.

In this act, amongst other things, there are important provisions which have to be implemented in regard to policy on the training of teachers. There are also important provisions determining the policy on mother-tongue tuition, the national and Christian character of education, compulsory education and so on. These are functions that have to be carried out independently by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. It is not subordinate to any other department or any other minister.

Let us go on to take a look at what is written in section 31(1) of the Constitution and is now becoming a reality owing to the fact that these laws are referred to the Minister of Education and Culture and his department, and I quote section 31(1):

Section 33(1) also provides, amongst other things, for a Bill that has been passed by the House in accordance with section 31 to be presented to the State President for his assent, while section 34 provides that a Bill referred to in section 33(1)—ie a Bill on own affairs—to which the State President has assented shall become an Act of Parliament.

It therefore clearly shows that when a Bill on any of these 27 acts is dealt with and finalized by this House, it goes to the State President and not to the Minister of National Education, as if it were a subordinate measure. It is said that it is subordinate, and allegations are made that it lacks content, but from what I have just said it is obvious that such claims and allegations are untrue.

I want to conclude by associating myself with what the hon members said by way of congratulations to Prof Jooste and his department and the appreciation that has been expressed to the teachers and all educationists who are doing an important job in this country. We must not begrudge them the peaceful performance of that task in the interests of all the children in this country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Schoeman will excuse me if I do not respond directly to his speech, but instead refer indirectly to what he was saying, because it seems to me that his speech precisely brought to the fore that gulf that exists between the government members and ourselves.

In my contribution here I want to focus on three aspects in particular. The first is what I shall call the theoretical framework within which we see education; in other words, the more philosophical or ideological foundations. Secondly, I want to return—if not now then later—to the hon the Minister’s speech of yesterday. In the course of this speech I particularly want to refer, as far as the Minister is concerned, to what he said this morning. Thirdly, if I then still have any time available to me, I want to refer to certain particular aspects such as tertiary education and so on.

As one listens to the debates on education that are conducted in the House of Assembly, it seems as if one has become bogged down in listing the difference between the government and us. We have become bogged down in the theoretical framework within which we see education. Everytime, for many years now, we have landed up in a situation in which those of us on this side of the House have said we do not think it is in the best interests of the country and the community to have had these differentiated structures in education.

Every time we have said this, the Government members have come back and emphasized the desirability of our having to differentiate. They argue that these apartheid structures are essential. If one then asks why, one receives the kind of reply we received yesterday from the hon member for Virginia, and from the hon the Minister himself to a certain extent, ie that it is government policy. It has also been said that we have to accept that it is government policy, whether we agree with it or not. This is followed by the rationalization, particularly in the sense that this process of differentiation in education is desirable and essential, because it is in the interests of education itself. Why it should be in the interests of education, however, has never been explained. I want to return to it at a later stage in connection with the hon the Minister’s speech this morning.

All of this, Mr Chairman, once again reminds me of the years of sterile debate that we have had in this House on the apartheid policy as such. Over the years—particularly during the period of office of the late Dr Verwoerd—we have seen this policy of separation on the basis of race or colour applied in every sphere, including the sphere of education. Hon members will recall that Black education, which once formed part of the normal educational administration of the provinces, was taken away from the provinces in 1953 and placed in a separate department. After that the same also happened to Coloured and Indian education. Once again—when the reason for this was requested—the reply was that it was done in the light of the policy that amounted down to separation being good in itself—of separation on grounds of race or colour being a good thing. Of course it did not only take place in the sphere of education, but in all other spheres too. That ideology was applied in every conceivable sphere. Just consider the example of its application in the field of labour.

How often have we not debated, in this House, whether the recognition of Black trade unions and the inclusion of Blacks in the trade unions of South Africa was desirable or not! The same applies to what happened in the area of so-called petty apartheid, in the area of separate amenities—there was not a single sphere on which we did not debate, over the years, the application of that so-called apartheid policy. Throughout the years we had to do with the same process of intransigence. It has always been argued from this side of the house that the policy does not work; that it is negative. At the same time we have constantly had to hear from the other side of the House that it is Government policy and that we should not expect the Government to take over our policy. This is how things went on over the years—a complete inflexibility, until the realities of the situation eventually got through to the Government as well and it was therefore compelled to deviate, in many of those spheres, from the standpoints it had adopted earlier.

Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, I have to say that we simply accept it as such. Also in this sphere—that we do know—we shall still have to continue for many years with this intransigent and sterile debate. Time and again we shall still have to tell hon members opposite that this is not working; that it is not a good thing, and so forth. We have to accept in advance that we shall have to listen to the same reply over and over again …

Do you have an educational basis for your argument?

Just wait. I am still getting around to that.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member Prof Olivier just tell the house how he reconciles his present standpoint with the standpoint that the hon member for Pinetown put forward in the House earlier, viz that English-speaking people are all that different, that they have to be taken into account to such an extent that there should even be a head-count of teachers?

Mr Chairman, I shall certainly reply to that question, also in response to what the hon the Minister said earlier. He himself also touched on this matter. I do think it is an important question that the hon member Dr Vilonel has just asked.

Before I get around to that, however, I just want to point out that we on this side of the House accept that we shall simply have to go on emphasizing this point until hon members on the Government side—I think—eventually realize that change in this sphere is also essential.

The problem, of course, is that what we are now experiencing here simply stems from the disadvantages connected with the apartheid foundations of the Constitution, in accordance with which we now have to act. The problem I foresee in this regard lies in the fact that the longer and the more we implement the Constitution, the deeper we are going to sink into the mud and the more forcefully we are going to be compelled to apply this very apartheid policy, because the Constitution is, in its very essence, an instrument of apartheid—not only in so far as the composition of Parliament is concerned, but also in so far as the division between own and general affairs is concerned.

The relevant momentum compels us to apply the policy of apartheid increasingly in more spheres with regard to own affairs, exactly as we are doing in the present case. There is also a problem of our having in this way constitutionalized apartheid in the sphere of education as well. We have written it into the Constitution itself—written into the Constitution what it had not previously contained. In that sense it is going to be more difficult for us to move away from this present system of ours.

This is one of the problems I have. So much for that, however. The sober truth is—and with this I want to return to the question which the hon member put to me—that it seems to me as if there are three fundamental points of departure that are acceptable. The first is that the principle of enforced separation is unacceptable, even though they are accompanied by the best of intentions. I want to tell the hon the Minister that even if he and his staff had the best of motives in regard to being of service, the moment one introduces the elements of coercion and separation, particularly if that coercion and separation are based on race and colour, it makes that separation—no matter how good the intention may be—suspect and unacceptable. It does not matter in which sphere this takes place. If we have not yet learned that lesson, I do not know when we shall ever learn it. It is that element of coercion in the matter that makes it unacceptable to other people. This is my reply to the hon member Dr Vilonel.

Secondly, I want to say that where natural separation, natural groupings, exist it is not necessary to employ coercion. Then it is not necessary to employ coercion because natural separation sorts itself out. Let me tell the hon the Minister that I listened to him this morning. I did not understand what he meant, however, when he spoke about the USA and the separate structures that are in existence there. Surely he is aware of the Supreme Court ruling of ’54 when separation on a basis of equality was rejected because it was in conflict with the American constitution. [Interjections.] There is no coercion in the USA in this regard today. As far as I know, there is also no coercion in the other countries that he mentioned—Switzerland, Belgium or whatever. There was not one example of separation on the basis of race and colour in those countries. There is separation on the basis of the natural differences in the community, such as language, culture and so forth. However, there was no separation on the completely irrational basis of race and colour. There was not a single example of such a case. I want to repeat that where natural groupings exist in society, it is unnecessary to employ coercion. [Interjections.]

I also want to say that the hon the Minister quoted the best example of this this morning. He spoke about the private schools of the Jewish, Greek, Portuguese, and German communities. Why? Coercion is not being employed there. They are all private schools that were established on own initiative because those communities want to propagate their distinctiveness in those institutions. That is the best example of how this works in practice. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that if we moved away from this coercion it would work in the same way as far as all the other communities in South Africa are concerned.

For how long? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member Prof Olivier will excuse me for not taking up what he has said. I wish to speak about something entirely different.

In 1983 an official commission of inquiry reported on the position of education in the USA. Their findings are summarized in one sentence of the report, namely:

In contrast we are involved today in discussion of an education system of which we are proud and for which we have cause to be grateful.

If there is one facet of our educational dispensation for which all those involved feel even greater gratitude than for the rest it is the education of handicapped pupils. I am referring in particular to the deaf, the hard of hearing, the blind, the partially-sighted, epileptics, the cerebral palsied and the physically handicapped.

In speaking of these categories of children, one thinks involuntarily of the invaluable pioneering work done and still being continued by our churches in the sphere of their education. It is a fact that in this field South Africa sets the pace to the whole world. I attribute this to the foundation on which this type of education is built in this country, namely the principle of love for one’s fellow man. Today the Church and the State are still partners in many respects in the provision of education for the handicapped. All South Africans may be in agreement in their gratitude for this and for the historic course of events, leading to it.

R84 864 000 has been voted for this purpose in the Budget now under discussion. This represents approximately 8½% of the total Vote under Education and Culture for the House of Assembly. In order to be capable of judging such a high Vote in perspective, one should take note of the general extent of disability. Investigation by Dr Giovanni Urbani of the HSRC indicated that at least 10% of any population is handicapped and that up to 25% of the population is indirectly affected by this. Dr J Op’t Hof has calculated in South Africa at least 25 000 babies are born annually with a congenital or hereditary disability.

Regarded from a mere material point of view, there are two approaches the State can pursue in respect of such handicapped children. Naturally they could be kept dependent and unproductive but in the long run this would cost more than the alternative which is being followed, namely to make them independent as soon as possible and to see that their manpower potential is put to maximum use. Unproductive expenditure would, in fact, be inflationary and would even weaken the ultimate ability of the country to deal with disability. The expenditure of this R84-million is therefore fundamentally sound financially and economically and the country will reap the fruits of this in future. I am mentioning this fact merely because it is so obviously positive from an economic point of view but, even if it were not so, this expenditure would still have been a valuable investment in human material.

The HSRC Work Committee on Education for Children with Special Educational Needs wrote as follows on this subject in 1981:

It continued:

I think we in South Africa succeed excellently in this test. Leaders in the field of this type of education whom I consulted and with whom I conversed witnessed that we had the finest and the best legislation on this in the Western world. My own study of the Educational Services Act, 1967, gave me some idea of what they were talking about. A little research on the situation in the USA finally confirmed this evidence. That country which is a world leader in so many other fields passed a law called “Education for all Handicapped Children Act” only in 1975. In it all the handicapped were guaranteed was what was called “free appropriate public education”. Differences later arose on the meaning of the word “appropriate” in this connection and in 1982 the Federal High Court found that it did not mean that handicapped children should be assisted to such an extent that their potential was maximised. It found that it meant rather that schools should provide services which were fundamentally equal to those for the non-handi-capped.

To a South African such an argument sounds incredible because the basis of our National Education Policy Act, that of 1967 as well, is that education should be provided on a differentiated basis in accordance with the ability, aptitude and interest of every pupil and the needs of the country. There is a departmental information document which has the following to say on this and I quote:

Hon members should bear in mind that the potential of many of these children is actually exceptionally high. In this respect I may mention that Julius Caesar was an epileptic and according to many people also Paul and definitely much more recently Alfred Nobel. Mention of these names immediately emphasizes the following statements of the HSRC work committee to which I referred:

The movement of pupils between the main and parallel streams should remain possible which immediately implies already that children should not be channelled too easily to special education. In this connection correct diagnosis is naturally of the utmost importance. I wish to suggest that clinics already in existence at special schools should be expanded into full diagnostic centres. This would link up directly with the HSRC endeavour to make maximal use of expensive, specialized staff and equipment and move away from all duplication; it would also be in the child’s best interest. In its main report on the provision of education in the RSA the HSRC found that it was particularly as regards effective recognition, evaluation, diagnosis and assistance that deficiencies were indicated in the provision of education to children with special educational needs.

It is unfortunately true that children are still sometimes too easily referred to special schools, for example for epileptics. If one considers the drastic effect of this on the state of mind of the parent and child, such cases should be totally eliminated. In this respect the HSRC recommended that departments for evaluation and guidance organized on a regional basis should be instituted as subdivisions of co-operative educational centres. By using my suggestion, the same purpose may perhaps be accomplished more cheaply and simply.

In closing I wish to express my praise, gratitude and appreciation to all involved in this fine service. I wish to appeal to businessmen and the general public to round off this work by offering employment and unconditional acceptance in society to pupils who have completed their studies.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Stellenbosch on making a well-considered speech which clearly illustrated to us problem areas in South African education.

I wish to exchange a few thoughts with hon members on the need for the youth to achieve closer contact with one another across colour bars. I wish to open by quoting from Dr Anton Rupert’s work: Prioriteite vir Medebestaan. In this, Dr Rupert says inter alia: “Laaghout is sterker as enkelhout.”

I wish to concur in this by making the point that I believe that our actual strength in South Africa lies in the diversity of the composition of our community. Just as plywood in this connection is stronger than an unlaminated board, I am convinced that if we could succeed in welding the respective population groups—and especially the youth—in this country, we would develop a will among them to take firmer action in this country to emerge the stronger. I believe the will does exist among the youth to bring about a better future in this country. I experience this will among the young people of the country but it is also obvious to me that this will among the youth of South Africa is often suppressed by adults who do not wish it to exist among those young people. Unfortunately we have too many adults in this country who do not have the will to survive in sunny South Africa. I wish to ask these people this morning whether they would not prefer to be a passive audience instead of fellow-helpers in the fight for a better South Africa. Would they not rather permit the youth with their idealism to forge a better future for us in this country?

I am saying this because the youth of South Africa realize a few things. In the first place they realize that they are dependent on one another and that they cannot live in compartments. In the second place they realize there has to be understanding of one another’s make-up. In the third place the youth of South Africa believe they have to take note of one another’s aspirations. In the fourth place they believe they can avoid the crisis by accepting the challenges of the day. In the fifth place they believe they have to seize the opportunities this country offers in its full diversity for the sake of a better South Africa. In the sixth place the youth believe that effective means of communication should be instituted to eliminate misunderstandings and tensions existing in this country. In the seventh place the youth of South Africa realize that the future of the country will ultimately be determined by the inner conviction people carry about in their hearts.

If we exhibit the attitude of own interests at the expense of the greater totality of South Africa, no future will be able to be worked out for the White man in this country either. I think a purposeful strategy should be evolved from the side of authority to bring about better contact—I am not saying there is no contact—between the various population groups among the youth of this country.

The question can then certainly be put: How does one set about education in a society in which people of different racial, national, cultural and ethnic groups live? I say it can be done if mutual respect exists for one another. We can then also tackle the task of education harmoniously and order society in the process.

I wish to say immediately that the Government and I personally reject the statement that this can be done only under a system of mixed schools. Here I wish to refer the committee to Principle 1 of the White Paper on the Provision of Education. It reads: “Equal opportunities for education, including equal standards in education, for every inhabitant, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex, shall be the purposeful endeavour of the State.”

Further I wish to refer to the budget speech of the hon the Minister of National Education in the House of Assembly this year. The hon the Minister said that own schools for each racial group with its own education department was a fundamental facet of NP policy.

I think further evidence of the need for contact is the fact that it succeeds in the sphere of sport and school sport. To me additional proof is that a hand has been extended purposefully from the ASB to the Inkatha movement for consultation. This shows me there is a need among the youth to make contact across colour bars.

I wish to express the thought that we should apply purposeful efforts at the following levels to achieve contact: In the first place this could be done by means of speech competitions and in the second place by way of joint community projects such as tree-planting ceremonies, “Keep your town clean" projects, schemes to collect funds, cultural tours, by expanding the “Landsdiens” movement and especially by sponsoring children to the Veld and Vlei projects in South Africa.

I should like to say a few words on the Veld and Vlei movement in this country.

†I want to say that the Veld and Vlei Adventure Trust has three establishments in South Africa—Willowpoint at Swartvlei near Sedgefield between George and Knysna; Elgin in the Western Cape and Estcourt in Natal.

