Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) That the provisions of Standing Order No. 23 (Automatic Adjournment) shall be suspended on Friday, 2nd October;
2. (2) that notwithstanding the provisions of the resolution adopted on 17th August and of Standing Order No. 22, Saturday, 3rd October, shall be a sitting day;
3. (3) that the House shall meet at 10 a.m. on that day, business being suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.; and
4. (4) that the provisions of Standing Order No. 49 (Stages of Bills) shall be suspended with effect from Friday, 2nd October, for the remainder of the session.

The purpose of this motion is quite obvious. With the promised co-operation of the Opposition we shall try to complete the business of Parliament on Saturday, 3rd October. Parliament will then adjourn until next year, and the date on which it will meet next year will in due course be announced by the Prime Minister.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose that it will come as any great surprise to the House to know that I intend to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. I opposed the Second Reading and I gave my reason for doing so, and that is that I object to clause 15 which I consider to be a very objectionable clause indeed. There have been no changes, of course, in the Committee Stage and one did not expect that there would be any changes. The Third Reading is now upon us and I intend to be consistent and to follow the same line that I adopted at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage. I intend to oppose the Third Reading. In so doing, I am also being consistent in following the line that I have taken on previous occasions when General Laws Amendment Bills have come before the House and have contained a variety of clauses. Where a clause has been inserted in such a Bill which I have considered to be thoroughly objectionable I have opposed those Bills. I will give you one example, Sir, and that is the General Laws Amendment Bill over various years containing the Sobukwe clause. I opposed the Bill in toto because of the insertion of that clause, and there have been other examples as well. I intend now to follow exactly the same line.

Sir, various arguments have been advanced in the course of this debate as to why clause 15 is in fact not objectionable. I must state again that my main objection to it is that I consider that it abrogates one of the essential elements of the right of assembly and that is the right of citizens to hold peaceful processions. It may well be said that peaceful processions will be allowed. Unfortunately, Sir, it is not possible to judge beforehand exactly what is going to happen when a procession takes place, but there is no doubt that from now on it is going to be much easier for the authorities to prohibit processions. All the arguments that have been used about this clause by the Opposition, the bringing to bear of judicial authority and the judicial mind on the subject and the possible danger to law and order, can be used as far as the holding of any meeting is concerned or any other form of protest. I say that it may not be very long indeed before the very same arguments which were used in this debate about the holding of processions may possibly be extended to the holding of protest meetings. Hon. members should ponder on this. The same arguments will be advanced by Government speakers as to why the measure is necessary and they will be trapped by the very arguments which they have used in this particular instance where only the right of holding a procession is affected. Once one starts on this slippery slope, whittling away what are normal civil rights, it is very hard indeed to put a stop to the process.

I want to deal briefly with the arguments put up by the Opposition that clause 15 constitutes an improvement on the present position. The first argument is that the judicial mind, that of the magistrate, is now to be brought to bear on the question of the holding or not holding of a procession. I want to say at once that first of all the fact that the magistrate does not, by law, have to take into account the views expressed by different organizations, is one factor that has been overlooked or ignored by Opposition speakers. They have assumed that the magistrate will take into account all the arguments for and against the holding of a procession and they have accepted all the Minister’s assurances in this regard as well. But I have had enough experience of legislation in this House to know that unless the law actually contains provisions to make it necessary, for such matters to be taken into account, the assurances come to mean nothing at all.

I would like to ask the Official Opposition why, if it is so important to have the judicial mind brought to bear on the subject when the city council or the local authority has said yes to a procession, is it not also important to have a judicial authority bring its mind to bear on the subject when the city council has said no to a procession? If it is so important to have the matter weighed up by this judicial mind, then surely the Official Opposition should have moved some amendment in the Committee Stage to make it necessary, where the city council has forbidden a procession to take place, to refer that also to a magistrate. But no, once a negative answer has been given, that is the end of it and the judicial authority is not necessary. But if the city council is not to be trusted to say yes, why should it be trusted to say no? Why can we then not also demand, if the Opposition considers it so necessary, that the judicial authority shall also bring its mind to bear on the case where the city council has refused the authority? On the basis of their own argument, they surely should have taken advantage of the opportunity in the Committee Stage to move such an amendment.

Now I have been accused of treating magistrates with disrespect. I think that was the sort of implication in what was said by hon. members on this side and, I Chink, the hon. the Minister.

The chief magistrate.

Yes, the chief magistrate. By the way, one of the arguments about the chief magistrate is that he would consult the Police and that he was always in the position to cross-examine policemen. So he would be in a very good position to know if what the Police said was correct or otherwise. It is very unlikely that the chief magistrate is going to consult the sort of policeman who appears in the witness-box. He would consult the Commissioner of Police, and I think it is unlikely that he would disregard any advice given to him by the Commissioner of Police.

But let us get back to the chief magistrate. I have no disrespect for magistrates, but I do not think they are infallible. I Chink it is ridiculous to bring this sudden sort of sacrosanct element into the consideration of the magistrate’s judicial authority. They are not infallible by any means and I would rather leave it to the judgment of elected bodies than to the judgment of a single magistrate. I might say that magistrates’ decisions everywhere are subject to review. They are not considered infallible even in ordinary terms by law.

Are the city councils infallible?

Of course they are not, but they are elected people and they are responsible to all the other citizens. That is the whole thing; that is the basis of democracy. That is why I place more weight on the judgment of an elected body which is responsible to the community which put them there. [Interjections.] This is how democracy functions, and if we had true democracy in this country they would not be sitting there, as the hon. member knows, but never mind about that now. The point is that magistrates are not infallible and in terms of our ordinary law, cases where magistrates have imposed sentences of, I think, three months’ imprisonment or corporal punishment are all subject to review and I think certain sentences which involve fines over a certain amount are also subject to review. So one cannot just accept a magistrate’s opinion as being infallible. But, as I say, if one does, as the Opposition appears to do, think that magistrates have an infallible judicial mind, then they should have moved an amendment that where the city council has refused permission in the first instance, that also will be subject to review by the judicial authority.

I hope the hon. member for Durban (North) has accepted that the argument he used at an earlier stage, that the penalties are less, was wrong, and I hope he has realized that he has made a mistake. He has made a serious mistake in this regard. The penalties are not less, as the hon. the Minister agreed with me yesterday. In the first instance, persons who in fact infringe the law by holding a procession which has been banned in terms of clause 15 are subject only to municipal by-laws, but thereafter they may very well be subject to all the very stringent provisions of section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, an Act which provides for a maximum of three years’ imprisonment if found guilty, a whipping of ten strokes and a fine, or any one of these three penalties or all three. These are very severe penalties indeed.