The Veld and Vlei movement is based on the Outward Bound Schools which have become leading centres for character-building in young people in Britain and many other countries around the world. The idea of adventure training developed from Second World War experiences at sea and observations as to the survival ability of some men compared to others.

The plan, as it evolved, rejected the idea of simply teaching survival techniques. It argued that the development of an individual’s willpower, knowledge of his capabilities and power of endurance was more important.

The first camp of this nature was held at George in 1958. Since then, many hundreds of boys of all races have passed through Willowpoint.

*We are living in times of swift change. We as White people should act as catalysts and be the architects of an orderly society. The youth of South Africa are eager to do their share. We as adults should not deliberately hamper them in being able to do this. Our young people realize that, when suspicion is removed and unity is achieved in diversity, we will be on course for a country with a better future full of hope and promises, not only for White people but for all population groups of the country. Nevertheless our composition in this country should be our opportunity and not our guillotine in such a case.

Mr Chairman, normally I should not have paid much attention to the speech of the hon member for George but this hon member is President Botha’s successor in that constituency and I take it that the content of the hon member’s speech bears the 100% approval of the State President.

“Soos de oude songe, so piepe de jonge.”

Yes. [Interjections.] No, this is very important and I will have more to say about this speech later.

Secondly, I should like to say that as regards the “Afrikaanse Studentebond” I think the hon member is a babe in the woods. Since the 50s the “Afrikaanse Studentebond” has conducted discussions with leaders from non-White ranks. At one stage I myself was the President of the “Afrikaanse Studentebond” and we held many discussions under my leadership with leaders of the Black and Brown communities. The hon member is therefore not coming forth with anything new at present.

Thirdly, the hon member said that the youth could not live in compartments. That was an interesting point of view which the hon member adopted there.

Hear, hear!

I wish to tell the real Progs to leave me alone while I speak to the new Progs only, not the old, real, proper Progs.

Why not?

I shall do that on a later occasion. [Interjections.] The hon member said the youth could not live in compartments and I request the hon the Minister to reply to that. The hon member said there should be contact between youth groups after which he proceeded mentioning a whole series of examples and how that contact could be achieved. I hope the hon the Minister will use this opportunity to provide us with standpoints of principle on this.

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister is terribly nervous because Mr Pierre Cronje has just resigned and he knows a by-election is looming in Port Natal. The hon the Minister has the shakes about Port Natal. [Interjections.]

What about Bethlehem?

As regards Bethlehem, I must say I do not pay much attention to that little “oeloe-oeloe” Free State newspaper. I cannot be present this afternoon when the hon the Minister replies, but I shall read his answers. I shall be in Hoopstad tonight but the hon member for Winburg said he would not turn up there. We shall have some pleasant politics there this evening. That is all I have to say about the Bethlehem story. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister must tell us what the actual situation is in this respect. [Interjections.] No, Sir. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon the Minister the hon member for George says the youth cannot live in compartments; there should be more contact among youth groups. I want to know how the hon the Minister explains the standpoint of principle adopted by the successor to the State President on the policy of separate schools. How does he explain that kind of thing? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has not yet replied to us as regards the stand he adopted as the Administrator of Natal towards the late Advocate Vorster. He has now pleaded with us not to drag politics into education. As far as this is concerned, the hon the Minister owes me an answer.

I said nothing of which I am ashamed.

The hon the Minister must merely tell us what he said.

I shall do so.

Well, why did you not do so this morning? But I shall wait for it.

I wish to return to the so-called own affairs and own culture.

So-called?

Yes, so-called. I say “so-called”. They come with this ridiculous kind of thing and go about among the people saying the CP has no respect for own affairs and does not want own affairs.

That is so!

Right, they say this is so. Let us return to section 14 of the Constitution. It reads:

Are you satisfied with that definition?

I have no problem with this definition but the content I am indicating here is that given to it by the old NP. I now want the hon member for Rustenburg who is not prepared to stand against Dr Ipland—I do not know if we will be holding elections in this country again; those of the Provincial Council have naturally been cancelled—to tell me what the new NP understands by identity, maintenance and furtherance of way of life, culture, traditions and customs. Is it not the normal tradition and custom of our conservative Afrikaners—the real, national Afrikaners—to have self-determination in the political sphere as well?

Culture cannot be reduced, as the NP wishes to do, to so-called separate primary and secondary schools, separate residential areas, separate voters’ rolls and so-called separate Chambers of Parliament. Surely that is not self-determination! It is not the same self-determination the Afrikaners and the Whites have borned and practised for more than 300 years. Is that the self-determination by which Dr Malan led us to Government in 1948? Those hon members are turning own affairs into an object of ridicule.

I wish to point out to the hon member that section 14 of the Constitution is made meaningless by section 16.

Nonsense!

Yes, naturally! The hon member for Virginia knows or should know better, unless he is suffering from total political amnesia.

No, read the whole thing!

Yes, but what is said in section 16? It runs:

Note well, any question asked about this!

No, read the entire thing from the beginning!

I become so impatient. That hon member reminds me of a Sub A child who does not know one plus one make two and not three! The hon member was a school principal and he knows these things. He knows the way but he can no longer follow it because his feet have become too liberal.

In terms of section 16 the State President determines what constitutes own affairs and what falls under general affairs. Surely we know that if the composition of 4:2:1 of this electoral college changes, Rev Hendrickse or Mr Rajbansi or whoever will become the State President.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member, since he is quoting section 16, whether it is correct that section 14—without quoting it—provides specifically that what is referred to in the schedule constitutes own affairs. Are those matters the hon member is speaking about now therefore not laid down?

the hon member is naturally not right. That little schedule on own affairs! It is ridiculous to come with that little schedule and say it represents own affairs. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member is a man involved in cultural matters. [Interjections.] Does the hon member really regard that small group of trivialities referred to in the schedule as own affairs?

What did the hon the Minister say at the beginning of the year when he was speaking on own affairs? In col 1660 …

First answer that question!

But I said I differed from the hon member. That is a straight answer.

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

The hon member knows I have only 10 minutes. Let us go to the UOVS or Virginia and debate these matters. I should very much like to do so!

Now the hon the Minister comes, however, and says we are proud of own affairs. What does he call own affairs? He says the first are the national cultural historical and open-air museums and the museum at the Voortrekker Monument. Then he speaks of the Voortrekker Museum in Pietermaritzburg and the War Museum of the Boer Republics and he continues naming a few trifles. Does the hon the Minister now wish to tell me that this group of trifles which he has named represents the culture of the Afrikaner and the White?

You do not understand what culture is. [Interjections.]

If I do not understand what culture is or if I do not understand the cultural struggle of the Afrikaner, I want to say that the old NP did not teach me well.

Do you not regard education and culture too?

The education we are discussing here is subordinate, as I have already said. The hon the Minister is a “kortbroekminister”—if that is parliamentary. His seniority, memory and intellect do not reach very far.

You are an “on-derbroek lid”.

Well, at least I have that. That hon member does not have even that. His liberal, unwashed petticoat trails so far that everyone can see him standing on it and stumbling over it.

Sir, the Voortrekker Monument for example is subject to this racially mixed coalition Government. What did the President, the great reformer, say when Afrikaners went to the Voortrekker Monument? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I requested a turn to speak to illustrate and discuss the very important subject of technical colleges to a certain extent. I honestly hope I shall be able to get to it.

Arising from what has already been said here, I think it very important that we should pay attention to a few matters. In a previous speech the hon member for Rissik remarked that there was no longer such a thing as own education. He has enlarged upon this theme again now. I wish to say that what is taking place in practice in this department is proof positive of how important this department and this own affairs division is. In reality it is merely a fact that the bulk of knowledge and expertise in education is held by Whites at the moment; it has to be carried outwards.

I wish to refer to one more remark made by the hon member yesterday. When we said we should depoliticize education, he replies a person could not divorce politics from it entirely. He made a few more remarks in this context. I agree with him that one cannot divorce politics totally from education as if they do not exist, but that is not the point we wish to make. We particularly wish to remove the maximal politicizing at party-political level from education. I agree with the hon member that politics cannot be totally divorced from education; nevertheless we should depoliticize education maximally.

The hon member for Koedoespoort also spoke today and I am in 100% agreement with what he said. [Interjections.] Hon members have reservations about that. I do not agree 100% with what he says nowadays but I agree 100% with what he said when he was still a Nationalist, when he was still sincere, when his head was till screwed on the right way. What did he say then? I want to quote from the Provincial Council Hansard. In his farewell speech to the Provincial Council the hon member for Yeoville said education should be depoliticized and politics should not be dragged into education. What did the hon member Dr Van Staden then say? I quote him:

Later in that speech he accused the hon member for Yeoville exactly of what he said he wanted to do today. With reference to the hon member for Yeoville he said:

He continued in this vein. Consequently in saying I agreed with the hon member, I meant I agreed with what he said when his head was still screwed on the right way.

The hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Koedoespoort have now said the CP should tell parents to participate; I agree with that—there is nothing wrong with it. The NP should say it as well, as should every cultural body. If the “Volkswag” for example should say that it should be seen to that the “Afrikaanse Ouervereniging vir Christelike Opvoeding en Onderwys” should be supported, I agree—naturally it should be supported—but that is not the point.

I wish to return to the sting and the venom and the extremist attitude of that rightist radical alliance. I have a pamphlet here dealing with “die implikasies van die nuwe grondwetlike bedeling vir die opvoeding en onderwys in die RSA”; it is a “Volkswag” pamphlet. One should also note what the “Volkswag” says in a more recent publication, namely:

What does the “Volkswag” say further? It is an organization of which the CP is an integral part. The hon member for Kuruman says he is not a member which makes one think, does it not? In the pamphlet I have here the “Volkswag” deals with the background to the problem and goes into liberalism, humanism, globalism and the New Left. It says humanism is probably one of the oldest religions known and that its followers wish to remove themselves from God and His commandment. Most of the statements in the pamphlet are correct, but I think they exaggerate too easily. Nevertheless the basis of what they say is correct. Then they say:

The organization then continues talking about other “diabolical” matters, with many of which one can agree, but one should bear in mind the title of the pamphlet is “Die nuwe grondwetlike bedeling”. They say:

As we hear from these hon members, the “Volkswag” talks of “Liewer Rooi Jan as Dooie Jan”. Before the new dispensation is mentioned, they say—one should note how they interweave all these matters:

That is an insult to the De Lange Commission, the majority of Afrikaans people involved in cultural matters and the educationists of the country. All these people studied the De Lange report thoroughly. They continue:

That is why it is an insult to educationists and even to the “Broederbond” to which the CP also aimed a sideswipe. It is said further in the pamphlet that an effort should be made to keep the dagger away from the back and then the following:

I cannot quote all these pages of rubbish in full. They then continue:

They say we want to involve the private sector because Milner did so. They are going to eat their words in respect of insults aimed at the education profession and people in the top structure. I quote further as follows:

I said at the start that if a cultural organization, a political party or whoever advised people to participate in parent-teacher associations so that they might become involved, I agree and have no objection to that. Against this background, however, I wish to quote the last two paragraphs of the pamphlet as follows:

That is absolutely scandalous. That is the point. They say, therefore, that Afrikaners in Government today, these Whites in Government, are involved in diabolical acts and busy moving away from God and His commandment. It is written here. They tell parents to take over parent-teacher associations for that reason and for that reason they have to reflect fundamentally on a confidential basis in this way. That is the type of thing I reject.

The hon member for Koedoespoort was a minister and he was brought here on NP initiative. I had hoped there would be merit attached to this but at least I had hoped that his religion would be such that he would not say we were busy moving away from God and His commandment. For that reason he is inciting other Afrikaners against our education system, against men in education and against other political parties. It is an absolute shame and that is what we reject; not the ordinary points. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I gained the impression that the hon member Dr Vilonel was angry with the “Volkswag”.

Yes, very angry.

I am not going to enter into discussion with him about it I wish to return to the hon member for George who is unfortunately not present. We appreciated the statements he made and the standpoints he stated. It took us 37 years to reform the previous member for George into a leading enlightened person. The hon member for Houghton will know that she worked long and hard to accomplish this. It is clear to me that since his debut in the House of Assembly the new hon member for George has already put important and informative enlightened standpoints here in a very capable manner.

I hope the House of Assembly will take note of what he said because the theme he touched upon is of the utmost importance to South Africa and that is, if we wish to avoid racial conflict and confrontation in our country, it is absolutely essential to eliminate racial prejudice because it is responsible for the suspicion existing between races and for present tensions. It is also responsible for increasing conflict and for the lack of understanding between racial groups in South Africa.

There is only one way in which that lack of understanding can be put right and prejudices eliminated and that is by bringing about effective communication between racial groups in their formative years; in other words, to start with the children. That is why I appreciate what the hon member said.

I wish to make one point arising from an interesting matter which the hon the Minister and some of the other speakers on the Government side touched upon when they said: Look, we must remove education from politics.

I wish to put it to the hon the Minister that it is perhaps an ideal to pursue but is it possible? Is it really possible in the political system existing in South Africa because what are politics? Politics are the creation and the execution of policy as regards all matters affecting the country and the people. All decisions taken on the structuring of education in South Africa, on expenditure on education, follow on political judgments or political decisions. That is why politics determine educational systems in South Africa. I think, therefore, that to argue that politics can be removed from education in South Africa is to argue about something which cannot be accomplished. Perhaps it is an ideal which may be pursued but to achieve it would be very difficult under present circumstances.

I wish to make this point in reply to what the hon member for Virginia said about the fact that we were spending R3 billion in this department. The hon member was proud that we were spending such an amount on White education in South Africa. Naturally one is proud of it but when one compares it with what is spent on education for all the other groups in South Africa, we really have no reason to be proud of it because more than 60% of the total expenditure on education is devoted to the education of less than 20% of the South African population.

Mr Chairman, it was rather significant that the hon the Minister of National Education did not take the trouble to be present during the discussion of this very important Vote. It is actually a pity because many of the matters we are discussing here also affect his responsibilities in the Department of National Education. [Interjections.]

It is as plain as a pikestaff that the content of the hon the Minister’s speech indicates a compromise effected after a period of difficult negotiation between him and his department on the one hand and other interested institutions—that is the provinces and so on—on the other. A few questions also remain to which the hon the Minister has not yet given us clear replies. The question which poses problems to me in a certain sense refers to the following paragraph and I quote:

Mr Chairman, it is clear that in certain respects—as regards policy-making, planning, the allocation of finance and so on—the Government is moving functions either to the central department or the department of this hon Minister but that the functions and the administration of education are to be left in the hands of the provinces. Then there is also talk of—and I should like the hon the Minister to give us further information on this—the division of the provinces into smaller regions, each with its own educational structure.

A matter on which we require further clarification is that of the devolution of functions and responsibilities onto provincial authorities. What does the term “policy-making power” mean? Does it not concern this policy which affects education in general? Is that policy-making power going to be granted to the education council for each education department? Are policy-making rights therefore going to be granted to an organization which does not consist of political representatives of the electorate? Is policy to be formulated by a body which does not consist of political representatives of the voters of the area or region concerned?

Further I should like to put another question to the hon the Minister. In his speech he referred to an inquiry and a report. I should now like to know whether the hon the Minister would be prepared to make that report available to us as well.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes remaining at my disposal, I should like to return to a point on which the hon the Minister has not yet provided me with a reply. It deals with tertiary education. I made an appeal to the hon the Minister which I shall now repeat—this time directed at the Government as a whole. Because as regards tertiary education the Government’s argument in connection with the so-called distinctiveness and the identity and cultural differences of the respective population groups—the argument they put forward as motivation for the institution of separate group education—in no way applies when we venture onto the level of tertiary education, I make this appeal to the Government. The hon the Minister then also says in his speech—and I quote his own words:

Then he continues as follows:

It therefore all comes down to the fact that the Government—according to the proverb—wants to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand the Government wishes to create the impression that it is granting autonomy to tertiary education institutions but at the same time it is attempting on the other hand to retain the right of prescribing to those tertiary institutions whom they may admit as students. These two statements are decidedly contradictory. I should very much like to mention the following to the hon the Minister: South Africa is training its corps of future leaders in those institutions—in all aspects of our society: Industry, commerce, the academia and politics. It is vital to realize—the hon member for George realizes this and I hope the previous member for George does as well—that the welfare, peace and future of our country, the future stability of South Africa, depends almost exclusively on the degree to which those future leaders of our society will be able to co-operate with one another. This will depend on the understanding, relations and attitude which will exist among those people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I ask the hon member for Bryanston to excuse me for not reacting to him. I have another matter with which I want to associate myself today.

I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations to the hon the Minister on his appointment in this important department. One has full faith in him for his dedication to and his understanding of this Department of Education and Culture. On this occasion I also want to express my congratulations to him and his department for this illuminating annual report which was published within such a short period of time. It attests to the dedication and the seriousness with which they treat this department. I thank them for the trouble they took with it and for all the work they put into it.

Any community life—this is something that was said repeatedly in the discussion of this Vote—and especially that in the rural areas, stands on the two pillars of the church and the school, in a very close alliance. Even in the pioneering years the church was the first beacon and tower in the rural areas. Schools came into being around these churches and the community became involved in them. In the early years we had the position that the church initiated education, especially in the rural areas, and that the church also established hostels and so forth. By doing this it not only brought about parent involvement, but also a whole community involvement.

I referred to these two pillars. It is true that if one of these two pillars falls into decline, the other crumbles too. It is therefore truly necessary in the rural areas for both pillars to be maintained and to play their parts. I referred to the part played by the church, involving the parent community and also the community as a whole. Over the years it has become the practice in the rural areas for the parents to manage the funds and the hostel by means of the school committee. The parents’ authority is always recognized, therefore, in the rural areas in particular.

It is also true that when the new policy of devolution of functions and authority is implemented, the rural areas and the rural schools—I want to say it with great confidence—will be able to accommodate this because they have acquired so much knowledge over the years.

I also want to say the children in the rural areas are privileged. They are in a privileged position of growing up there, for there they are still close to nature. In the mornings they walk to school, their feet crunching on the frost. They get to know merciless heat and see the first drops of rain in a dry dusty world. I do not think that a drop of rain or the smell of rain can make as great an impression on one anywhere else than rain after a drought in the Cape rural areas. Those children in the rural areas, as I have said, live close to nature and they live close to their Creator. They live within the immediate and wider family bond. Since numbers in rural schools are small today, each child in the rural areas enjoys the privilege of having a task to fulfil. I know of many schools that have only 15 boys for a rugby team. All 15 of those boys have to take part.

Then they still play “kennetjie” as well.

Yes, because there are so few of them, those children are involved in other sports to such an extent that the time of playing marbles and “kennetjie” is passing rapidly.

It is true that the rural areas have to lean heavily on every child in their schools. One cannot concentrate only on the academically gifted child or the outstanding athlete or rugby or netball player or whatever. That is why I say that the children in the rural areas are involved in all respects—in the school and in the community. That is why I want to repeat that it is a privilege for a child to get his schooling in the rural areas today. The places where housing is not always so easy to come by, can take cognizance of this, for there the children also come into contact with the hospitality of the rural areas.

The three legs upon which education stands and to which reference was made here this morning, are the cultural, intellectual and physical legs. I said that because of the small numbers, each child is involved in the debating society, in the land service and everywhere and that is why these three legs show a parallel development, yielding healthy and educated children. The rural areas have proved themselves in every sphere. I referred to the culture and as we are commemorating the recognition of the Afrikaans language this week, we can think of an A G Visser who was born on the farm Saaifontein in the Fraserburg district, and grew up on the farm Blaauwkrantz in the Carnarvon district, the Louws of the Roggeveld from Sutherland, C J Langenhoven who was from the rural areas, and then we can add Ena Murray and Paula from Loxton. Sir, that world of the rural areas, makes an impression upon everyone.

In addition to all this, the children enjoy the peaceful family bond in the rural areas for various reasons. In the first place it is mainly a farming community. Secondly there are no job opportunities for mothers—not that the rural people do not need the money—and for that reason the mothers are still at home and attend to the upbringing of their children. That influence can never be underrated.

The figures in the Cape in 1982, ’83 and ’84 are as follows: The primary and special classes’ enrolments during these three years were 114 802, 143 422, and 140 322 respectively. In these three years, therefore, there was a decrease of 4 480 in primary figures. If one looks at the secondary figures, one sees that there was an increase. In 1982 there were 89 722, in 1983, 92 028 and in 1984, 94 683. That was a total increase of 4 861. If one compares the figures, there was an almost constant number of pupils. There was, however, a downward trend in the primary education enrolments and an increase in the secondary education enrolments, which can be ascribed to various reasons. One is that better training is required because job opportunities are no longer so abundant and pupils want better qualifications.

The rural areas, especially the Cape, are experiencing a problem as far as development is concerned. The hon member for Rustenburg boasted this morning of the Transvaal’s riches. The younger people are therefore going to the developing areas and this takes a heavy toll of the rural areas. It is these very young people, the potential parents, who are lured away by better incomes. Economic conditions, droughts and an urbanization process which is occurring worldwide and is being accepted as a natural phenomenon, are other factors.

The demographers show that the Whites Population growth is 2,07%, and the replacement level is 2,1%. There are many additional factors which cause people to leave the rural areas. As I said, there is hardly any excuse today for a parent to send his child away from the rural areas because he thinks his child is going to do better elsewhere. There are enough examples. Parents who send their children from the rural areas unnecessarily, are committing an injustice towards their community and the child’s fellow scholars. There are conditions, however—for example when a child wants to enter a certain field of study—which require a child’s having to be sent away. The subject choices do not always meet the requirements and the demands of the children in the rural areas. When the number of pupils decreases, classes have to be grouped together, and this causes a restlessness in the parent community. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Beaufort West: it is always a privilege to speak after him. He spoke about the rural areas with feeling, and I listened to him with a great deal of satisfaction, for I am a rural boy myself.

Tell us about the mealies!

What did that hon member say?

The hon member for Beaufort West spoke about the rural areas enthusiastically, and boasted of the poets and writers from his area. I am a Western Transvaler, and I want to say on this occasion that we are very grateful and pleased about the kind of person we produce in that area of which Elizabeth Eybers and Eitemal are prime examples. In addition, we did not only yield poets but also a great businessman like Dr Fred du Plessis for example … [Interjections.]

I also want to associate myself with the hon member for Beaufort West and say that I agree that we should make an appeal to the hon the Minister to look after our rural schools in future. The numbers in the rural areas are decreasing at an alarming rate and the teacher/pupil relationship requires particular attention … [Interjections.] Sir, I have a chorus to content with, but I shall show them—just give me a chance! [Interjections.] I should like to come to my speech now, however. [Interjections.]

Order! I merely want to tell hon members that I should also like to share in the gaiety, but I cannot hear what the hon member is saying. The hon member for Schweizer-Re-neke may proceed.

Sir, after agreeing with the hon member for Beaufort West, I should like to say a few words about the child care schools in our country. Only pupils who have been found to be in need of care in terms of the Children’s Act of 1960, can be admitted to the child care schools. The new Act under which the schools function is the Child Care Act, No 74 of 1983. At present there are 18 such child care schools in our country. Ten of these schools are meant for girls, and can accommodate a maximum of 1 228 pupils in total. The geographical distribution of these schools is as follows: In the Cape there are four; in the Transvaal, 3—one of these schools, the Daeraad Girls’ School, is in my constituency and I am very proud of it—in the Free State there are two and in Natal one child school. The eight child care schools which are meant for boys, can house a maximum of 1 184 pupils. Three of these schools are in the Cape Province, four in the Transvaal and one in the Free State. According to the department’s annual report the number of pupils admitted to these schools during the past two years has shown an increasing tendency. The percentage of pupils with serious deviating conduct has increased, whereas the average age of the boys in particular has decreased somewhat.

When one looks at the history of the child care schools, one can divide it into three periods. The first stretches from 1909 to 1917 when these schools fell under the Department of Justice. The second phase stretches from 1917 to 1937 when they fell under the control of the Union Education Department. The last phase stretches from 1937 to today.

In the first period, when these schools fell under the Department of Justice, the department did its best and succeeded in those difficult times in erecting elegant buildings relatively quickly. There were many things, however, which reminded one of a prison. Amongst the staff, for example, there were disciplinary officials and night-guards. Certain forms with the heading “Department of Prisons” were also used.

True educational guidance could not be expected from the Department of Justice. When it was decided in 1917 to place the schools under the control of the department of Union Education, it was for purely educational reasons. Under the Union Education Department the institutions had to become true schools and not places of detention.

There was great enthusiasm in the department for the new task, and according to Dr W D Marais the schools of industry were filled with a glow of new life under the new leadership of the then under-Secretary, Mr George Hofmeyer, in 1917. He was the under-Secretary of Union Education at the time and he visited the schools personally. There was an almost intimate relationship between him and the pupils.

The third phase of the history of these schools was heralded by the new Children’s Act, No 31 of 1937. This Act heralded a new dispensation for the children in South Africa who were neglected and in need of care, as well as for the schools of industry.

In his first report after the passing of the Act the Secretary of Education at the time referred to public ignorance about schools of industry. He formulated the objectives of the schools as being the full spiritual rehabilitation of pupils by means of character formation and the personal elevation of each pupil on the grounds of the intensive study and knowledge of the weaknesses and needs of every individual child.

The great task, however, was to try to instil spiritual equilibrium and adjustment in the community and the pupils. This is still the case today. The major issue in the children’s care schools is the individual child and his problems, his defects, his formation, his education and his future.

There were many changes and improvements especially after the National Education Policy Act, 1967. The staff of the childcare schools could also share in this, especially in respect of national planning, curriculum composition and staff provision, but also in respect of uniform and improved salaries and conditions of service.

It is important also to dwell for a moment on the needs of the children in the child care schools. It is generally found that on admittance to the schools the pupils are very retarded scholastically. Motivation to achieve in this sphere according to ability barely exists any more. The children have even developed an aversion to schoolwork. This can normally be ascribed to numerous factors which once again revolve around the home circumstances.

In order to equip the pupils in the child care schools successfully for a happy and useful re-entry in society, collective and individual endeavour is necessary over a wide spectrum. This requires a team approach in which the following facets should be attended to: Intellectual growth and development, emotional insight and proficiency, social knowledge, adjustment, as well as upbringing and education in preparation for life.

There are certain problems that I noticed at the child care schools during my comings and goings and I should like to draw these to the attention of the hon the Minister. When these children have completed their education, they have to enter the labour field. There are still many problems in connection with this; many of the children struggle to find work. I think and believe that the Department of Education and Culture in co-operation with the Department of Manpower can play an important role here, viz that they should make efforts, after the children have completed their schooling, to establish them in a work situation. In this way they can be accompanied in the work situation for a certain period of time.

I should also like to see the education programme at these schools becoming more technically and career-orientated. At the boys’ schools this is taking place to a great extent, but I feel we can do more for the girls’ schools in this connection. Girls should be taught to work during their schooling, and more practical vocational training is necessary.

I also want to refer briefly to the teachers and the matrons who do duty in the child care schools. These people do great work. I have experience of that, and I have said on more than one occasion that the work these people do is a labour of love. They are collecting treasures where moths and rust will not spoil them. I want to pay tribute to them today and tell them that the work they do does not pass unseen. Then I should also like to plead with the Minister that from our side, where the teachers and matrons are doing important but difficult work, we shall try to make the residences of those people as pleasant as possible. At many of those schools the matrons have to be satisfied with cramped and insufficient housing. I believe we should give attention to this and, if possible, improve the situation.

I also want to point out that teachers as well as matrons who are attached to the child care schools, should receive an inconvenience grant. If they do so already, I am grateful, but if not, I should like to plead with the hon the Minister to institute it. The children with whom they work require them to be on duty for almost the whole day. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to the community of interests he shares with the hon member for Beaufort West, who spoke just before he did. They also have other things in common. Both those members took a stand against power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians on 22 February 1982, and in the same week both changed their minds (omgespring). [Interjections.] In addition they both come from rural areas. Now I want to tell the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke who changed his mind within a week, that it appears that he also farms with popcorn (springmielies).

You also changed your opinion, man. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Beaufort West made a plea for the rural schools, and I support him in that connection. I agree that the matter should be considered. In his own constituency, in Loxton and Vosburg, there are two schools which are almost empty as a result of the depopulation of the rural areas. In those same towns there are many Coloured children who are loitering. Now the Coloureds say we are erecting parliamentary buildings; there is no money for the building of more schools. Can they not use these empty buildings? I should like to know from the hon the Minister what his reply is going to be to representations of the Coloureds to use the school buildings in Loxton and Vosburg. I know such representations have been made. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr S J Schoeman made the statement here today that the CPs are racists. I want to point out to him, however, that the NP says the Coloureds are part of the South African nation. They speak the same language, they practise the same religion and have the same culture. Now the NP has put the Coloureds in a separate House. Why? [Interjections.] Merely because their colour is different? If that is true, the NP are blatant racists. [Interjections.] It is naked racism which is eventually going to lead to complete destruction of separation and to integration in a system such as this one. [Interjections.]

The CP are not racists. We say that there is a diversity of peoples in this country.

Order! I am not going to allow a chorus of commentary.

The CP says there is a diversity of peoples in this country. Each one of these peoples should live in an own country and govern itself to the highest level. In respect of education we tell the Coloureds they have to have their own schools, their own colleges and technikons and their own universities. We say those universities should provide the opportunity for the availability all subjects in which a Coloured may want to qualify himself. We say the Coloureds should qualify themselves there to train themselves in an own country of opportunities within which they can have full self-determination over every facet of their lives. If that is racism, the hon member does not know what “racism” means.

The State President said on 16 April 1982:

The NP’s standpoint that there can be only one government in one country, the acceptance of power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians and their acceptance of the Coloureds and Indians as part of the South African nation, have placed the NP on a slippery slope to political, cultural, sport and educational integration.

The rejection of the old NP standpoint that the Coloureds are a people, and the binding of Whites, Coloureds and Indians into one South African nation, with one country and one Government, has destroyed a fundamental principle of the old NP for the implementation or maintenance of separation. [Interjections.] From there the NP is careering down daily on the road of political, cultural and educational integration. One concession after the other has to be made to comply with the demands of the NP’s coalition government partners. The NP will slide down this road it has chosen until there is nothing left of separation; until nothing is left of separate schools, separate residential areas and own institutions. [Interjections.]

We are discussing the Vote of the Minister of Education and Culture, an own affair of the Whites, and I want to refer to the cultural and educational slides upon which the NP has climbed. The hon member Prof Olivier was very worried this morning because there are still separate institutions, but within the system upon which the NP has embarked, the NP is going to slide to where the hon member will receive them with open arms, to where separation will be destroyed totally.

Selah!

The hon member says Selah. [Interjections.]

On 16 April 1982 the present State President said the Coloureds were part of the South African nation. The Beeid of 15 July 1982 reports the following:

Mr “Lang” Dawid de Villiers, the managing director of Nasionale Pers, said on 10 September 1982:

Take note, “deel van een volk is nie”! [Interjections.]

André Fourie says: “No.”

Yes, I do not want to enter into that now. I know the hon member for Turffontein says they are not Afrikaners, whereas the member for Randburg says they are, but I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I know them and I know how to divide the people who are still sitting on the opposite side. I have too little time to enter into the matter, however.

That would be interesting!

It is very interesting, yes! On 19 December 1983 the present State President said at a celebration of the Day of the Covenant:

That is lovely!

The hon member says it is lovely. Last night there was a meeting of the Afrikaanse Taalfonds in Paarl and Mr Sybrand van Wyk announced certain plans. He said:

The words are identical to what the hon member for Paarl said here the year before last. Mr Van Wyk continued to say:

Then he said:

Mr Van Wyk also said that the constitution of the ATF had been amended in connection with universities. This implies that an Indian of the University of Durban-Westville or a Black man or woman of Fort Hare or the Universities of the North or Zululand can be appointed in this council. I had the privilege this afternoon of speaking to Dr Johan Uys of the University of Fort Hare. He says a Mr Yoyo is at the University of Fort Hare at present … [Interjections.] Yes, the NP will make a joke of this man’s surname. This Mr Yoyo is studying Afrikaans. He is a lecturer in Afrikaans at the University of Fort Hare and he previously applied to the FAK for a bursary to further his studies in Afrikaans. He also applied to the committee of the Afrikaanse Taalfonds to be able to qualify himself further in Afrikaans. He could not get funds either from the FAK or the Committee of the Afrikaanse Taalfonds to further his studies. They are prepared, however, to appoint him to their multiracial council. This is so typical of the Cape liberalists. [Interjections.]