I should remind hon. members that that Act of 1953 was introduced for the precise purpose of stopping any defiance against the law, and defiance was considered any organized form of protest. Therefore the penalties are as stringent as they were before. It is true that the Riotous Assemblies Act is now excluded, but the very stringent provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, section 1. still apply if anybody is found guilty of breaking any law as far as protest against any existing law is concerned. That includes holding a procession or taking part in any protest against an existing law. The hon. the Minister explained to me that he was unable to be present here to-day. but he agreed yesterday that I was perfectly right in my interpretation of that clause.

Now I come to the Minister’s extraordinary admission yesterday and the day before that the chief magistrate of Johannesburg had cancelled the Johannesburg procession of Witwatersrand students in May earlier this year because certain bodies had come to him and told him—he says under oath, although I honestly do not see the relevance of this; if they are warning him, they are warning him, and presumably they do not do this capriciously—and warned him that there was going to be trouble if the procession took place. Because of that, the magistrate, acting on his own initiative but supported eventually by the hon. the Minister, cancelled the procession. Now, what should the magistrate’s reaction to those people have been? Let us look at the circumstances which can be repeated in terms of clause 15. The circumstances are that a procession was allowed. The City Council, having weighed up the possible consequences and having consulted the police, decided that it was all right to grant permission for the procession to be held. At the last moment the magistrate cancelled the permission in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act and he did so because various bodies came to him and said there would be trouble. What should the magistrate of Johannesburg have said to these people? We do not know who they were, of course. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister who is acting to-day has been given this information, but I would be very interested to know who these organizations were. Who were they? The Herstigtes, the Nationalist Party or students at the R.A.U.? ([Interjections.] It has everything to do with it. Do not try to get away from it. It has everything to do with the Bill. Who were they? I want to know who they were. It would be very interesting to know who these people were who threatened to break up a lawful procession. Let us take an imaginery instance where a lawful procession of Government supporters was going to take place, showing their support for certain measures taken by the Government. Various anti-Government organizations went to the Magistrate of Johannesburg and threatened that, if this procession took place, they would break up. Or, alternatively, that we know that there are going to be people who are going to break it up. What do you think would have happened? The Chief Magistrate and the hon. the Minister would have said: “We will put the police on you. We are determined to maintain law and order. You do not have the right to come along, as disorderly elements, to break up a peaceful procession. We will put the dogs on you.” Alternatively, they will have one of these paramilitary manoeuvres which they have been known to carry out against students. That is what would have happened, but since this procession was anti-Government and since the people who came along to warn that there was going to be disorderly behaviour were pro-Government the procession was cancelled. What sort of law and order is that? Is there not a very obvious analogy between this and what happened in England in June, when the cricket tour was called off?

The hon. member is going too far.

But, Sir, there is an analogy here.

The hon. member is going too far.

Hear, hear!

“Hear, hear”, says the Opposition! That is really wonderful and it is from the back bench too! I want to point out that, at the time when that happened the hon. the Prime Minister said that the British Government was giving in to disorderly threats. It was giving way to blackmail, because demonstrators had complained that, if the cricket tour went on, they were going to break it up. Here we have the position where a peaceful procession, for which permission had been obtained, is cancelled because there is the threat by disorderly elements in South Africa. Do not the Prime Minister’s words also apply here, that the Government gave way to blackmail? If I may quote his words on that occasion, he said—

And I hope that junior and senior counsel are listening to this—

Well, it is unbelievable to me that the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg and the Minister representing the Government should also have submitted to blackmail; in other words, that the procession was going to be broken up by demonstrators. That is my case. I think that, once you start on this line, there is no end to it. Anybody can protest about a meeting, or about a procession, or whatever it is, and the magistrate can take the necessary action in terms of Clause 15.

Let me come to this final point, to which I may say members on both sides of the House always resort when they cannot reply to an argument. They resort to this one favourite point, when there is nothing left for them to say in reply to an argument: “You are not in favour of law and order!” “You do not want this Bill, so you do not want law and order!” That is of course nonsense. I am not even going to be bothered to examine this ridiculous proposition in any detail at all. It is just nonsense from beginning to end. No thinking person any longer takes any notice of this sort of argument. This was actually proved by the election in Houghton, where every trick of the trade was pulled in this regard. I am not even going to be bothered with it. Let me only say that law and order is very important and it must be maintained in a country, but other things are also important. Those things are the maintenance of normal, democratic, civil rights, such as are maintained in every country in the world that is democratic. As I pointed out before, there is plenty of law and order behind the Iron Curtain, but there is very little liberty. One has to weigh these things in the balance.

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

I may point out that the justification for this measure, as used by the hon. the Minister and by the Official Opposition is that this Bill is to maintain law and order. The accusation was made that I am not in favour of law and order, because I am opposing this Bill. I want to say that law and order are very important indeed, but there are other considerations as well. Those considerations must weigh as well. It is the duty of the State to protect citizens engaged in normal, peaceful processions and activities.

That is nonsense.

It is not the duty of the State …

It is the duty of the State to protect the public.

Certainly, it is their duty to protect them. Does not the hon. member realize that?

Order! Hon. members are only prolonging the debate by making interruptions.

I am sorry that I am prolonging the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I think I am entitled to use my time in trying to express my opposition to this Bill. I want to conclude, since I have now covered all the points that I intended to cover. I have covered all the points I wanted to cover and I would not sit down a minute sooner, I can promise the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say that it is too easy to use this threat about law and order, in order to abrogate those rights. We have had a constant procession of Bills of this kind in this House and always this has been the excuse that was used. I say that no real reason has been advanced. This Bill makes it easier to prohibit peacful processions. The Government does not want the embarrassment of having to countermand permission which had been given by local authorities. In future that permission means nothing, unless the permission of a magistrate is also obtained at the same time. The whole object of this Bill is to save the Government any embarrassment as far as cancellation of processions after the local authority has given permission, is concerned. For all these reasons I intend to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton has dealt at some length with the procession of the students of the Witwatersrand University earlier in the year. Let me say at once that, in as much as she criticizes the handling of that affair by the Government, then certainly she has a point. However, the point that the hon. member for Houghton misses is that this Bill is designed to prevent exactly that sort of thing happening again. This is the object of this Bill. The hon. member for Houghton said that the judicial officer concerned, the Chief Magistrate, does not have to have regard to representations, but, when application is made, certain reasons are submitted with the application. As I have indicated already, the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg has said that he will in fact hear all interested parties. The hon. member is concerned only with Johannesburg. I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that the persons concerned are the most senior of our judicial officers in the service of the country. They, by nature, in making a decision of this sort, will want to hear all sides. They most certainly will want to hear the Police on this subject. They are the ones, who after all are enjoined with the task of maintaining law and order. They will want to hear the local authority, the persons concerned and anyone else who wishes to make a representation in respect of that protest march or that procession.