I want to tell Mr Van Wyk the first Taalbeweging was started by Afrikaner nationalists who, by means of an own language shaped a proud White people which was born at the southern point of Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if one listened to the entire debate, it was interesting in places and ludicrous in places. With all due respect to the hon member for Kuruman, I want to make mention of the fact that earlier today the hon member Prof Olivier said that the PFP had been trying for years to persuade those of us on this side of the House to accept their standpoint in connection with schools.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must just give me a chance now. I did not interrupt him. That is what the hon member Prof Olivier said to us. Now the hon member for Kuruman comes along and leans over the hon member Prof Olivier and says: “Do not worry: Soon, in a year or two, they will be with you”. I find this absolutely ludicrous. The hon member Prof Olivier throws up his hands and says: “For how many decades have we not been battling to get that side of the House to realize the wisdom of our standpoint?” The hon member for Kuruman is living in a fool’s paradise. The hon member will forgive me if I say that in places he preached pure, bare-faced politics.

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Apart from the fact that in places the hon member spoke bare-faced politics, which had nothing to do with the discussion of this Vote, he made simplistic statements—and I am saying this with all due respect to him—which would take me five to ten minutes to put in perspective. We have already done this so frequently on this side of the House. I really want to leave the matter at that. The hon member for Kuruman must excuse me.

Refute it!

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must control himself.

Before I begin with my actual theme, I want to get back quickly to the allegation by the hon member Prof Olivier that in reply to questions by members of the PFP this side of the House simply says “but it is Government policy”. On the one hand the hon member Prof Olivier is right. This side of the House is governing and of course we will govern in accordance with our policy. The hon member will concede that. On the other hand we have repeatedly—the hon member Prof Olivier will also concede this; he will find it in my own Hansard—discussed the policy of separate schools in the interests of the specific population groups.

The simple truth is that one cannot separate culture from education. The way of life of a people cannot be separated from its education. For that reason separate requirements also developed in respect of the education of the different population groups and it was in the interests of the different population groups that their unique needs could be met. This can only be done by means of separate schools.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must forgive me. I really cannot pursue this matter further. I simply do not have sufficient time.

I want to get back to the hon member for Rissik. He is not here at the moment, but he has apologized. He made a fuss about “own affairs”. He actually wanted to quote the Constitution to indicate that these own affairs were merely a few minor matters to which reference was made in section 14 and the schedule. We had the ridiculous state of affairs that he said across the floor of the House: “But what is the schedule?”

The point is that Schedule 1 is part of the Constitution. What appears in this schedule? Schedule 1 states that education at all levels is an own affair. The few things which are matters of common concern are accepted by any rightminded person, namely that in the education of the different population groups there is a sphere of common concern. That sphere of common concern is noticed and recognized by this side of the House and it acts accordingly.

The simple reply to the hon member’s argument is that there is a sphere of common concern which affects the education of the different population groups. We cannot argue that away. Consequently there must be a law which will regulate these spheres.

Matters which do not affect the substance of White education, for example syllabuses, the appointment of teachers, etc, is not subordinate like the hon member for Rissik said. I take it amiss of him, in his absence. He used the word “subordinate” as if it appeared in the Constitution. It says “subject to laws”. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of the language, without becoming semantic, knows that there is a big difference between “subordinate to” and “subject to”. It is subject to specific laws which address the needs of the education of the different population groups. This is what is at issue and if in this way the hon member therefore wants to pass off own affairs and White education as simplistic matters, this is simply not true.

I want to make haste and deal with a specific subject. It concerns culture and politics, subjects which are frequently on the lips of many people in this House and outside nowadays. I am asking hon members of the CP to afford me the opportunity to state my entire standpoint.

When the members of the CP decided in February 1982—I admit that they were entitled to do so, although I did not agree with them—to break away from the NP, they divided the cultural action of the Afrikaner. This is an irrefutable truth which none of those members would dare question. There is no doubt that politics has always been and will always be a part of culture.

Culture is a comprehensive concept. It includes the comings and goings of the simplest person, as well as the most intellectual thoughts which one can express. Consequently culture is not only a thing of the past, but is creative, active and alive. The new is sought and if principles are not sacrificed in the selection of the new it is usually enriching for any culture, including that of the Afrikaner people. The culture and outlook on life of a people are indissolubly connected. I do not want to elaborate further on this now.

On the other hand politics is very difficult to define. I had a look at what various experts had to say about this and found that the original meaning of politics mainly involved the relationship between people, or the relationship between the authorities and the subject. Consequently everybody participates for the sake of better relations. I am saying this specifically for the attention of the CP.

The Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal defines politics as “die beginsels waarop ’n Staat regeer word”—the principles by which a state is governed. I want to go further and say that party politics mean the choice of a specific programme or a policy to achieve specific goals. Because there will obviously be different programmes, it also follows of necessity that there will be different political parties, as is also the case in South Africa.

But the said dictionary also draws a further distinction. It refers to politicking, and it defines politicking as petty activities in connection with state and other matters to achieve party or group benefits. For the purposes of my argument I should like to say that we will differentiate between politics or statecraft joined together on the one hand and politicking on the other, which is petty activities in respect of specific political parties.

It goes without saying that it is difficult to differentiate between culture and politics. I have already said that politics is a part of culture, and because it is a part of culture and culture is alive and enriching, politics and culture are not static. As a matter of fact, they imply movement, they adjust to the demands of the time. Politics provides the frame work for an orderly society in which culture can flourish. This the hon the Leader of the CP will grant me, because it is, after all, true. In its turn culture provides an important dynamism or incentive for the promotion of politics and also sets basic points of departure from which politics can come to the fore in accordance with the attitude towards life and the world of the specific people.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip.

The autonomy—this is the important aspect—of the two spheres must be respected at all times. History demonstrates very clearly that the Afrikaner’s attitude to politics and the way in which he experiences and gives expression to it, is very closely linked to Afrikaner national identity. That is why in the history of the Afrikaner people under all circumstances a political division has also led to specific division in the general life of the people: In cultural activities, in the church, in education, in farming activities, in sport and so on and so forth.

Today it has become necessary to argue that Afrikaans organizations may not occupy themselves with politics, but we must differentiate between politics and statecraft on the one hand and politicking on the other. I want to state at once that any Afrikaans organization is of course entitled to occupy itself with politics and the constitutional setup because this affects the intrinsic nature of the Afrikaner. Nevertheless the cultural organizations are not there for politicking. They are not there for active party politics; they are operated on other principles. [Interjections.]

During the past three decades the Afrikaner has had no problems with politics and culture. Why not? Because—this is the truth—as far as Afrikaner politics and culture were concerned, the Afrikaner saw the NP as the sounding-board of his own cultural objective and aspirations.

Until you accepted integration.

Because the Afrikaner accepted this, we never had a problem in this connection. This was the case until the CP—the hon Leader of the CP need not become excited—under the hon member for Waterberg and his followers, decided that they wanted to break away from the NP.

It is you who changed the NP.

Order!

I said a moment ago that the hon member was entitled to move away from the NP … [Interjections.] … and the inevitable consequence was division in the cultural experience of the Afrikaner.

You caused the division, because you chose another way.

I shall get around to the hon the Leader of the CP in a moment. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to prohibit interjections, but I cannot allow a constant stream of interjections. Hon members are going to compel me to prohibit interjections entirely if they cannot control themselves. The hon member for Virginia may proceed.

Arising from the problems Prof Carel Boshoff experienced with various Afrikaner cultural organizations a very dangerous trend came to the fore. It soon became clear that his and his supporters’ views and statements were very closely linked to those of the hon member for Waterberg and the CP. Yet again they are entitled to do this. It is therefore no wonder that the leaders of the right-wing political parties played such a prominent role in the forming of the Volkswag.

So what!

The hon member says: “So what!” I shall return to this matter in a moment.

Since then the Volkswag has become the cultural power base of the Conservative Party. There was a time—as recently as last year—when I raised the same standpoints here. At that stage I was severely criticized by those hon members. They assured me that this was totally untrue. But now the hon member Mr Theunissen says: “So what!” Mr Chairman, he is therefore suddenly admitting this. Of course it is a good thing that he is admitting it.

I have here in my hand a newsletter of Sabra, dated April 1984. I should like to read out what appears in it. I only want to read out two sentences appearing in it to hon members. The first of these reads:

This is now the Volkswag:

The Volkswag therefore arose as a result of the political division of 1982—precisely what hon members of the CP were denying as recently as last year. Further on in this same newsletter it is stated:

Mr Chairman, I hope that today we will get a final answer to this matter once and for all, so that it will no longer be necessary for hon members to have doubts about this.

In conclusion I want to make a serious appeal to the hon member for Waterberg. As a matter of fact I am doing so with the best intentions. I am also making the same appeal to the followers of the hon member for Waterberg, both here in the House and outside. I am appealing seriously to them not to defile our Afrikaner cultural activities with party politics—and I am emphasizing party politics. [Interjections.] It is of no use being insulting and personal. Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman can be so extremely insulting.

All Jan Hoon can do is get personal. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to address a further request to the hon the leader of the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am urging the hon the leader of the Conservative Party to reconsider the dividing role he and his party are playing in the cultural activities of the Afrikaner. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg and his party in all earnestness not to allow themselves to be misused by practising politicking—and I am deliberately saying politicking; not politics—in existing Afrikaans cultural organizations.

I also want to address a third request to the hon member for Waterberg. I am asking him not to make himself and his party available to a secret and confidential organization, which under the cloak of cultural activities practises politics in the Volkswag and in other actual cultural organizations. I am asking them to realize the responsibility they have as a political party and not to succumb to the temptation of a confidential organization requesting its members, as well as those of the Volkswag, to assist the Conservative Party during by-elections. They must not allow themselves to be led astray by a confidential organization, which requests them to make themselves available—and of course the members of the Volkswag too—in order to be involved in politics to such an extent that they are even called upon to render assistance during by-elections.

What about the Afrikaner Broederbond?

I have nothing to do with the AB. When they indicate that they are satisfied with this, I request those hon members to reveal to everyone in this country that they are throwing in their lot with Prof Carel Boshoff and all his organizations, including the Volkswag and Sabra; that they are making a joint attack on all existing cultural organizations, control boards of schools, farmers’ organizations and even church councils. Then they must please have the courage of their convictions to make this clear so that all the people can know it.

They will definitely not do that!

I request them merely to admit that under the cloak of culture they and all the said organizations are joining forces against the new Constitution and the Government. Then, when they do that—and I am saying this to all the hon members of the Conservative Party—they must of course realize that they and their cronies are guilty of the greatest onslaught on Afrikaner cultural unity that this country has ever experienced.

Mr Chairman, I take it that the hon member for Virginia is not looking to us in the PFP for an answer to his many questions. What I do want to say, however, apropos his speech, is that he has made a speech at length on the divisions and difficulties and problems in the “Afrikanerkultuur”. Is that not correct? He has not spoken about White culture, Mr Chairman—this from the party that says we are divided into cultural groups in this country! I agree with the hon member. However, the people are not divided along racial lines. If, therefore, we start talking about cultures in this country, let us not say that our schools are based on cultural grounds. They are not! They are based on racial grounds! That must be admitted. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Virginia, the leading speaker on that side of the Committee in respect of so-called White education, would be well advised to catch up with the latest advances in educational thinking. I would suggest that he and his study group look at multi-cultural, I repeat, multi-cultural education. Let me read to hon members four of the guiding principles of multi-cultural education:

1. 1 that ethnic diversity must be accepted and respected at individual group and societal level;
2. 2 ethnic diversity must provide a basis for societal cohesiveness and survival;
3. 3 equal opportunity must be offered to the members of all ethnic groups;
   • The fourth point is the most important of all, namely:
4. 4 ethnic identification must be optional for individuals within the group.

What we on this side are thus saying to the Government is: When you attack our policy and say that it is not educationally based, we ask you on what basis you are talking. Are you merely talking from the point of view of what you think we are talking about, or have you looked at multi-cultural education yourselves? Have you studied it? Have you seen that in this country multi-cultural education is going to provide for the survival of the cultural groups in this country? If you pursue and continue to pursue dogmatically the system of racially differentiated education from top to bottom, it is going to bring about the demise of cultural groups in this country. [Interjections.] I recently questioned the hon the Minister on the issue of the revision of school textbooks which contain pejorative references to, and/or bias against, particular groups. To use a colloquial phrase, the hon the Minister was ducking and diving in his answer last week. He must assume full responsibility for bringing about the partial easing or lessening of racial tensions in this country through White schools. I cite merely as an example—from a book he knows about—some of the master symbols which appear repeatedly in school textbooks in our country. I shall cite just five of them:

1. 1 Legitimate authority is not questioned.
2. 2 Whites are superior. Blacks are inferior.
3. 3 The Afrikaner has a special relationship with God.
4. 4 South Africa rightly belongs to the Afrikaner.

Rubbish!

I heard that and I shall speak about it in a moment. The fifth item I want to cite is:

1. 5 South Africa is an afflicted country. Another example is:
2. 6 South Africa and the Afrikaner are isolated.

The hon members on that side of the Committee may say: “Rubbish!” However, we will supply the texts and references and they must correct the textbooks. I believe that in this country we have to defuse the situation that is being perpetuated in our schools because of the very texts that we are using.

I should like now to reiterate one question and pose another to the hon the Minister. I should like him to indicate quite clearly whether he envisages regional councils of education or the provincial councils of education as having the power to appoint or nominate a director. That is a very important point. Secondly. I should like the hon the Minister to react to what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was talking about on Monday and Tuesday. Is he talking about dividing provincial education in the Cape and in the Transvaal into regions? Is he talking about dividing the Cape into three and the Transvaal into three?

I spoke a little while ago on the matter of school textbooks, and it is appropriate to note that one major aspect of schooling was not investigated by the De Lange Committee, namely the content of the school programme. The hon the Minister of National Education has indicated elsewhere that a Bill will be introduced to set up a council or board to deal with standards, evaluations and certifications. I believe that this Bill will not be introduced during this session and possibly the hon the Minister can tell us why not. Is this another case of ducking a difficult task? Similarly I note that, despite an answer given by the late Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, no own affairs Bills are going to be presented at all this session, including, I understand, the South African Teachers’ Council Amendment Bill. What has happened to that? Has it again been deferred or are we looking for a quiet life?

Things have to change, and in education they have to change tremendously. I must say it is unfortunate but I sometimes get the impression—and the hon member for Virginia does help me in this regard—that persons in the NP have adopted the phrase: “We are all in favour of reform, but please do not change things.” Things are going to have to change and now is the time to tell the people of South Africa that the status quo cannot remain, there has to be change. Let us use every opportunity to tell the tale that the maintenance of standards in our schools does not and cannot depend on keeping them pearly White. It cannot. Standards are not racially but educationally based. Set these for all and ensure that every child has to chance to aspire to develop his full potential.

In the few minutes remaining, let me turn to culture. Let me say again what I said a little earlier: There is no “White” culture. That animal does not exist. In the White sector we have Afrikaner culture, we may have the culture of English-speaking people from many parts of the world, we have Greek culture, Portuguese culture, German culture and so on. I am not going to support the farce of talking about White culture. If the hon the Minister believes, for example, that the South African Cultural History Museum next door is a “White own affair”, he is indulging in self-delusion. That is the very slave accommodation where White sailors danced naked, and currently a portion of the exhibits in that museum is devoted to Malays, to Cape Coloureds and to other South Africans. It cannot be a White own affair. Let us take another example that he has referred to in a question. The Voortrekker Museum in Pietermaritzburg significantly honours those unsung servants and companions of colour who helped and died with the White Voortrekkers in Natal. It cannot be a White own affair. There is no “White” culture.

So I am going to talk about South African culture. The report of the Schutte Commission of Inquiry into the Promotion of the Creative Arts was several years in coming. This commission is concerned with the promotion amongst all population groups of the creative arts in the field of literary art, music and the plastic arts and the report contains 60 major recommendations. Possibly this hon Minister can react to certain queries, or maybe he is just going to say that this is a general affair which falls under National Education. Is there going to be a White Paper? If not from this department, who is going to handle it? When is an Arts Council going to be established? Will it be represented on a racial basis? Finally, is the State even possibly thinking about a lending fee for libraries, a subject of correspondence in newspaper columns? This is a major commission on culture in South Africa and I think some answers are needed.

I was pleased to recognize that some 12 000 voluntary cultural organizations are in collaboration with this department. The hon the Minister and I are well aware that these are usually not divided on a racial basis. So service from him and from his department is extended to all groups, and I welcome this.

Since my time is limited, I now turn to schools for special education. I compliment those carrying out the work in schools for the handicapped. I must say I am not yet convinced that due consideration is being given to the concept of mainstreaming some of these handicapped children into the provincial system. Possibly the hon the Minister could see whether his department has looked into this and particularly what is going on in overseas countries.

However, very briefly, there is an area in which extremely urgent action is required. I have asked several questions this year of the Department of Health and Welfare regarding regulations requiring the implementation of the Child Care Act. The department says on page 28 of its report that regulations are awaited. I hope the hon the Minister is aware of the considerable scandal involving a place of safety in my constituency. If he is not aware of it, I will forward material. Something has to be done about those child care regulations. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown will excuse me for not reacting to his speech. The hon members for Beaufort West and Schweizer Reneke referred here this afternoon to the achievements of people from their parts of the world and I think it is only my duty to mention Miss South Africa, Anneline Kriel … [Interjections.] … Penny Coelen, who had links with Witbank, a man like Jan Hettema, Bruce Dalling, Dawid van der Merwe, Anele Jonker and Harriet Pienaar. Unfortunately I cannot devote any further time to that but I mention it merely to indicate that Witbank has played its part as well. [Interjections.]

A people that neglects its cultural wealth undermines its own civilization and sows the seed of its own downfall. The exceptional talents with which South Africa has been blessed also entail responsibilities. Indeed, the riches of our soil do not belong to one generation only. It is our duty and privilege to preserve our heritage. The question may be asked: What is our heritage? To that I would reply that it is everything that belongs to our people, in other words, its cultural expression, language, customs, skills and arts.

South Africa has a unique cultural heritage. In a relatively short period of just over 300 years we have made two original and important contributions to world culture, viz the unique Cape Dutch architecture and the vigorous, supple Afrikaans language.

We are of Africa, and we may not base our cultural views on any other continent than Africa. The culture and the spiritual riches of our forefathers are a heritage that we must not neglect. Indeed, each generation must achieve it anew. Without this heritage that anchors us to the past there is no norm to determine the value of what is produced by each generation. Without that there is no guideline whereby anything great may be elevated above what is absolutely temporary. We cannot merely rest on our laurels as far as our heritage is concerned. We must extend it with contemporary contributions so that each generation may leave a new heritage.

The task for the future lies primarily in education. Far more must be done in our houses, schools and universities to cultivate in everyone—and not merely in a handful of privileged persons who can specialize in it—a love and appreciation of what is ours. I refer here to what is created here and what has been further developed, but also to that which is ours from the great world culture—that which is our inalienable heritage because of our origins.

A large number of beautiful buildings have disappeared over the years. Some of them were already a century and a half old and disappeared to make place for, say, a broader main street. In some cases the whole image of a street has been lost as a result. One is impressed by this when one travels through some of our most beautiful towns—here I have in mind Paarl, Wellington and Swellendam. [Interjections.] In many instances the old buildings were safe only yesterday; sold today, and demolished tomorrow. People who are concerned about conservation are already talking about the bulldozer syndrome. Conservation is an important yardstick of the level of civilization of the people. One valuable way in which a country can pay homage to its great sons, whether they be famous statesmen, celebrated authors, artists or poets, is to preserve their dwelling places for posterity.

Many people may ask why preservation is so important. In my opinion a people without history is like a man without a memory. We may not summarily wipe out the footprints of our forefathers. When we refer to the preservation of our heritage this naturally includes both nature conservation and the preservation of culture. It is our responsibility, that of the present generation, to ensure that the treasures of nature and our heritage from previous generations is not plundered but will be preserved for future generations. Prevention is better than cure. Destruction is irrevocable. In the words of C J Langenhoven, regret is everlasting interest on a debt of which the capital can never be repaid.

It is against this background that I make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister this afternoon to approach the Cabinet to buy the farm of the late General Hertzog so that it may be developed as a living monument.

I should like to refer to the farm “Water-val”. General Hertzog sold his farm near Thabazimbi when iron ore was discovered. He instructed his attorneys to find him another farm. An express condition was that there should be beautiful scenery and a lot of water. The farm “Waterval” was then found for him. When General Hertzog decided to go and look at the farm his brother Koos Hertzog arranged for a horse and cart to be put on the same train as the General. They went to Witbank to view the farm.

General Hertzog bought that farm in 1909. Its initial size was 4 100 morgen. Every year, in July and December, the General went there to relax because he was a lover of nature.

I approach the hon the Minister today and ask that we give that farm to the youth of our country, that we develop it as a meeting place for the youth.

It was on 30 September 1931 that the first boy and girl in the Voortrekker movement were enrolled at Bloemfontein. Moreover it was on that occasion that the first officers of the Voortrekker movement were enrolled. The late General Hertzog officiated at that enrolment. At the time of his burial on 24 November 1942 the then leader of the Voortrekker movement, dr C F Visser, paid tribute to General Hertzog and referred to the memory of their patron, the great hero of Afrikanerdom and the courageous champion of the rights of our people. Today there are 248 Voortrekker movements in the Transvaal and towards the end of 1984 enrolment was more than 30 000.

I also think that the farm could be developed for the use of the field schools in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal 18 field schools have been established of which only 11 have been developed. Those field schools are situated on an experimental farm, in old school buildings which have fallen into disuse, or at Graskop, with the kind co-operation of the Department of Forestry. I could continue in this vein, but in the Witbank-Middelburg region, where there are approximately 27 000 White schoolgoing children, there is an acute need for such a place whether the youth of our people could come together. I do not ask this for the youth of Witbank and Middelburg alone, but for the youth of South Africa.

I ask that we establish a living monument there in the memory of our honoured and celebrated leader, James Barry Munnik Hertzog.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Witbank will excuse me for not following his speech directly. I should have liked to react to what he said the other day about the tendency towards equalization in politics and in South Africa, but perhaps that can wait for a later occasion.

The hon member for Virginia addressed me in a rather direct fashion, so much so that I was called to order about the interjections. I said to the hon member that he should rather speak to the Chair, but I, too, shall speak to him through the Chair.

I should like to touch on a few points. I think that in general we agree on the definition of what we understand by culture, and that is that culture does not concern merely the preservation of language or a few organizations like the Rapportryers or the Broe-derbond or one of those organizations. Culture has to do with the whole spectrum of man’s activities, including his language, his form of society and his administration of justice. One could say, as it were, that everything that is touched by the human hand or mouth, is transformed into culture. If the hon member to my right over here said a moment ago that there is no such thing as a White culture, I just want to say that that is an extreme over-simplification of the matter because Whites in this country have a communality which is exclusive in a certain sense. It is inclusive with regard to Whites in the structuring of certain social structures that are exclusive, and within that framework they pursue a specific culture.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member should just take a little trouble to bear in mind the broader concept of culture.

However, I wish to go further. In our discussion of the relationship between culture and politics, I believe we would all agree that politics, insofar as it is conducted by people of specific communities, or ethnic politics, as one might call it, form part of the culture of a people. I refer to culture as a broader concept and to politics as a specific facet of that culture. Thus it also goes without saying that in preserving and maintaining the culture of a people, politics plays a very important role. Insofar as it is necessary to take protective action within a people’s community with regard to the broader interests at cultural level, politics and political power constitute a specific method, or a specific instrument, to be applied on behalf of other facets of the cultural life of a people. Against that background the question of which political party is in control, and which political policy is followed, is one of considerable importance. Its implications must be assessed with regard to the other facets of a people’s culture. Therefore we cannot abstract politics, as it is practised now, and say that it is statecraft and has nothing to do with the cultural interests of the Afrikaner, the English speaker or any other community in South Africa.

Therefore it is of considerable importance to us which political policy is pursued in South Africa, what the political policy is that is followed by the NP, which is the majority party in this House. In the implementation of its political policy it now has allies that differ radically with it in regard to previous standpoints about culture. I am now referring to the Labour Party and the Party of Mr Rajbansi. Those allies differ radically from him, but they are now included in a political dispensation in which the Afrikaners and the English speaking people are also included. Those allies have standpoints, ideals and demands, and what they amount to is that ultimately there will be no self-determination for the Whites and the Afrikaners. Those allies demand that the State President abolish all discrimination within five years. This will mean that there will no longer be separate residential areas, schools or voters’ rolls. It will mean that there will no longer be a separate political dispensation for Whites, if those allies of the NP have their way.

They are getting their way on strategic points. They have got their way and they are claiming the credit for it: If they had not participated in this scheme, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act would not have been ablished. They claim credit for that.

However I want to continue. The hon member for Virginia laid the blame for the split, as he calls it, at the door of this party. We do not deny our responsibility. We shall accept our responsibility. However, our responsibility was a debate that we conducted from the Cabinet throughout the caucus and the Transvaal head committee. We walked out while the hon member remained sitting. [Interjections.] He remained sitting—he must not talk now! [Interjections.] What the debate was about, is of the greatest and most crucial importance for a specific cultural community, not to speak of its importance to the Whites in general. The question that was at issue was: Who governs us? Our standpoint has always been that there must be a White government to govern the Whites. Our standpoint has always been that we reject power-sharing between White and non-White. We rejected power-sharing in the strongest terms!

Then the new idiom emerged in the statement of the State President, the then Prime Minister, on 22 February when he came up with “healthy power sharing”. That was the breaking point. It was not we who imposed it. It emerged against the background of a generally accepted NP standpoint, viz the rejection of power sharing, the rejection of political integration. Against that background he came forward—the hon member might as well listen—and confronted us, first in the Cabinet and afterwards in the caucus, with his healthy power sharing. He has still to tell us what unhealthy power sharing is! However, the standpoint has always been: If you share power, you lose it. That was the standpoint, but all of a sudden, power-sharing became a healthy principle.

I can also refer to other express standpoints which that side of the House adopted and that we accepted as NP standpoints. The Prime Minister gave the NP caucuses the assurance that the NP would not permit power to be wrested from the hand of the White man. However, the moment one shares it with someone, then it is no longer in one’s hands. One can as little take one’s farm, place it under the control of a partnership of two to three partners, and then still want to call it one’s own farm. Those are the unvarnished facts of the matter.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member knows nothing about 1977. In 1977 there was talk of three Parliaments, three Cabinets and three Prime Ministers. [Interjections.] We can talk about that, but the hon member does not know what he is talking about. What was held out as a prospect, and what that hon member does not know, is that members of that Cabinet Committee gave out the assurance that if we did not agree with this system, the fact that the own Prime Minister signed his own parliament’s laws was to be the indication of greater division so that the Coloureds and the Indians respectively could have their own presidents. That was said and the hon member does not know about it. Therefore he must not speak about this aloud.

The hon member for Virginia spoke about the blame for the split.

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

I am in my stride now, just wait a moment. As far as the idea of a mixed parliament is concerned, surely we told the Prime Minister forthrightly what our standpoint was. I told him personally: You tell me I must not be anti-Coloured. Nor am I anti-Coloured, but if you come up with a mixed parliament and a mixed Cabinet, that is where I stop short. I do not accept that. Surely that was NP language. The hon member must not now attribute the split to us. The man who brought about the split is the leader of the NP! [Interjections.] He broke away from the NP standpoint, the standpoint of apartheid and of separate development, and confronted us with power-sharing and a coalition government.

The hon member tells us that we must not concern ourselves with politics. The hon member need not reply to me, but I want to say to him now: If politics is practised, I say that we do not deny involvement in a cultural organization which resists a form of politics which will eventually be disastrous for the culture of the Afrikaner …

That is a new breeze that is blowing!

No, I said a long time ago that I am a member of the AV. When we talk about politics I want to say to the hon member he would do well to tell the Chairman of the FAK not to make such a fuss about being politically neutral; the leading-strings of the NP are hanging out everywhere! He contends that the FAK has nothing to do with the NP, but that is as little true as to contend that the AB has nothing to do with the NP. I am not calling the hon member to account when I ask him: Since we are talking about politics, what was the reason for the split in the Broederbond? I am now speaking about something that I know about. The reason was that the Afrikaner Broederbond associated itself with the constitutional guidelines of the NP. It associated itself with them, and that was why we said: You say that these guidelines are now in line with the standpoints of the Broederbond. Now I say that I said that that was not true! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg hauled up certain arguments from the distant past but the fact remains that he cannot deny that he and the other members of his party had a share in the discussions and the formation of the new ideas which were launched in 1977 from a certain basis. [Interjections.] This is a point of departure that was accepted—very well, I concede that it was not argued and outlined in detail—but they accepted the points of departure, together with the members of the NP.

Who accepted power-sharing?

They accepted it. Whatever the detail may be, I do not wish to dwell on that. I shall refer to just one event, viz the occasion when the former Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, stood up from his bench and stated how that Cabinet would function. I just want to mention that as an example. I want to leave the hon member at that now.

This morning the hon member for Rissik launched a stinging attack on the Minister. He told the Minister that he was a short-trousers Minister because he supposedly received funds which, as the hon member put it, had been allocated to this Vote by a mixed Cabinet. The hon member for Rissik then asked the hon Minister: “How does your task as Minister and the function of this department compare with the task of the relevant Minister of Venda or of any of those independent states?” Surely the hon members are not that naïve. The national budget of such an independent state is obtained chiefly from three sources. The first source is its own revenue. The second source is a statutory amount paid by the Government of South Africa; the third amount is an additional amount voted by the Government to such a government.

If it is true—and it is true—that this Cabinet decides on these funds and appropriates and donates them to such a government, then the Cabinet Ministers of that Government, with the various votes for which funds are appropriated, are also, as the hon member argued, short-trousers Ministers in the employ of that state. Surely that is true. My inference is correct. I now want to say to those hon members that in their negotiations they must address the Ministers of the independent state of Venda, under the leadership of President Mphephu, as short-trousers Ministers. Let them try that. I invite them to dispute the logic of my statement.

Since we have now reached the end of the debate of this vote, which also related to culture, there is another matter I wanted to touch on. There is a matter that we cannot allow to pass without further ado. On 8 May this week we had a special function in the Gallery Hall. Mr Speaker arranged that we commemorate the exceptional occasion when Afrikaans came into its own in the House of Assembly by being recognized as an official language alongside the other official language, English. Our language, Afrikaans, is our own rich, living, wonderful cultural treasure. It gives meaning and expression to our lives.

A writer in one of our newspapers, Beeid, once sketched it as follows:

Someone once said that our language is the universe of sound in which our people can express themselves. Our language is beautiful. It is beautiful even from the stage of the babbling of the baby.

You will excuse me, Sir, when I say that the hon member for Middelburg is about to get married.

Hear, hear!

Sir, when that hon member’s child begins to babble he might as well begin by saying “Granddad” instead of “Dad”. [Interjections.] How can one court a pretty girl if one does not use one’s mother tongue? The hon member for Schweizer Reneke asked me specially about that. [Interjections.] He is getting serious now and he went courting. Now, we assume that he probably asked in Afrikaans, because if he had asked in English “Do you love me?” and she replied “yes”, he would have asked: “Yes what?”. She would then have said: “Yes; ja”. We assume he asked her and she in reply, said something of this kind to him:

and what follows. [Interjections.]

While we are using our language as a tool here so agreeably, we really want to convey our sincere thanks today to the people of Hansard who edit our speeches and who publish our Hansard as documents of this Parliament. When we read the Hansard and minutes of council chambers elsewhere in the world that we visit, I really think that we can be proud of the quality of our Hansard writers.

Hear, hear!