The hon. member for Houghton asked some questions, one of which was why permission is not given to appeal to the magistrate, if the local authority refuses permission. I think that the answer to that is that these are two quite different fields. What the local authority is concerned with is the question of traffic jams and so forth, in other words the effect that a procession of this sort will have in those fields. In the field of the maintenance of law and order, it is our submission that a senior magistrate, hearing the persons concerned with it, is in a far better position. People who could object and could make representations to the Chief Magistrate, which is something the hon. member for Houghton seems to have forgotten altogether, are the other people whose rights might be affected by a protest march. They also have rights and not only those who wish to be in a procession.

They can have their own processions.

What the hon. member for Houghton has now repeated again, is I think a shameful reflection on our senior judicial officers. That is to say that, once the Police say something, they are going to become stooges and rubber stamps and do exactly what the Policy say. The hon. member nods her head. That is her attitude.

Quite right. They will do as the police say.

That is something most shameful to say. Does the hon. member for Houghton not appreciate that the magistrates are concerned all the time with evidence of the police? Is she not aware that they very often reject police evidence?

Daily.

Daily, as my hon. friend says. Is she not aware that they very often hand down a lecture to members of the Police Force?

To the Commissioner of Police of course!

It makes no difference who it is. This is our case. It is as simple as this. The hon. member for Houghton still will not answer these two questions clearly: Firstly, does she not agree that if a procession may endanger the maintenance of law and order, it ought not to take place? What is her answer to that?

The answer to that is that every procession may endanger law and order.

There is no definite answer.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has another opportunity to address this House.

We give the answer which she cannot give, that is “yes, it ought to be”. In the second place, having answered that, who is the proper person to decide whether or not it may endanger the maintenance of law and order? The answer is, in our submission, a senior judicial officer with not only experience in weighing of evidence and deciding on facts, but with an intimate knowledge of the area in which that procession is likely to take place. Listening to the hon. member, one would think that the end of the world was coming because her supporters now cannot have processions.

Your supporters never go out on processions against the Government.

They must have processions whether or not law and order may be endangered. That is what it comes to. We find, as I have indicated before, that this is a reasonable measure. It is an improvement on the present situation. It will avoid the unpleasant incidents of the past. For those reasons we will support it. Despite that fact the object of the operation of the hon. member for Houghton will nevertheless be achieved. She will still be the headline to-morrow as she was to-day, namely “lone woman opposes the measure”.

A very garrulous woman.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for the privilege of the half hour.

I would like to begin by mentioning the two really encouraging features in this year’s Budget, which of course are the additional sums of money allocated to our universities, in the first place, and the taxation remission proposals both to companies and individuals on donations to universities for specific research projects or for general academic use. May I say that we have been pleading for this type of action to be taken by the Government for the past 10 years and more. It is a great relief that at last something is being done about it. The Government’s aid to universities during this financial year will increase from R32.2 million to R47.3 million, an increase of more than 50 per cent. Nevertheless a total of only R71.7 million is being voted for Higher Education this year. As usual this is a relatively minor item in the Minister’s record Budget for the current year. It is high time that this pattern with regard to education and the allocation of funds was drastically changed. Let me state very clearly here that our future economic development will depend to a very great extent on the quantity and the quality of the education and training that are available to all the people who have to participate in the productive process.

Fortunately, one form of education—I refer specifically to training on the job—can be provided by employers without cost to the taxpayer. At this critical stage of overall neglect of our education and training facilities, a very heavy burden will be placed on the shoulders of commerce and industry during the next few years to fill the gap the Government has largely helped to create.

I want to refer to the Manpower Planning and Research Committee. This committee was established in 1964. It was connected with a number of highly significant research projects and then, according to the hon. the Minister in reply to a question of mine this Session, it was dissolved on the 31st March, 1969. What was the need to dissolve it? Surely this type of committee should remain in office indefinitely? Shall we not need continuous surveys of the manpower and planning position? Let me quote to the House some of the matters the committee considered during its five years of existence. They were of vital importance. They were the following: training of apprentices, financial aid to university students, a report on school leavers, an estimate of the size and occupational composition of the economically active white population in the Republic in 1970, the economic development of the Bantu homelands, a report on the demand fox and supply of town and regional planners for the period 1968 to 1980, a report on the labour potential of a group of retired graduates, an estimate of the demand for engineers, a report on the qualification requirements of high-level manpower in the private sector, a report on the supply of medical practitioners and an estimate of the demand for and supply of manpower in 1971 according to occupational groups in the Republic of South Africa. Asked by me what plans the committee had for the future, the Minister replied that the committee was dissolved at the end of five years and that of course its future falls away. The people represented on that committee represented a very wide field. I just want to remind the House of the people who served on that committee. They were representatives of the Railways, of the C.S.I.R., of Rhodes University, of the National Advisory Council on Education, the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, representatives of the Departments of Labour, Bantu Administration, Bantu Education, Planning, Immigration, Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs, Agricultural Affairs, Planning, Education and Defence, the Public Service Commission, the Bureau of Statistics, the Transvaal Hospitals Department, representatives of the provinces and another representative from the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. It is significant that no representatives of commerce and industry or of the private sector were called to serve on that committee. This is precisely the type of interdepartmental committee which could have been enlarged to incorporate members of the public and which the country has needed for the past 20 years. Yet five years after its establishment, the committee is dissolved. What is the outcome of its deliberations? No one knows how much action arose out of its recommendations. Knowing how this Government has made a habit of shelving one vital plan after another for the development of our educational services, my guess is that the communal wisdom of this committee is probably languishing in some dusty files somewhere in the Department.

Why should their findings be confidential? That is what we would like to know. What kind of nonsense is this? Is the country not entitled to know what is going on in one of the most important spheres of our national life? The general educational picture remains exceedingly bleak. If the truth were told, it would be found that education in South Africa to-day is in a mess in spite of all the surveys that appear to have been made. The inescapable conclusion is that the Government has all the relevant information necessary for the proper correlation of the country’s labour requirements as well as its potential, but that, for reasons of political expediency, it refuses to make this information known.

Oh no.

Oh yes, that is quite correct. The reason for that unquestionably is that if the true facts were known, I suggest, the appalling shortages of trained personnel in both the teaching and other professions, would shock the country and would prove to a frightening extent, the Government’s failure to plan ahead in the educational field ever since it came into office. I am not referring specifically to this hon. Minister. The neglect in this field has now become nothing less than a form of national subversion. In certain parts of the country the hon. the Minister must know the education system is on the verge of collapse. We know that that is so particularly in the Transvaal. The Government’s failure to do anything really positive and dynamic, maintaining the correct degree of emphasis on the right things at the right time, is enough to make one despair. If there is any single social service upon which the whole of the nation’s welfare depends and in respect of which there is an imperative need to plan ahead, it is in the field of education. Everything stems from there, whether it be the labour situation, race relations, political stability or economic development. It applies to everyone at the same time. All we have had in reality since 1948 are a series of short spurts here and there, unco-ordinated and sporadic action. We had a whole series of committees, education councils, inconclusive departmental surveys, a commission or two, a select committee or two and at the end of it all an acute lack of unity and drive in nearly every instance. There was little or no positive action taken in the end. Each committee or commission or departmental investigation has proved to have had either an inconclusive ending or produced an evasive report or remained confidential as is so often the case.

Where reports did contain definite recommendations the administration invariably for one reason or other dragged its heels over their implementation. A lot of internal squabbling has been going on at the same time. We know that. The country is sick and tired of the while ineffectual bag of tricks. We had in 1967 the National Education Act which is held to be the blueprint for future development. The Educational Services Act sets up the necessary machinery for the application of the policy set out in the former statute. And yet if one looks at the present report of the Committee of Educational Heads which was tabled this Session what does one find? Not that they have not worked. But that practically every decision taken is still either pending, under consideration, referred to someone else or merely remains a recommendation. It is not only pathetic. It is something of a disgrace.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the curiously vague conclusions come to by this leading committee. One wonders how much finality there will ever be about any of their long drawn out deliberations. I am quite aware of the fact that their main functions are to submit recommendations and to advise the Minister. But their last term of reference states specifically—

I should like to see where the “action” is. I say so because one subject after another is either deferred, referred back or handed over to somebody else for their recommendations, advice or decision. You can go through the whole list and you will find with one or two exceptions that no action is recommended anywhere. This has been going on for more than 20 years and we are no nearer an adequate deal for teachers. We are no nearer to differentiated school courses. This matter is still on the agenda of the National Education Council. We are no nearer to the subsidizing of university students on a large scale. We are no nearer any scheme for allowances to assist secondary and high school pupils of ability to remain at school than we were when this Government came into power. It is mo wonder that the teachers in the Transvaal and Natal have demanded publicly of the Minister that the national expenditure on education be doubled. The hon. the Minister had a resolution from them to that effect. They also demanded an immediate and dramatic increase in teachers’ salaries and that a professional teachers’ council be established to co-ordinate their standards and requirements and to enable them to negotiate with the department on a proper professional basis. That is what they ought to be able to do. Small wonder that at this stage the teachers are demanding angrily that they should no longer be tied to the Civil Service but that they should be treated on an independent professional basis just like the doctors, architects and everybody else in the professional field.

A letter was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition by the president of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association on 4th August which incorporated this resolution. This letter containing the resolution which was sent to the hon. the Minister ends with the following desperate appeal—

That comes not from amateurs but from people in the profession themselves. Those are the people who are talking about a breakdown in our education system. I would say that the country deserves an answer from the Government and from this Minister. I must say that I have always found him an extremely courteous person to deal with. But until recently the hon. the Minister was holding a diplomatic post overseas. He has returned to the Education Department to find a legacy of muddle, disputes and inefficiency of an unprecedented kind.

Nothing in education can ever be discussed or decided in a vacuum. This is the important point to remember. One aspect impinges upon another. If one point in the cycle is neglected then all else is automatically affected. Nothing can be done without teachers. Teachers cannot be trained unless there are sufficient matriculated students for that purpose. Matriculated students will continue to be in short supply until more of our able children are financially assisted to remain in high school for the full period to which so many of them are entitled. An insufficient number of these high school pupils will go on to achieve higher qualifications, either technical or academic, as long as they are forced, prematurely, out into the labour market after standard 8, because with the constant rise in the cost of living—a rise of 70 per cent since 1948—the parents cannot afford to keep them at school. I suggest that unless their education is subsidized by the State this wastage will continue and our general educational standard will be pegged at an artificially low level. This has been happening for years and years. Unless a percentage of white youngsters move on up the ladder in this way, there will be no place for others who are urgently needed in the skilled and semi-skilled trades.

Apprenticeship training is declining and we are already having to accept lower standards, which is a great pity. When standards decline the economy suffers unless these boys and girls are given the opportunities for promotion which they deserve.

There is another point I would like to make. No sound training can be achieved without a broad-based educational foundation, linked with values that instil initiative, a spirit of service and dedication at work and a sound concept of citizenship together with the responsibilities attendant upon that. A lot of this should be quite simple, but ideologies of one kind or another have predominated and led to endless internal bickering and disputes within the Government itself. It has nothing to do with us. The sound practical values that should unite all of us in this field have largely been lost sight of in the Government’s passion to play the education game always with their, own slight political overtones. We are really so tired of it all. All this is done at the expense of practical considerations.

Universities cannot make an adequate job of training and research without properly paid staff, capital funds for development and unfettered academic freedom. These can only be guaranteed in the last resort with Government backing. We lose our place in the modern world of technology without sufficient scientists to take the lead. A dearth of scientists and technologists means economic retrogression. Economic retrogression again means less money available for education and training. So it is all a vicious circle or a productive circle, depending entirely upon the policies adopted and the action taken. Where policies are confused and action is deferred, the situation becomes stagnant as it has in the Republic today. It is our indictment of this Government that they have failed the country in this most vital field. We are smothered in committees, sub-committees, surveys, projects, recommendations and half-baked proposals, with little hope or sign of the firm co-ordination that is needed if our educational system is to be saved from collapse.

Provincial Council M.E.C.s in some of the provinces to-day refuse to answer awkward questions on educational matters. Every year more and more teachers resign and accept more lucrative positions in the private sector. Fewer and fewer student teachers enrol at our teacher training colleges and universities. What future is there for them in teaching to-day with the salaries paid to them? University lecturers themselves are inadequately paid and those interested in vital research projects, find their only real hope of fulfilment by accepting positions overseas, where expense is no object, relative to the importance of the work that has to be done. Sir, for years a large percentage of our most brilliant people as the hon. the Minister must know well have left the country not out of dislike for or any disloyalty to South Africa but because the necessary research facilities were not available at home.