We want to thank our journalists for the language in our newspapers because it is fresh, new, creative language. We are grateful to the compilers of a dictionary like the Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, which is a sign that our language is a living one and is being enriched every day. The Nuwe Bybelvertaling reads as well as Boerneef at his best. I understand David’s problems much better now. We can read anything from Leipoldt’s “Handvol gruis uit die Hantam" to Breyten’s fresh poetry, from Sangiro’s prose to the essays of Chris Barnard. We can read from the rich diversity of the work of the Language Services Bureau. For example, in the Krimino-logie-woordeboek one encounters the beautiful word “smokkelkroeg” instead of “sjebeen”, a new and striking term. In the Wynbou-woordeboek we encounter the word “broekman.” [Interjections.] A broekman is not a certain fellow who represents a constituency, but a kind of worm or insect. Another word is “keteldraf". This does not refer to a person who keeps jogging around the kettle waiting for something to drink. It is also a kind of liquor, but it is not yet the real thing. In the Bouwoordeboek one encounters the word “loskopsenter”, which does not refer to a rugby player but is a certain instrument used in that profession. Another word is a “kruppelbalk”. This does not refer to something that is deficient but is something with a specific purpose and function. In the Teaterwoordeboek one finds the word “trappieslens”.

All these words are interesting enrichments of our vocabulary. Seen as a whole, with our wonderful language and a wonderful department with competent heads of education, we foresee an enrichment which will be to the benefit of all of us. I wish to conclude. The child of even the greatest aristocrat has to be guided by the humble processes of education, from the toddler stage up to maturity. I can do no better than to conclude with Everwyn Wessels’ stanza on the task of the Creator, and it is in this light that I see the task of education:

We look forward to the development of this fine department.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Standerton will excuse me if I do not pursue his train of thought. However what he said tempts me to say that I wish I agreed with him and believed that a culture and language was as important under the sheets as elsewhere.

I listened attentively to the hon member for Waterberg. The impression I gained—and the hon member will have to excuse me—is that I have heard the language he used yesterday afternoon time and again from Black activists, from the people who believe in Black majority government. They say that they have a Black culture and a philosophy of life of their own which they are unable to share with the Whites, and because there is a close connection between culture and politics, the acquisition of political power is of vital importance to them. Therefore those activists and revolutionaries are using precisely the same language as the hon member for Waterberg used here in defence of the White culture. If that must be so, the Black man can say that he has as much right to South Africa as the Whites. If that is what lies ahead then I want to say that we shall not avoid conflict and bloody confrontation in South Africa. That is very clear.

The hon member for Waterberg will excuse me for reacting to his statements that the Broederbond is used as a vehicle of the NP. He will know that this has been the case over the years, and he knows what I am talking about. Since the hon member for Virginia talks about Sabra in politics I want to remind him of the days when we were in Sabra, another kind of Sabra, and when we were not motivated by party politics or any other kind of politics, but action was taken against us by politicians on the basis of political and party-political considerations. Therefore I want to say in all honesty that the pot must not call the kettle black in this regard.

As I said earlier I should like to come back to a speech made yesterday by the hon the Minister. I listened with great interest to that speech. What struck me about that speech was the large number of unclear and vague statements. I could quote them to the hon the Minister and had I the time I should have liked to do so. There are probably 10 to 12 points—I request the hon the Minister to take another look at his speech—that compel me to say: But my goodness, is it possible, after the hon the Minister had said in his speech that this change was anticipated and that the expected abolition of the provincial system has been worked on for eight months, that he could come and make this speech along those lines? The hon the Minister must not take this personally now, because I am only talking about his speech.

After those eight months of anticipation he sketches area after area in his speech and then says that they are being considered, that they are being worked on, that details will be provided later and so on. I can only throw up my hands and say to the hon the Minister, in all humility, that what we have had here is a half-baked view of the whole matter. I am not speaking about the few principles that have been spelt out. I am grateful for some of them.

The hon the Minister is a difficult man to fight with; he is not an aggressive person, and I do not wish to be aggressive here either. I do not mean it in that spirit. If the hon the Minister were to look at his speech himself he, too, would ask whether that were possible. I have never read a speech by a Minister containing so many unclear and vague statements as this speech by the hon the Minister. This is not a reflection on the hon the Minister; he probably did not even write that speech.

I do also want to say, however, that there are indeed a few positive notes sounded by the hon the Minister in that speech and I praise him for that. He referred inter alia to the need for the creation of better ethnic relations, group relations and human relations and the role played by education in this regard. I am grateful for that. I am looking forward to seeing the hon the Minister give concrete substance to those things.

The fundamental point at issue is the standpoint of the hon the Minister and that of the hon member for Virginia. We are talking about culture. The hon member for Pinetown is quite correct. There is no such thing as a White culture in that sense. That there are distinct cultures and cultural groups in South Africa is something no-one would deny.

What I miss in this policy, and in the statements by the hon the Minister and those of the hon member for Virginia, is this: Is there nothing, then, that is communal in South Africa? Is there nothing in South Africa that binds us and the Coloureds and the Indians and the Blacks into a single entity? Is there no communality? Are there no common values? If we want to say that and go on to say that all that is important is the diversity, and that we must base all these things on that, then I want to reiterate what I said a short while ago with reference to the speech of the hon member for Waterberg, viz that this is the surest recipe for conflict and confrontation. Time and again we deny that that communality exists.

Where do we deny it?

But my goodness, in all the structures created there is only diversity. The whole argument we have been conducting about the question why there cannot be a single ministry lies at the foundation of it. The whole emphasis is on the concept of own affairs. After all, it is for that very reason that this department was created. And then the hon the Minister asks me in what respect we are denying communality! In the field of education, for example-let us take the tertiary level which the hon member for Bryanston touched on—I want to know whether anyone can really present me with a logical reason as to why there should be separate structures at the tertiary level of education.

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

Unfortunately my time is extremely limited. I should have liked to reply to the question of the hon member for Virginia but unfortunately my time is just too limited.

Actually I now want to come back to a further point. I want to point out that there is something I miss from the hon member for Virginia and from the hon the Minister and the National Party. It is a vision. They have an absolute lack of vision as regards a common South Africanism, which would bind us all together, irrespective of whether we are White or Black or whatever. It is the lack of such a vision, a lack of the implications of such a vision, that troubles me. For that reason I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Pinetown asked, viz whether it would not be possible for hon members on the Government side to abandon for once that concept of racial diversity. Could they not, for once, try to investigate objectively the possibility of preserving the diversity of cultures and cultural groups and distinctions between cultures, without linking this to colour or race? I am now referring to the diversity of our cultures in the normal, the correct sense of the word. I call upon hon members on the other side of the House just to try and dissociate themselves—dissociate themselves intellectually—from that bondage to colour and race and—as people in Belgium, Switzerland and elsewhere are doing—to investigate other possibilities of conserving the cultural heritage of people without linking this terrible group bondage we have in South Africa to race and colour.

However, permit me, Mr Chairman, to come back to the basic problem we are faced with. It is the issue of the abolition of the provincial council, and now, of course, the new department as well.

I am aware that we cannot discuss the principle of the abolition and elimination of the provincial system here today. It is not relevant now. It must be discussed on another occasion and at a different level. Further the hon the Minister was in fact, by way of interjection and otherwise, speaking about the question of decentralization. What he wishes to intimate is that owing to the elimination of the provincial council, what we in fact have here, with regard to education, is a case of decentralization and the devolution of power. Well, Mr Chairman, this of course leaves me dumbfounded. However I approach the matter I simply cannot understand how that statement can be made, because when we speak about decentralization and the devolution of power this surely means, in the first place, that powers and functions of the central authority are transferred—the hon the Minister used the term “shifted off" (afgewentel)—to institutions at other levels—to institutions in which the population has a say; a say in institutions that rests with the population itself. Therefore to talk about decentralization, when all that is happening is that the central government is taking away an institution of the people—and by institution of the people I mean an institution in which the people are directly involved, for example provincial councils—whilst what it is putting in its place is nothing but an administrative instrument of the central Government. …

You are now creating your own images.

No, Mr Chairman, there has been talk of appointed administrators and members of executive committees. Therefore that body is nothing but an arm or instrument of the central Government. That being so I reiterate that this is not a form of decentralization. Indeed, it is a form of greater centralization of power and functions. It is as simple as that. We cannot use the term “decentralization” in this context. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank all hon members who participated in this debate. It was a very interesting debate. There was not really enough time for one to become bored. Even the hon member Prof Olivier, with his misconceptions of the speech which I made yesterday, succeeded in keeping us awake. Nevertheless, I thank all hon members who made positive contributions in regard to this very important subject.

Hon members of the Conservative Party did not of course make much of a contribution on the educational level. They seized upon the opportunity to talk politics for a while. On the educational level—this I must honestly say—a blank space appears next to the name of each hon member of the CP who participated in the discussion. Consequently I cannot react to anything which the hon members of the CP said. [Interjections.]

Why don’t you ad nit that you are not able to reply to our questions! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have already replied to the question of quit a number of hon members. My time is also relatively limited. Consequently I should like to react to the speech made by the hon member for Rustenburg, who spoke about financial allocations and the formula involved. I should like to thank him for his sound contribution to the debate. In this connection I also want to refer in particular to the question of cost saving. In the times which lie ahead of us, we shall have to pay more attention than ever before to how we apply our money. We shall have to direct our attention, from this department and from the entire education sector, to planning how we are going to be more cost effective. I have already had many fruitful discussions on this matter with the teaching profession. They are very positive in this regard. For the information of hon members I could just mention a few problems that have already been identified and to which urgent attention is being given to ensure that we are effective in every sphere. Reductions are possible in regard to the space and cost norms, for example, by concentrating on the supply of basics and cutting back on the expenditure on luxury items. We shall have to do this in future. In addition facilities such as sports fields can be used collectively and in that way better utilized. We could also economize by eliminating duplication of services. Another measure which we could most certainly implement has to do with course choices. These can be rationalized by eliminating insignificant, non-career orientated subject choices. The hon member referred to the pinch which was being felt in various places, and we shall give attention to his particular problem.

There are a few other hon members to whom I still wish to refer.

†The hon member for Mooi River referred to private schools. We spoke about that earlier today, but I agree with him that Natal in particular has a very proud tradition as far as private schools are concerned. In fact, I think Natal has set the pace as far as efficient running of private schools is concerned.

*The hon member for Newcastle referred to mixed school sport. He also referred to a circular from the Cape Education Department to which the hon member for Koedoespoort had reacted. The latter had pointed out that the Transvaal Education Department adopted a completely different policy in regard to mixed sport. The hon member for Koedoespoort said that he had to go to Natal, which explains why he is not present at the moment. However, I just want to say to that hon member that this is a circular which was brought to me indicating that there are in fact—and hon members may come and take a look at it—similar provisions in the Transvaal Province, which supports what the hon member for Newcastle said. Apparently the hon member for Koedoespoort has lost all contact with the provincial council.

†The hon member for Pinetown asked me so many questions that it would take me two days to answer them all. However, at this stage I would like to make a particular point, and I ask the hon member Prof Olivier to listen as well. My introductory remarks yesterday were made a day or two after the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had announced the Government’s plans concerning the future of the provincial system. Obviously education is a very important part of the functions carried out within a province. It was not my intention at all to submit at this time to hon members a complete model or blueprint for the future dispensation in respect of education. What I intended doing and what I think I succeeded in doing, was to point out the principles which will guide us, because we will consult with our various partners in education in order to establish a final blueprint with all its details. I envisage certain structures based on certain principles and that is what I put to hon members. I did not submit a blueprint to hon members. Hon members’ reaction to these principles has been very interesting and obviously will influence the Government when it finally decides on a structure. So, I think the hon member Prof Olivier was unfair to me when he said that I gave him nothing. I hope he will make a better contribution in future.

I would like to thank the hon member for Pinetown for his positive attitude. He has been very critical, but he has a positive approach in this regard and I am pleased about that. When I said that there would be a devolution of policy as well I meant what I said. It is my opinion that the Government would which to devolve as much power as is reasonably possible to the lower levels. I know all about the fact that we will now be taking over the responsibilities from the provinces since education is an own affair. We must now decide what to devolve and to whom to devolve it. That is why I considered an education council to be a possibility. We will not find a home for White education as an own affair in the proposed Administrator-in-Executive Committee because that body has no jurisdiction over our department.

Therefore, the guidelines and the principles on which we base them are quite clear and are founded on the HSRC report, the White Paper and what Government members have said in this regard. I would welcome any advice that hon members could give in this regard. In the final analysis, of course, the Government will have to take a decision. However, it is my impression that hon members find the general guidelines, which I have indicated, to be reasonable and I think one should be able to work out an efficient and equitable structure.

The hon member for Pinetown asked so many questions that I think I shall come back to him in the next round.

*The hon member for Pretoria East referred—this was very interesting—to the shortage of natural scientists and suggested certain solutions in this connection. I am not going to react to the suggestion in regard to differentiated salaries because there is too much of a difference of opinion on this matter in teaching circles. The use of technological aids to which the hon member referred is an important matter. In fact, urgent attention is being devoted to computer-assisted education. Overseas investigations were instituted last year and conclusions have already been drawn. It is now generally accepted that these technological aids can never replace the teacher.

A further positive proposal was that there should be liaison with the SABC. This proposal is being approached positively by the department. In fact, it is a pleasure for me to inform hon members that a working group has already been appointed and that a meeting with staff members of the SABC has already taken place. People have already been appointed to give urgent attention to TV programmes specifically intended for education. The chief executive director is also devoting his personal attention to this matter.

Is this for White education only?

I only deal with White education. [Interjections.]

I have already thanked my colleague, the hon member for Virginia, but I want to thank him, the hon member Mr Fanus Schoeman and the hon members for Pine-town and Koedoespoort sincerely once again for their words of congratulation and the good wishes they conveyed to the chief executive director, as well as to the department and its officials.

The hon member Prof Olivier made an analysis earlier this morning of my standpoint on separation, or separateness. He tried to make out a case against enforced separation. In fact, he has been doing so all day. However, after he had made out a case against enforced separation—in which, by the way, he did not use any pedagogical arguments—he nevertheless argued that the State should, by means of its structures, protect the private schools, which have their own identities.

[Inaudible.]

Surely that was a contradiction. [Interjections.]

I should also like to thank the hon member for Stellenbosch for his very interesting contribution and the compassion with which he discussed Special Education. I assure him that this is a matter which will be dealt with by my department and by me with great sensitivity and acknowledgement.

The hon member for George made an excellent speech, and I think that he definitely indicated that he considered sound relations among the various population groups to be very important.

George maintains high standards!

There is nothing, really, that I can say to the hon member for Rissik, but just so that he does not raise this matter again, I must tell him that the Voortrekker Monument has now been placed under the control of the Administration for Own Affairs. I would appreciate it if the hon Whip would convey this information to him, for then I know that we will not argue about this matter again. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Bryanston also asked a number of questions and I shall deal with as many of them as I can. [Interjections.] I invite the hon member to speak to me about those issues on which he does not have clarity. I want to assure him that, when I talked about devolution, I did not only have administrative decentralization in mind. I also had policy-making in mind, for example, every school and every school committee has its own domestic policy.

What other powers will be devolved? We must still work that out but at central level we do not wish to be involved in issues which are essentially local issues where the people of the province or the area have better and more intimate knowledge of the circumstances. To that extent we will have to find a formula in terms of which decision-making on those issues will be left in their very good hands.

How long is the short break going to be?

The hon member for Greytown is being silly now. [Interjections.]

†We are fortunate in having an excellent existing infrastructure, namely the provincial education departments, the professional teachers’ organizations and the parents’ organizations. The transition should therefore be quite smooth.

I do not think the Government will consider dividing the educational authorities into smaller regions. We have looked into the matter and it will not be as easy to do this as it would be if it was done for constitutional or development reasons. Schools are concentrated in particular areas and one will therefore find vast areas where there are no children. The matter will be looked into but I do not envisage a further division of the provinces for the purposes of education.

I must tell the hon member—he said I had not replied to him earlier in this regard—that this Government believes that educational institutions—also at tertiary level—should be governed by a particular population group. This is the reason why tertiary institutions were also established for the Black and Brown population groups.

As far as the universities are concerned the hon member may talk and talk, with the hon member Prof Olivier supporting him, but they will not get in at the back door. That is Government policy. We are coping very well and these institutions are serving a valuable purpose. In cases where there are merit, members of other population groups are allowed to make use of those facilities.

During the time that I have been Minister of Education I have not had any complaints that any person of another population group has not had the opportunity of educating himself because he was not allowed to attend a university or other tertiary institution.