How do we retrieve that position and all the others? The one certain thing about educational planning is that it is essentially a long-term business. Nothing can be done overnight. And where these years have already been wasted I make so bold as to say that the deleterious effect upon the country as a whole will be felt in South Africa for several generations to come. Taking the higher echelons of employment we are desperately short of teachers, engineers, architects, quantity and land surveyors, builders, chartered secretaries and accountants, librarians, university lecturers, scientists, public relations personnel, marketing and managerial personnel and executives of every description. At this level our own only surplus appears to be a plethora of lawyers and politicians neither of which categories is productive or if I may say so with respect adapt at anything except the manipulation of words which may sometimes be necessary but not always very productive.

Does that include you?

I am not a lawyer. Sir, if you take the lower echelons of employment the situation is just as bad. Just for the record let me tell the hon. the Minister what we would have done in the Government’s place. The first thing we would have done would have been to enlist the aid of commerce and industry in carrying out a nation-wide survey of the country’s labour requirements— in all fields and at all levels—based on projections for a period of 25 years ahead. Such a survey would have incorporated all racial groups. If this information is available to the Department, nobody is told about it; it is all confidential and we want to know why. Sir, from there we would have set up a statutory planning and co-ordinating body consisting of members of the public, experts and officials, to decide first upon the priorities and then the location of training centres—vocational, technical and academic. The provinces would have been heavily subsidized by us to carry out immediate experiments in the introduction of differentiated courses in the secondary schools. School boards would have been given powers to allocate family allowances, under provincial supervision, wherever able pupils required financial help to remain at school up to matriculation standard. We would have encouraged the provinces to introduce a post-matriculation course to mitigate the high first-year failure rate at the universities. Extensive categories of students would have been encouraged by us to apply for State assistance for study purposes at technical colleges, technological institutes and universities, as they are overseas. University lecturers would have been placed in very high pay brackets indeed, so as to attract the most highly qualified personnel possible, and research grants, from our point of view, would have been generous. Donations to institutions of higher education from the private sector, although there might have to be a ceiling, could very well have been tax free, instead of merely earning a remission of tax. Apprenticeship contracts could well have contained exciting bonus incentives on the acquirement of certain standards in different trades. Sheltered employment schemes could have been greatly expanded to absorb and protect those incapable of a high standard of academic or technical achievement. Then, Sir, in-service training by employers would have been encouraged by us by a system of tax remissions for those in the process of working overtime in order to improve their skills while they are on the job.

Part-time classes for early school-leavers as well as for adults—we know that they are held at the moment—would have been provided on a very much wider scale than at present. Others could have been established in active co-operation with employers and their employees, with the allocation of certificates for efficiency and achievement, for promotion purposes in employment, when they had attended classes for a certain period. Teacher-training and conditions of service would have received top priority from us, and the teachers, apart from having their own professional council, would have been divorced from the Public Service with all its inhibiting provisions in a field such as education, where adaptation and change are every bit as vital as security of tenure, particularly in the teaching profession. We would have introduced a scheme specifically designed to attract married women back into the profession, and we would have conducted an extensive and active teacher-exchange system with other Western countries to keep our ideas, systems and syllabuses up to date. Let us keep our minds open with regard to what is going on elsewhere in the world. I know that this exists in a small way but we would have done it on a very much more extensive scale.

I want to end, Sir, by saying that with real imagination, energy and drive, and, above all, with the close co-operation of the private sector of our economy, which is essential, we would have been able to utilize our labour potential, as well as our professional classes, in an exciting and very productive way. As things, are our education system is in a hopeless muddle. I would like to conclude by saying that anyone who has the misforune to take over the control of education from this Government will have a herculean task in attempting to rebuild all that has been allowed to crumble or to lie fallow and undeveloped. Only a new administration with new ideas can hope to clear up the confusion and indecision. which is the hallmark of so much that has been done—or rather left undone—by the present Government.

In her speech the hon. member for Wynberg covered a very wide field in connection with educationsl matters. In the very limited time at my disposal it is, of course difficult for me to reply to all the matters she raised. I agree with certain of the things she said, but there are many other allegations on which I differ strongly from her. Towards the end of her speech she said that education ought to receive the highest priority. As an ex-educationist I agree with that contention of hers. She also referred to other matters here that I hope to react to in the course of my speech.

Sir, it is known that both the Secretary for Higher Education, Mr. M. C. Erasmus, and the Secretary for Cultural Affairs. Dr. J. J. P. Op’t Hof, who was previously Secretary for Education, Arts and Science, are retiring on pension. Both these men have devoted the best years of their lives to education in various capacities. We on this side of the House want to express to the two gentlemen our highest gratitude and appreciation for the solid and fruitful work they did in the course of many years. We should like to give them our blessing, and wish them prosperity and good luck in their well-earned pension years. We hope that they will enjoy good health for many more years.

Sir, on my part I should also like to express my warm thanks to the Departments of Higher Education and Cultural Affairs for the various reports we obtained from them. I want to thank the Department of Higher Education for its annual report that was made available to us in another format—a very attractive one. It is a very interesting report. I should also like to refer to the annual report of the Statutory Committee of Educational Heads. This is also a very informative report, which was already tabled quite a while ago, and which offers very interesting reading matter. We are also grateful for the report of the National Education Council, that proves to us what the council is doing at present. Regardless of the criticism expressed here by the hon member about the general progress of the work being too slow, good progress is being made. Then there is the attractive report of the Department of Cultural Affairs. We should like to express our thanks for the interesting information contained in this extensive report.

Sir, the most striking item in the Budget of 1970-’71 is the sweeping increase in connection with financial assistance to the universities. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to this. For the financial year 1970-’71, an amount of R47,146,000 is being appropriated, an increase of 51.8 per cent on the previous year. I also want to refer to the funds for bursaries and loans that increased by 75.7 per cent in respect of the previous year. I should also like to refer to the subsidies for the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, an increase of 22.1 per cent on the previous year.

The universities took note, with a great deal of thanks and appreciation, of these increased State subsidies. I attended the meeting of the University Council in Pretoria on the 17th of this month, and on that occasion these increased subsidies were gratefully noted. That council, of which I am a member, asked me to thank the Minister here in the House for the increased subsidies. But it is not only one university that is thankful for it. In this connection the decision of the committee of university heads reads as follows (translation)—

The hon. member alluded to this in her speech, and in the censure debate she also said that if the United Party were to have come into power they would have made R80 million available as subsidies. Apart from the fact that it is a hypothetical statement, it is, of course, also nonsense, because how could the universities suddenly absorb such an increase? It is definitely impossible. But in addition to these increased subsidies, which I have already mentioned, I also want to point out that the Provincial Administration also obtained increased subsidies from the Government. I do not want to mention the amounts for all the provinces, but for the Transvaal it is R4.6 million more than the previous year, and the largest amount is being spent by the Provincial Administration on education that is controlled by the Provincial Administration. The Transvaal has budgeted for R85.5 million for white education for 1970-’71. This is an increase of 9.8 per cent as far as education in the Transvaal is concerned, as against the previous year’s amount. This proves to us that the Government takes education seriously.

At this stage I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with a matter I raised in a private motion in 1969. It concerned the Joint Matriculation Board, and on that occasion I advocated a more realistic approach in connection with the requirements for admission to the universities. I just want to ask the Minister whether any progress has been made in connection with that investigation which the previous Minister also mentioned.

There is a shortage of teachers. We cannot argue the fact away, and it is also a matter of concern to the Government and to everyone interested in education. There are various reasons for that, but I do not have time to go into them now. However, I want to mention one important reason that I have already mentioned in this House before and want to emphasize to-day. Our English language compatriots are neglecting their duty in connection with education. The English language schools to-day—and I speak in particular of the Transvaal—that I have some knowledge of, are to a very large extent staffed by Afrikaans-speak-ind teachers. I am not the only one to say so; let me quote what the Administrator of the Transvaal said recently in this connection. He put it this way (translation)—

Is it not strange that even in high schools today one finds that English Higher is being given by Afrikaans-speaking people? I quote further—

I want to make the statement that if the English-speaking people to-day could just provide their share of the matriculants, i.e. 40 per cent, more or less, because we calculate that the English-speaking people constitute approximately 40 per cent of the total white population—the shortage prevailing at Afrikaans and English-speaking schools could, to a large extent, be covered.

I should like to say a few words about the Department of Cultural Affairs, but before coming to that, I want on behalf of the Opposition to express our appreciation to the two retiring Secretaries for the devoted service which they have rendered to South Africa.

The Department of Cultural Affairs has only been in existence for the past three years. Although a change is now being made—and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would inform us about this—I want to say that although we on the Opposition side always warn against a multiplication of departments, the activities of the Department of Cultural Affairs, as they will continue, will always have our sympathy and will always be followed by us with the greatest of interest.

Firstly, I should like to compliment the Secretary and his staff on the excellent report which has been submitted to Parliament this year. It is as comprehensive and thorough as one could expect of any department. I do, however, want to say in passing that it is a pity that these reports are published in this kind of format so that they cannot stand upright on a shelf, with the year and the name on the back. It seems to me the departments forget that Members of Parliament have to deal with masses of reports, which grow in number over the years and that, in dealing with reports such as these which lie flat, one always has a great deal of difficulty in finding one for reference purposes in later years. Perhaps the Department of Education can take the lead in this direction and design a format which can serve as an example to the other departments.

With reference to the report and the Estimates there are a few questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The first is in connection with the Africa Institute, for which there is an amount of R131,000 on the Estimates, an increase of R29,000 as compared with the previous year. Earlier during the session I asked the hon. the Minister a question in connection with the Africa Institute. It dealt with a commission which had been appointed to inquire into the activities of the Institute. The Minister then told me that on 13th May a commission had been appointed to investigate inter alia “the extent to which the Institute carries out its duties in the light of its objects”. There were a few other terms of reference as well. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to submitting the report to Parliament. After all, a Minister ought not to have such a lack of candour towards Parliament, particularly not when the public and Parliament are asked to provide a very large amount to such a body. I also asked another question in connection with the total amount provided to the Africa Institute. The Minister replied that up to that time a total amount of R742,000 had been granted to the Africa Institute. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I myself am a member and a supporter of the Africa Institute. I support its objects. Earlier this year I had occasion to conduct certain correspondence with the Chairman, Dr. F. J. de Villiers. In consequence of that, he was kind enough to invite me to pay them a personal visit and inspect their activities. I am still going to avail myself of that invitation. I have not yet been able to do so. I must say that until such time as I have availed myself of this opportunity, I shall reserve criticism in respect of the Institute. I know that important staff changes have taken place there. There definitely was room for improvement. It has always amazed me that persons such as Dr. Paul Weiss and Dr. At van Wyk were in control of an organization such as the Africa Institute and its publications until fairly recently. I do not mention this because I have anything against those people as far as their integrity is concerned. It must be very clearly understood that this is not my intention. I hope I shall not be misunderstood on this point. I grant them the same right to holding a political opinion that I claim for myself. However, I do not know how it happened that persons who, in their personal political views, advocate a kind of anti-contact policy in respect of non-Whites could have been placed in charge of an organization with the activities of the Africa Institute. This has always been incomprehensible to me. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could clear up that aspect for us. As an increased amount is now being granted to the Institute, I hope that the new director will be someone who will not be embarrassed if he finds himself in the company of a black man.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to inform me whether non-white South Africans can also enjoy the benefits of the Africa Institute. I am thinking in particular of non-white students, as this Institute is in fact the only one of its kind. Can they also enjoy the benefits of membership and of the activities of the Institute?

There are a few other questions and proposals I want to put to the hon. the Minister. One sentence in the report of the Secretary for Cultural Affairs which has given me great pleasure, appears on page 4. There he says that “the effectiveness of music as a medium for stimulating general cultural development cannot be over-estimated”. I want to endorse this 100 per cent. I am speaking from personal experience; and in my own constituency there is the Athlone Boys’ High School, which has a magnificent school orchestra. That orchestra has a very great refining influence on the school. In this connection I should therefore like to suggest that the Department should see whether it cannot do more by way of subsidizing musical instruments for schools. In addition, I want to suggest that the Minister should consider making a national music festival of school orchestras possible annually so that school orchestras can compete with one another. National prizes can then be awarded for the best performances. I do not think it ought to be difficult to enlist the support of private initiative for something like this.