At the same time we are retaining the character of our tertiary institutions.

*The hon member for Beaufort West spoke very eloquently about the role of the rural areas, the church, the schools and so on. In all modesty I want to say to the hon member that I understand precisely what he had in mind. I also grew up in the same kind of environment which he described so well. The hon member for Standerton invited me to pay a visit one of these days to Holmdene, in the Standerton district, where I went to school, to see what it looks like now. I really appreciate that. I am pleased to hear that the hon member’s area, seen as a whole, is not being depopulated as far as scholars are concerned.

The hon member for Scheizer-Reineke may rest assured, we shall continue to deal with the problem in regard to child-care schools. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Virginia indicated to us, in an extremely skilful way, how important culture was, and I thank him for his contribution.

The hon member for Witbank spoke about the farm “Waterval”, which belonged to the late General Hertzog. In principle the hon member convinced us. I want to tell the hon member that a similar request was made a few months ago from Natal. In that particular case the Voortrekkers, as well as a number of businessmen, made it possible for me to make a financial contribution on behalf of the department. With that support the matter was dealt with more rapidly. I shall gladly discuss this matter with the hon member.

I want to thank the hon member for Standerton for his wonderful presentation, and for reminding us once again that this year is a year in which the Afrikaans language is being celebrated. We enjoyed his contribution very much.

†I want to conclude by making a few remarks concerning culture. Up to now I have discussed formal education mostly, but I wish to remind hon members that education is merely the transmission of selected contents of culture. I should like to explain to hon members my view of my department’s task in regard to culture. There is a very close relationship between culture and education. This is the reason why this department has been made responsible for both education and culture. Both are concerned with the promotion of a better quality of life. I should like to refer to the cultural task very briefly.

In terms of the Act, our task is to preserve, develop foster and extend culture, in particular by means of the non-formal extra-school education of adults and youthful persons. To put it briefly, the department is responsible for initiatives which will encourage the enjoyment and growth of culture. I wish to refer to a few points. There is a close relationship between the two. The new educational dispensation now offers an opportunity of co-ordinating the educational programme and cultural advancement meaningfully, especially at the non-formal level. It is the task of the State to support and co-ordinate voluntary cultural activities. There will be no regimentation on the part of the State. The department must not give preferential treatment to the specific culture of a particular group in our White society. There is no such thing as official State culture. The department does not wish to encourage a rigid cultural uniformity. The diversity of cultures in South Africa is not a problem, it is an asset. The various cultures enrich and stimulate each other.

*In conclusion I want to say that a new chapter has now begun in the history of education for Whites in South Africa. We are now going forward to meet the future with greater confidence and clearer guidelines. There is still a great deal of work to be done. The guidelines must now be developed into clearly delineated structures. It is important, however, that our demanding work programme should not obscure our view of the future. Education for Whites presents splendid future possibilities, and by means of education and training we have an opportunity to hand on wonderful facets of a wealth of language and cultural traditions. We have a rich, diversified heritage of literature, art and lifestyles.

Our education and culture must continue to confirm our norms of civilization and expand our heritage. High standards have been attained in our education and cultural lives. This entails an obligation and responsibility to maintain high standards. Maintaining these standards requires perseverance on the part of everyone concerned, such as the education departments, the teachers, cultural organizations and the parent community. If all these persons and bodies involved are united by an endeavour to maintain high standards, then standards and quality would also to a great extent have been co-ordinated. Such a community that strives for the best—which can be realized through mutual goodwill—offers an opportunity for goodwill and co-operation to triumph.

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Rhodes’ Will (Groote Schuur Devolution) Amendment Bill has two objects. Firstly, it empowers the State President to grant permission that the historic residence known as Groote Schuur, which was the official residence of the Prime Ministers of this country for so many years, may now also be used as a museum. This magnificent building with its very valuable contents will in future be open to the public to view and to enjoy.

The Bill which was submitted to the standing committee for consideration contained a provision which allowed the establishment of a zoological garden for farm animals on the old zoo site. This proposal came about as a result of the removal of the lions and monkeys from the cages of the old zoo which, for many years, was maintained by the State. The standing committee submitted an amended Bill which does away with the proposed animal farm and, in its place, proposes the establishment of a park. The development of a park on this valuable piece of land adjacent to the campus of the University of Cape Town will be a great asset to the city and a place where people can come to enjoy the tranquility and beauty of nature. Hon members will notice that the conditions subject to which the approximately 13 ha of land will be utilized as a park, will be determined by the State President. The decision in regard to the body which will have control over the park also vests in the State President.

In closing I wish to thank the standing committee for the efficient and thorough manner in which they have dealt with this Bill. I am happy to say that I am in full agreement with the standing committee’s recommendations which I understand had the unanimous support of all parties. I am sure that this Bill, which is the first amendment to the principal Act of 1910, will find general acceptance.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure on behalf of the Official Opposition to support this Bill. This Bill is really unique insofar as parliamentary work is concerned, because it is not often that a will made by a person has to be brought to Parliament so that an Act of Parliament can interfere with such a will.

The Bill before us was originally presented to the standing committee that met prior to the commencement of this parliamentary session. That Bill dealt with two aspects of the will of Cecil Rhodes. It dealt firstly with the question of the home, Groote Schuur, occupied by previous Prime Ministers and presently a sort of museum, and recommended that this home should in future be used as a museum.

The second part of the will and the Bill before us deals with the open piece of land under Table Mountain. The suggestion was that a small farm zoo with a restaurant and a kiosk be established there. The committee, considering this, realized, firstly, that it was dealing with a very sensitive area, an area which is subject to environmental impact, an area which should be preserved as an open space and an area which should be dealt with very carefully. Consequently the committee decided, correctly, to call for memoranda from many interested parties such as the City Council of Cape Town, the Cape Provincial Council and various residents’ associations. A notice was also published in the Gazette calling on all interested persons to submit their objections and memoranda. Many memoranda were received, and oral evidence was taken pursuant to receiving them. The committee also carried out an inspection in loco to see precisely what it was all about.

I turn to the will itself. The original will was altered by an Act of Parliament as far back as 26 December 1910, ie shortly after Union. It is pertinent for me to read clause 13 of the will on which the whole thing is really based. Incidentally, Cecil John Rhodes made the will on 1 July 1899. Some 20 months later, on 26 March 1902, he died. Parliament then dealt with the will on 26 December 1910. Clause 13 of the will, contained in the Preamble to the Act, reads as follows:

• (1) The said property (excepting any furniture …) shall not nor shall any portion thereof at any time be sold, let or otherwise alienated.

It was a provision of the will that it could not be let or alienated in any way. I read further:

• (2) No buildings for suburban residences shall at any time be erected on the said property and any buildings which may be erected thereon shall be used exclusively for public purposes …

Not private purposes:

The next pertinent paragraph is the following:

Whether the reference to a Federal Government is prophetic or not is something only the future will tell.

The Bill was discussed in 1910. It was piloted through Parliament by the then Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Henry Burton. He moved the Second Reading of the Bill and in his speech referred to Cecil John Rhodes in the following terms—I think this is pertinent here (Hansard, 19 December 1910, col 937):

In those days the Committee Stage followed immediately thereafter and in the Committee Stage the following members supported the Bill: Mr J W Jagger of Cape Town Central; Mr John X Merriman, who represented Victoria West; and Dr L S Jameson, who represented Albany, although he is known for other things. Mr Fremantle supported it in the Third Reading debate. The residence De Groote Schuur is a beautiful home, as we all know, and contains many ornaments, plate and objects d’art which Mr Rhodes had collected. I think it is situated in probably one of the most unique positions in the world. Therefore, the committee had to deal with this issue with great sensitivity. It did not wish to alter the terms of the will if it was not necessary, while at the same time it wanted to give expression to what should be done firstly in respect of the museum itself. It is true that the present State President occupied Westbrook, while previous State Presidents like Mr Vorster and Mr Viljoen occupied Groote Schuur estate. To give expression to the will it may well be that some future State President may want to stay at Groote Schuur. It was felt that if that were to come about, we could do two things. We could have the museum, which we say we should have, as is provided for in the Bill, but the word “also”, which has been incorporated in the amendment, means that if a future State President wanted to occupy Groote Schuur, he could do so.

The museum itself is a very beautiful place and in terms of the will must be kept open to the public to visit free of charge. One must appreciate that the type of museum it will be will not attract the odd member of the public who will come there to wander around and look at the odd thing or two that may interest him. The public will have to realize that only groups of people under the supervision of the person in charge of Groote Schuur will be allowed. He has advised us that if one really wants to make a proper tour of the estate, one will have to spend about five hours there. We have therefore provided for it to be done in this way, which might well be the answer and a workable compromise.

The second leg of the Bill deals with the open space. Originally there were the 6.5 hectares which would be used as a farm zoo. Initially the City Council of Cape Town was not interested in running a zoo there and the divisional council offered to do so instead. It appears from documents submitted to and evidence given before the committee that the divisional council is very well equipped to run a zoo. It also appears that the people of Cape Town should have a zoo and that youngsters who grow up in a city environment who do not see a cow being milked or chickens running about should have a farm zoo like many great zoos today have. It was therefore decided that a zoo for that very purpose should be provided in Cape Town, but that that particular spot was not the place for it. The areas was studied by the Hey Commission in 1978, and it reported as follows:

It is felt generally that those buildings should not be there and that the area should be cleaned up. One should rather pacify the area than actify it. Having discussed the matter with various organizations and having taken into consideration the principles I have mentioned, one also has to consider the piece of ground occupied by the University of Cape Town which was also part of the land Rhodes left to the public. The university has not only grown in stature so that it is today a world-renowned place of learning but is also finding it difficult to accommodate its various activities, not least of which is parking for the motorcars of lecturers, staff and students. One only has to see the traffic jam in the mornings and in the late afternoon to realize that this is a big problem. A new parking area for the exclusive use of the university is not a practical idea, with the result that the university and the City Council of Cape Town got together and came forward with a compromise scheme which was acceptable, namely that that specific site should be preserved as an open area while at the same time parking for about 400 motorcars would be made available.

Here again I must emphasize as to the question of parking that, although I suppose that the parking area will be used mainly by students during the week, priority must be given to the public. Members of the public who want to visit that area must have access and be treated preferentially in order to do so.

I think we have scored in that the City Council of Cape Town and the University of Cape Town will foot the bill to see that ample parking for the 400 motorcars is provided and adequate administrative control is exercized over the area.

There is the question of the new road which gives access to the university. Although we gave consideration to this matter, it was not really necessary to make provision therefore in the Bill because the provincial ordinance enables the road to go through. That road will assist the university in gaining access and it will relieve the tremendous congestion the university is experiencing.

The options are rather favourable. As far as the open space is concerned, the buildings which are there at the moment will be demolished. We shall not end up with only the 6,5 ha but indeed with 13 ha so that we shall have a large area of land which will be reserved as an open space. Control will be vested in the council.

The new Bill is the result of negotiation, inspection and unanimity reached among all the parties in all three Houses of Parliament. We came to the final conclusion that the amended Bill which is now before the House would simply provide that the 13 ha would not be let so that there would be no infringement of the terms of the will, but would be placed at the disposal of “any person”. I think it is fair to say that that “any person” will be the City Council of Cape Town. Perhaps we should have stipulated that in the legislation, but I am quite happy that the arrangement is that the city council together with the university will keep that as an open area. The university will provide an arboretum so that the open space will be retained. This will meet with the terms of the will.

Although it may not have been necessary to provide for these circumstances in terms of an Act of Parliament, I nevertheless consider it necessary that this course should have been followed in order to have the arrangements on record.

In an attempt to deal with the whole area as such, I can do no better than to quote from the Hey Report an extract from the address by Gen J C Smuts at the unveiling of the Mountain Club War Memorial in 1923:

Mr Speaker, as chairman of the standing committee I am deeply grateful not only to the hon members of the Official Opposition but also to hon members of all political parties in this House and indeed the other two Houses as well for their co-operation and the unanimity which we reached on the Bill.

The Bill deals with the legacy of one of the giants in the multi-faceted history of South Africa. This is the will of a strange and very complex man, a man with many contradictions in his public and private life. Cecil Rhodes was a millionaire who maintained an extremely frugal personal lifestyle. He was a British imperialist, yet one with a deep and abiding love for South Africa. He was a man whose vision for the future few would probably share today but whose legacy we can all honour.

This Bill became necessary because the circumstances surrounding the legacy had changed since the will was originally drafted. Firstly, there is no longer a Prime Minister in our country, and secondly, as the hon member for Hillbrow has rightly pointed out, it has clearly become impractical to have a zoo adjacent to a growing university.

Although changes were necessary it was clear from the outset that it would be advisable not to violate the spirit of the original bequest. It was also clear from the beginning that the Bill had a potential for great controversy, not only in the standing committee but also among public bodies and among the public at large. There was also quite some degree of disagreement in relation to the ultimate use not so much of the Groote Schuur residence but of the land in question.

The standing committee tried to give everybody the fullest opportunity of airing their views. We invited memoranda and received no fewer than eleven of them. We heard the evidence of three public bodies, viz the Cape Town City Council, the Divisional Council of the Cape and also the University of Cape Town. The committee also visited the Groote Schuur estate and paid a visit in loco to the proposed animal farm.

Finally, after quite a number of sittings, the committee produced an amending Bill amounting basically to a totally new measure, which enabled it to reach complete consensus among all the political parties, among all interested organizations, and also indeed among all Government agencies. I am not going to recapitulate everything the hon member for Hillbrow has so ably pointed out. He has dealt quite adequately, I believe, with the content of the new Bill. I do believe, however, that on the whole this measure and its passage through the standing committee can serve as an excellent example of this new parliamentary system of ours operating at its best.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion I should like to quote from a book by W T Stead, who was a contemporary of Cecil John Rhodes. In a book entitled The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J Rhodes, which was published in July 1902—some three months after the death of Cecil Rhodes—Mr Stead, a well-known journalist of the time, quotes a local journalist, F E Garrett, who was also a mutual friend of his and of Rhodes, and who wrote as follows in connection with the Groote Schuur estate:

I think this illustrates clearly, Mr Speaker, that the standing committee has indeed succeeded in preserving the spirit of the original bequest.

Mr Speaker, we in the Conservative Party also take pleasure in supporting this Bill. In fact the Bill deals with two aspects. On the one hand, provision is being made for the conversion of the old official residence of South Africa’s Prime Ministers into a museum, and on the other, that part of the estate which was formerly a zoo is now to be opened up in the form of a park. However, one may differ politically from Cecil Rhodes, there is one thing one has to grant him and that is that he also left South Africa a very great heritage. In this regard one need not limit oneself only to the residence and estate of Groote Schuur. The residence and estate of Groote Schuur which were left to South Africa by Rhodes are indeed a treasure which the whole world can envy us. The estate as such has a long and fascinating history. The dwelling as such has a long and fascinating history. The estate was divided up in different parts before Cecil Rhodes began to take an interest in it in 1891. He reconsolidated it and added to it. As we know the house began as a granary. It burned down and was rebuilt. Subsequently it was rebuilt again until Sir Herbert Baker, commissioned by Cecil Rhodes, eventually transformed it into the mansion it is today.

As far as the contents of the house is concerned, not only South African cultural treasures are collected there, because it was Rhodes’ habit to appoint buyers throughout the world to collect art treasures for him. Therefore there is a collection of art treasures in that house from East and West, apart from the treasures from South Africa and the rest of Africa.

However, I think that there is something in that house which is very seldom mentioned. It is the translations of the works of all the Latin authors, in manuscript form and bound in leather, which have never been published. This is truly a treasure from classical times that few people know about, and it is unique of its kind in the world.

As we all know—indeed, I think it ought to be placed on record today—Mrs Tini Vorster, when she and her spouse were living in that house, had an index made—she herself worked on it—of the contents of Groote Schuur. Indeed, Groote Schuur is more suited to be a museum than a premier’s residence. Herbert Baker himself said the following about this house, and I quote from the Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa:

With this certificate coming from Baker himself I do not think we need feel guilty at giving our permission today for the former residence of the Premier to become a museum. As the hon member for Hillbrow rightly said, if there is perhaps another Prime Minister in South Africa one day he may elect to go and live in that house, and this would not be impossible.