In view of the fact that the National Monuments Act now makes statutory provision for the State paying a subsidy in respect of the purchase, restoration and maintenance of monuments, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a principle which applies in America. The American tax system provides that a donor of a painting, an antique or books is allowed to deduct an agreed amount from his tax. The donor keeps the work of art or the books as long as he lives. After his death it then goes to the relevant public institution such as a library or museum to which it was bequeathed. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this system and determine whether it cannot be introduced in this country. I understand that in America this has been a definite incentive to people to bequeath works of art and antiquarian items to libraries and public institutions.

On the Estimates there is an amount of R75,000 for the “integration” of immigrants. The report refers to 18 projects which were undertaken last year. I would be glad to learn from the Minister how the people who qualify for these projects are selected. I should also like to know what results are being achieved and how successful this undertaking has been in respect of the integration of immigrants.

On page 5 of the report it is stated that the Cabinet approved the purchase by the Government of a number of the best Afrikaans and English literary works by writers “who are South African citizens and who are resident in South Africa” for distribution to foreign visitors. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will pardon me if I do not reply to the questions and proposals he put to the Minister. He made certain positive suggestions. I am sure he will in due course receive replies to those questions from the hon. the Minister. Sir, you will, however, allow me to refer to one or two matters which the hon. member for Wynberg mentioned in her speech. In this connection I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to a letter which the Transvaal Teachers’ Association sent to the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and in which they referred to the state of education, inter alia in the Transvaal. Hon. members opposite do not understand the one cardinal problem. They must also address a very urgent appeal to the English-speaking section in South Africa not to disregard the teaching profession but to do their share in education in South Africa. The hon. member for Koedoespoort rightly said that if only we were to reach the position, corresponding to the language division of approximately 60 per cent to 40 per cent, that 40 per cent of the teachers were to come from the English-speaking section, we would have far less problems in our Afrikaans-medium and English-medium schools. However, those hon. members often blame the wrong group when there is a shortage of teachers. The former hon. member for Kensington, for whom we had great respect, said in passing that there was a shortage of English-speaking teachers, but no urgent appeal was addressed to the English-speaking section in this regard. I think the most urgent appeal which came from the opposite side in this regard, was the one made by the hon. member for Mooi River. Unfortunately I do not have the hon. member’s Hansard reference here. Apart from that we have had no urgent appeal from their side, and we must get assistance from them. I want to point out something interesting now. I have here a cutting which puts forward a reason why English-speaking people do not join the teaching profession. The cutting reads as follows—

I do not want to read everything, but the cutting continues—

I want to say the same thing to those hon. members. They must not paint the education position so black and speak so disapprovingly of it and then expect to get people to join the teaching ranks. They may criticise, but they must also express the necessary thanks now and again. The word “thanks” is sometimes belittled to such an extent by that side that one hesitates to use the word where it is justified.

Let us have more of that. Then we shall perhaps be surprised at what the reaction of the people whose services we need will be in this regard. We can continue in this way. I have here a whole number of cuttings concerning the very matter we are discussing here. Most of them are from English-language newspapers.

I want to refer to the report of the National Education Council. On page 2, paragraph 10.3, of this report, it is stated—

On page 16 of the report of Educational Heads reference is also made to salary adjustments of white teaching staff as well as the adjustment of salaries for promotion posts, etc. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has already been advised on these salary scales and conditions of service? I should like to relate this to the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance, i.e. that an improvement will be effected to the salaries of Public Servants and also to those of teachers. Will these improvements which the hon. the Minister of Finance announced be effected according to the pattern of the advice which he has now received from these two bodies?

Then I also want to add one thought to that. I assume that the commencing salaries of teachers will be made quite attractive. This is also necessary so that we may attract new recruits to the teaching profession. However, I want to make an appeal in this connection. If this is done we should not let those people down who have been rendering loyal service for years, those who cannot break away and seek a position elsewhere. We should give recognition to the services they have been rendering over the years and compensate them for that in their salaries.

While I am speaking of this, I want to say that it has become evident to us over the years, and we are realizing this more and more every day, that education is passing into the hands of women. I believe that this pattern will work out this way in the coming years. No matter what we do to attract more recruits to the teaching profession we shall be getting mainly women in that way. It therefore becomes necessary for us to give ever more attention to the conditions of service of women staff as well as the salaries paid to them. It is an interesting thing that attention has already been given to certain of these matters. In this report of the Educational Heads there is, for example, a resolution as to how the declared breadwinner, in the case of a woman, should be compensated financially and in what way assistance should be given. Specific attention has therefore been given to a matter which affects women. Where we are now heading for the position where education will be passing more and more into the hands of women, the serious question has arisen as to whether we have not reached a stage where the salary position of the women has to be rectified and whether the principle of equal pay for equal work should not be accepted? This is what I want to advocate. I have always been a champion of this. It is not something I want to advocate only today. I was a member of the teaching profession myself, and that time I already found it a strange phenomenon that a woman in a post equal to mine and offering the same subjects, was not receiving compensation equal to mine. We must pay the same salary for equal posts. We should disregard the fact whether a man or a woman is occupying that post. In this way I think we shall attract more women to the teaching profession. I believe that those who are trained and who do not see their way clear to teach will be drawn back in this way. We talk a great deal about the hand which has to rock the baby in the cradle. All this is fine. But the task of the woman has become very difficult and important also in professional life to-day. Her duty has in fact doubled itself. She still has to rock that cradle, but she has to take her place in professional fife as well. We must also justly compensate those people who come to take their place in professional life in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman it was very pleasant to hear from the hon. member who has just sat down that there should be equal pay for equal work. This is something for which this side had been pleading for a long time. The hon. the Minister may rest assured that he has the full support of the Opposition in this connection. There can be no objection to an appeal to people to enter the teaching profession. It is easy enough to make an appeal to English-speaking or to Afrikaans-speaking people to do so but I think the hon. member will be realistic enough to realize that appeals which we make here will not help a great deal.

Why not?

Well it is simple. I now make such an appeal. Let us see what will come of it. In the long run there is only one way which will help and that is to make the working conditions so attractive that people would like to become teachers. There is no other way out.

In any case I should like to complete the questions which I have to put to the hon. the Minister in connection with cultural affairs. I quoted from the report in connection with the purchasing of certain Afrikaans and English literary works. I would be glad to learn from the hon. the Minister why there is this provision that a South African writer who qualifies must necessarily be resident in South Africa. I somehow got the impression that it is to exclude Breyten Breytenbach. But perhaps this is not the case. Then I would also appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would tell us what books came into consideration for this amount of R2,400.