As far as the park is concerned, I have mixed feelings about it. Personally I feel that we must very jealously guard the open parts within our great urban areas. I also feel that where possible we must attempt rather to preserve what is natural, to allow it to develop back to what it was, than to have it developed into something else. We therefore accept the standpoint of the Committee in this regard. Nevertheless I am disturbed and worried—and I think that this is an occasion to say this—that whereas preservation is taking place in the Cape, the Fountains in Pretoria, for example, are being fragmented and destroyed by the City Council of the capital. The pieces of the Fountains that remain remind one of summer biltong. One cuts summer biltong fine so that it can dry quickly, before it goes off. Whatever arguments they advance about the Fountains of the other capital, Pretoria, they will never be restored. The natural vegetation there has been destroyed, and whatever is done, Pretoria does not have a green area as Cape Town has in the form of Groote Schuur. Pretoria had it, but it has been totally destroyed. The damage done there can never be repaired. I think it would be as well if, since it does indeed concern itself to a considerable extent with local Government matters, the State should help to guard against the summary use for any purpose of natural forest and other areas within the densely populated parts of our country.

Mr Speaker, we are grateful to hear from the hon member for Soutpansberg that his party, too, supports the legislation.

Allow me at this stage to thank the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Umlazi, for the way in which he dealt with the legislation which, at the outset, appeared to be very delicate legislation. At the first two meetings of the standing committee the PFP intimated that they were unhappy with the amendment of this legislation particularly as regards the Groote Schuur manor house. However, when we had obtained evidence and paid a visit to the estate and to Groote Schuur, the whole committee was able to agree to accept this legislation and the PFP went along with the amendment. For that we must sincerely thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership and the insight he displayed.

Rhodes’ testament is dated 1 July 1899, and Rhodes died in 1902. In this testament Rhodes left an area of considerable natural beauty to posterity and the Prime Ministers. The house’s surroundings, and the area where the estate is situated, is probably one of the most beautiful in the Cape and in the world. It is provided that the residence known as Groote Schuur will be used as a residence by Prime Ministers. Circumstances have led to the house being unoccupied at present, and it was necessary to make other arrangements in this regard. The Groote Schuur residence has a long history. It contains valuable works of art and heirlooms, fine furniture, silver and tapestries that will become the property of the nation. It is as well that the people be afforded the opportunity to view these riches, and for that reason we in the standing committee were of the opinion that people should be able to visit Groote Schuur on the basis of organized tours.

We granted the road to the university because we saw that the university really had a problem as regards access and parking. We had no problems in that regard.

We are convinced that the amendments in this Bill are in accordance with the wishes expressed in Rhodes’ testament. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill

Mr Speaker, in the northern hemisphere they talk of the Colossus of Rhodes and in the southern hemisphere I think it is right to talk of Rhodes the colossus. To me it is interesting that we find ourselves today dealing with a measure that was one of the first to be brought before a standing committee in our new system. It is in fact Bill No 4 of 1985, which seeks to amend a measure that was before this House when this country became a Union in 1910. So one might call it a double first.

It is ironical because Rhodes the man was either loved or hated but whatever he was he will never go away. Rhodes will always be part of South Africa. It is also quite ironical that the man did so many things for which his name is reviled. Yet he still has the respect of so many in South Africa—I think a great majority of South Africans respect him—because inside of him, although he was doing something in the interests of one country and that was Britain and one Queen and that was Victoria, under it all he had a feel for South Africa he had a feel for this country of ours and he left something for us.

When this measure came before the standing committee, we could at first not agree that it contained the sort of thing we wanted to talk about if we were to comply with what we believed Rhodes had in mind, because it is very difficult to translate the thoughts of a man long since gone into today’s language and thinking. However, I think it speaks wonders for the system that we were able to call for evidence. We heard from various people and we ultimately achieved more than I think any one of us ever bargained for. We have Groote Schuur and I think it is quite right that Groote Schuur and what is done with Groote Schuur should always be vested in the head of State. I think Rhodes’ intention always was that whatever happened in the future, Groote Schuur and its usage should irrevocably be vested in the head of State, and that is only correct.

We started off with six and a half hectares which people in their wisdom thought would be suitable for an animal farm. However, because we applied the 1985 dispensation in which we follow the new standing committee formula we were able to arrive at a happy solution in that we finished up with 13 hectares of parkland, thanks to the evidence given by the University of Cape Town, the City of Cape Town, the Divisional Council and other bodies. This parkland will be enjoyed not only by the citizens of Cape Town but, I believe, by all citizens of South Africa.

I think it would have been a mistake to have established an animal farm there; not in the sense that it could have been something which families and young people who are confined to city life could perhaps have enjoyed and benefited from, but a mistake in the sense that in my opinion it could possibly have been cruelty to “domestic” animals on the slopes of Table Mountain where it is particularly damp. I know the hon the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong but I certainly know that in the case of horses one would have had the problem of hoof-rot in no time at all. Therefore, I think we have done the right thing. I do not believe it would have been correct to have tried to establish an animal farm in that area. However, I do not think for one minute that the idea was that it should be a zoo in the true sense of the word since it would have housed only domestic animals.

We have changed the original measure quite dramatically. It is now a measure which satisfies everybody who sat on the standing committee. It merely remains for me to say that I personally am indebted to the chairman for his leadership in this regard, as well as to all concerned for the experience of having dealt with what may seem a very small measure before this House but what is truly a part of our history. I sincerely hope and trust that Groote Schuur and this area which is going to be developed into parkland will be something that everybody in South Africa will be able to enjoy from now until eternity.

Mr Chairman, the legislation before us this afternoon is probably one of the shortest pieces we shall deal with during the session this year, but I do not believe it to be less important than any of the other Bills which the House of Assembly will deal with. What strikes me in this amending Bill, is the fact that we are going to insert a piece of Dutch in the original text into the Afrikaans text. I find it quite fitting in this week in which we have celebrated the history of Afrikaans in the House of Assembly. On the one hand we welcome it as a bond with the roots of the Afrikaner and on the other hand we are also grateful that there is a reference in the will of a man like Cecil Rhodes who, as pointed out by the other hon members, made his mark in the history of Southern Africa.

Groot Schuur is something of a national heritage; we think it is beautiful and in my opinion it is something we should preserve in this manner. I think we are all grateful that a forefather of this country had so much insight as to leave what he had had recorded in his will, in the hands of Parliament for any changes.

This is an indication to me that he was satisfied that posterity would preserve this legacy very well and would take care of it and that he was then satisfied to have it recorded in his will in this way and to leave it to later generations to deal with as they thought fit.

I support the Bill. I also agree with the hon member for Soutpansberg who referred to it. I merely think we must be very careful and vigilant about how this property is to be utilized. I support the Bill because I hope that we shall not make this site a commercial proposition.

It would be a pity if a lot of motor coaches were to stand there every hour of every day and if tourists were to come there only to buy teaspoons and other souvenirs. It is too beautiful a legacy to allow it to degenerate into something of this nature. One would also not like to see it degenerating into a large picnic area.

I think hon members have mentioned it, and I want to repeat that it will be a good thing if it is a park so that it adds something to Cape Town, this birthplace of the South African nation. I think it will be an additional embellishment of Cape Town and that is why we should take care that the parking area is not too large. It will be detrimental if too many people are in that park at a time, for that would also cause damage.

We on this side of the House hereby support the Bill. We could come to an agreement that we have to get away from the idea of a zoo or a farm zoo and that it should rather be a park.

If we look at the building, we are also grateful that we shall be able to develop this legacy so that posterity will be able to see it and will be able to know that that old homestead has seen much discussion and planning for the history of this country. That is why I find it a fine idea to preserve it in this way.

One would like to compare it with George Washington’s farm on the Potomac River in the USA. It is a beautiful little place which the American people preserve in a similar manner.

Hon members referred to Cecil Rhodes’ personality. I also think he can be classified as one of the great leaders produced by Africa. One of the hon members referred to him as a “colossus in Africa” and this he truly was. After Rhodes’ death many other colossi moved around on that estate and dreamt dreams for this country. We are pleased and grateful, therefore, that we shall preserve the Groote Schuur estate in this manner.

From my side, we should like to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, when one comes to deal with the will of Cecil John Rhodes I think it would be unbecoming of this House if it did not devote just a little attention to the contribution that this particular man made to South Africa. We should also remember that in the chamber where we now dine with our guests Cecil Rhodes sat as the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony for about nine years. I think it is necessary at this stage that we should just look back and see what this man did and how it happened that two great men clashed with each other in order to bring South Africa to what it is today: Kruger of the Transvaal on the one hand; Rhodes of the Cape Colony on the other. I feel like Mark Anthony, and I should like to quote from his speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar when he says:

That is the problem that we have in South Africa—that the evil of Cecil John Rhodes seems to survive longer than the good which has been interred with his bones. I think now that a hundred years have passed since this man was born, it is time to reconsider what effect he had. It is also important that the museum which will be established in this particular house of his which be built for the Prime Ministers of South Africa, and for future State Presidents if they wish to live there, will bear testimony to what he did.

Who was this young fellow and what did he do? He was born in 1853, the son of a minister of religion, in a small village in Great Britain. At the age of 14 or 15 he came out to South Africa because of ill-health to work on a cotton farm in Natal with his brother. The farm proved to be a failure. However, just at the time when Cecil John Rhodes arrived in South Africa, diamonds were discovered at Kimberley. It is amazing that diamonds were discovered simultaneously with his arrival. That was what changed the whole face of South Africa. About a year or two later after the failure of the farm, both brothers decided to go to Kimberley. There they acquired one claim which they started to work. It is from then on that we see the growth of this remarkable man because then his health started to improve. For the next seven or eight years, out of the profits that he made on that diamond mine, he went back to Oxford University to study, first of all to matriculate, and then to take his BA and then his Master’s degree. He went to Oxford for six months of the year for the sole purpose of studying during the summer, and then, to avoid the ravages of the British winter, he came back to South Africa to dig on the diggings. During that time he read his Latin and his Greek. What a remarkable man! During the time that he was a digger on the diamond diggings, he decided that he had to study at one of the greatest universities in the world.

It was at this university that something happened that changed his whole attitude. It is important to remember that at that particular time it was in vogue in England to be an imperialist. That was the time of the rise of British imperialism. That was the time when young men went out to all corners of the world to try to develop British imperialism.

It was at Oxford University that Rhodes attended a lecture given by Ruskin, and it was this that inspired him to become the imperialist that he turned out to be. Rhodes said, as reported:

It was in that spirit that Ruskin spoke at length. It made a tremendous impression upon the young men of Oxford and so the whole spirit of imperialism grew.

When Rhodes returned to South Africa, he was impelled by this desire also to be a builder of the empire. He proceeded to realize a number of very important facts. One was that, if one had great dreams, it was quite senseless only to dream if one did not have the means wherewith to fulfil one’s dreams. That is what impelled Rhodes to become possibly one of the greatest businessmen that South Africa has ever seen. It is a business history that should be written about this particular man because he then proceeded to buy up claims on the Kimberley mines until, eventually, he bought up the whole of the De Beers property.

He had one problem afterwards, and that was that, although he had Alfred Beit by his side, he had to compete with Barney Barnato and Wolff Joel in order to get total control of all the Kimberley mines. By dint of very sound business principles he managed to get those two mines together when he was about 28 years of age. The reason was that at that particular time there was a glut of diamonds on the world market, the price was dropping and he realized that the only way to maintain the strength of the diamond industry was to get a monopoly of diamonds. We today benefit in this country from what he did so many years ago, because we control some 70% of the world’s diamond market and De Beers still exists today. The cheque which he wrote out to pay for those mines he bought, is the cheque of the greatest value of all cheques ever written. No matter what cheques have been written since, if one realizes the value of the pound at that particular time, no cheque of greater value has ever been written. [Interjections.]

One million pounds.

No, it was some 4,5 million pounds, which was a gigantic sum. By doing this, he was able to turn the Cape Colony into quite a rich place. However, he had one problem and that was that, in order to expand the empire, he had to go north and there he came into conflict with Paul Kruger.

Hear, hear!

He made one error and that is that he endeavoured to impose upon Kruger something which Kruger and the Afrikaner people were not prepared to divest. At all other places, except among the French in Canada and the Afrikaners in South Africa, British imperialism was able to impose its will and its approach on all the local people. However, Kruger and the Afrikaners were not prepared to give up their heritage at any cost. They had left the Cape as Voortrekkers many years before for the sole purpose of maintaining their heritage and were not prepared to give it up. This was the reason for the clash that took place between Rhodes and Kruger. It is strange that both these men really had the same objective in mind. It is true that Kruger wanted to maintain a pastoral republic in the Transvaal, but the discovery of gold led to the introduction of a large number of foreigners. He wanted to maintain control over the country by not giving the “uitlanders” any rights. Kruger, on the other hand, and Rhodes at the same time, wanted to extend their territories. There is for example the case of Stellaland and Goshen where Kruger sent people to occupy land and came into conflict with Rhodes. Strangely enough, they met for the first time at Fourteen Streams, and from that time on they were never amicably disposed towards each other.

Mr Speaker, while the hon member was speaking just now, I thought it was Jan Barnard. In the light of the argument he is advancing, and in which he is exposing Rhodes’ train of thought and ideology as against that of Kruger, whose concrete principle was in direct contradiction with it, I want to ask him if he would not go into the matter a little more deeply and tell us which ideology he thinks was the correct one? [Interjections.]

Sir, there are many other points that one could raise about Rhodes, but let us all admit in this House that here was a man who became Prime Minister of the Cape Colony at the age of 35. He died at the age of 47, and he had covered a tremendous amount of ground in this country. To do what he did in 47 years would take many other people many lifetimes to accomplish. I trust that when this museum is established—in the light of our having a united South Africa now where there are no longer people called the British and the Dutch, but where there are English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and where peace has been made between the two groups of people—this man Cecil John Rhodes despite his weaknesses, will receive a place of great honour, which his many great deeds show he justly deserves.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon members who contributed to this debate. They covered almost as much ground in their speeches as Rhodes covered in South Africa. Hon members became very enthusiastic about this Bill and I think this indicates that this Bill has a special meaning.

*Points from the past were raised here. Some of these are still applicable today and will also apply in future. If we find ourselves on the Groote Schuur estate, and look at the location, we find museum pieces of the past there, but we also find ourselves looking in the direction of the rising sun—we are looking at what the future will hold for South Africa as a whole. I think that is a vision of the future which Rhodes as a person also had, and for that we are grateful to him.

If we look at this clause before us, we see that it is formulated in Dutch which is an inherent part of the past. We also see in that, however, an intention which is aimed at the future of South Africa. That is why we look back at the actions of the representatives of this House and of the other two Houses of Parliament on the Standing Committee. We observe that there were contentious clauses before the committee but that in this new dispensation which we have entered upon, we achieved co-operation—particularly with the help of the Standing Committee but also of all the hon members who served on that committee. This means, too, that the way in which we can deal with these matters—the way in which the Chairman of the Standing Committee and hon members of this House, but also hon members of the other Houses of this Parliament are acting—can amalgamate us into a unit, to the benefit of South Africa as a whole. That is why I think that the way in which we are accepting this one clause of this piece of legislation before us—which contains an aspect of the past, which we are dealing with in the present—can augur only well for us as a nation, people and country. Therefore we express thanks to Rhodes, who is still increasing in stature, for what he did. He is in fact bringing the people closer to nature with the park which is going to be established there. He made it possible for history to be preserved, so that people may learn from it. A man only becomes great if he has the vision to see into the future and preserve his vision for today.

Another aspect I want to mention here is that Rhodes was not a man who applied his own wealth which he had acquired for himself for personal gain only. What he acquired from the country, he returned, in part, to the inhabitants of that country for the future.

We want to thank everyone who was involved in the drafting of this Bill in its present form. The museum is being left in the hands of the State President to preserve and to decide upon in future. The park is going to be utilized so that people who in an urban environment are moving further away from nature, may return to nature and find themselves again. In this way they are strengthened for the performance of their daily tasks.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Certified fair copy of Bill to be transmitted to the State President for his assent unless the House decides within three sitting days after the disposal thereof in all three Houses to refer the Bill to a committee.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.