The I find in the report that very serious concern is expressed by the Department about what in terms the “deterioration in language usage in the Public Service”. According to the report it is “disquieting that some officers not only have an inadequate command of their second language but also make mistakes in their first language which one would not expect at their level of education”. I think in this respect everyone can sympathize with the hon. the Minister. Admittedly this is not a problem which can be solved easily. We should nevertheless like to hear what attention the hon. the Minister is giving to it and whether he has any plans to improve the position.

Then there is a very serious observation in the report where reference is made to the Language Services Bureau and the serious shortage which exists in the posts structure. The report goes so far as to state that “failure to meet at least part of the need for technical terminology within a few years may prejudice the prestige of Afrikaans as an official language”. This is a very serious statement to make. If this is the case this is something which certainly deserves priority attention from the Government and the hon. the Minister. I would be glad to hear from him what ideas he has in this connection.

Then on page 21 of the report I find that the South African Library Association has decided to award one scholarship annually to each. of the “friendly African states”. We should like to know which African states were concerned here where the holders of these scholarships have studied and how successful these scholarship awards have been.

Then I am also interested in an observation in connection with a catalogue of banned books. This is something in which we are always interested. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the catalogue compiled by his Department is intended for libraries. Is it available to the public as well? Is it offered for sale?

A further question I want to ask is in connection with cultural relations. We have cultural relations with three countries, i.e. Belgium. the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of West Germany. At present there is a vacancy, i.e. the post of Mr. Badie Badenhorst in Brussels. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us whether the post has already been filled and by whom. But what I really want to ask the hon the Minister is whether the time has not arrived for an extension to be made in this field. My own experience is that the cultural agreements which we have with these three countries are of very great value. This is striking if one considers the attitude of these three countries towards South Africa. One would therefore like to see extensions being made if it is at all possible. I have in mind a country such as Portugal which is becoming more and more important to South Africa and with which we shall have closer and closer relations in future. I have wondered whether we should not consider establishing such relations with a country which is so closely associated with South Africa and is our nearest important neighbour.

Reference is made in the Estimates to bursaries which have been awarded to foreign students in various countries. The relevant amount is R43,500. All that I should like to know from the hon. the Minister in this regard is whether these bursaries which we are awarding to foreign students are of a reciprocal nature. Have we received similar offers from the other countries from which we have received students?

I should like to refer to what I shall call a lamentable remark made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. When he was asked following an appeal made on that side of the House to the effect that also English-speaking people should devote their energies to education the hon. member if I heard him correctly said that they would join the teaching profession if the conditions of service and circumstances of employment would improve.

That applies to all kinds of employment.

I think that even the English-speaking people will hold it against him. The way the hon. member has put it implies that they are only interested in the material aspect and that they do not have any ideals.

The hon. member for Wynberg even referred to the year 1948 and subsequent years and tried to suggest that education has deteriorated under the National Party Government. There are a few matters I want to raise with the hon. member. I am speaking as a former teacher who was actively engaged in the teaching profession prior to 1948. At that time it was the Afrikaans-speaking people who formed the backbone of education. At that time there was a surplus of teachers who were unemployed. That was not attributable to their education system. The reason was that there were no other opportunities for Afrikaans-speaking boys unless they were prepared to do pick and shovel work. They did not make any provision nor did they create education facilities at that time.

If I furnish the hon. member with certain figures she may possibly change her views. She will then probably express her gratitude towards the National Party Government for having created opportunities for the Afrikaans-speaking boys so that they did not remain the poor Whites they were during the ’thirties and the ’forties. In 1948 that is the year to which the hon. member referred there were 446 vocational and secondary schools in South Africa. At present there are approximately 900. This is twice the number of schools we had in 1948 while our white population has not even doubled during that period. The number of high schools in South Africa increased from 106 in 1948 to 430. That is four times as many. The number of children attending vocational schools for example increased from 6,200 to almost 40,000 over a period of 22 years. I wonder what the hon. member has to say about that. We admit that there is a shortage of teachers. To that one should add that the National Party Government has always been aware of its duty towards and responsibilities in respect of education. This will continue to be the case in future.

We appreciate the importance of education. The importance thereof is as clear as pikestaff. We know that the future of the Republic is in the hands of a highly educated and developed people. We also appreciate that the education system of a people reflects the culture, religion, spiritual viability, labour potential and economy of a country. We know and appreciate the fact that there are problems as regards the shortage of teachers. This does not however apply to education only. There is a general manpower shortage. There are bottlenecks in many professions other than education. I believe that the importance of our education should be evaluated correctly and that conditions of service and salaries should be arranged accordingly.

The teachers in South Africa are fulfilling an enormous task under difficult circumstances in the interests of the education of our youth today. This is particularly the case where parents are leaving, to an increasing extent, their educational task to the teachers owing to circumstances, such long working hours. To my mind people have a completely wrong conception as to what the duties of a teacher are. The ordinary person regards a teacher as someone who works only five days per week, that he works six hours per day from the moment the bell goes in the morning until it goes again in the afternoon when the school closes. They are under the impression that a teacher goes on holiday four times a year. Whereas the work pattern is a five day working week, the teacher is one of the few people who has to cope with a six day working week to-day. He is one of the few who has to work more than eight hours per day. This is attributable to the numerous duties he has to fulfill after hours. Over and above that, teachers are responsible for fund raisings and out-door activities as regards sport and cultural affairs.

If only we would realize the magnitude of the tasks of the teacher over and above education, we would adopt a completely different attitude as regards his conditions of service. The hon. member for Germiston has already referred to the teacher and to his. conditions of service. In this connection I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister. In order to retain a good teacher and to draw young men and women who are suitable for the teaching profession, I want to ask him that they be afforded greater encouragement in the form of more rapid promotion opportunities. In addition, I want to say that I do not believe that there are sufficient posts for people to be promoted to in education. I also want to associate myself with the plea put in by the hon. member for Germiston as regards equal pay for female teachers and more specifically for those of them who have made education their lifetask. I also want to say that I honestly believe that a higher maximum salary should be attached to the highest posts in education. In this regard I want to quote the following example. I honestly believe that the principal of the largest high school should earn more than R6,900. If we could increase that maximum considerably, we would have more scope to improve the salary scales in respect of the lower posts.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to the investigation conducted by the Joint Matriculation Board into subjects required for admission to universities. I want to put in a plea with the hon. the Minister that we should give as soon as possible very serious attention to the elimination of those subjects required for admission to universities, viz. mathematics and the third language. I believe that we are keeping away from the universities very promising and very talended young men by insisting on these subjects. We will be able to draw a great number of these young people to education to teach Afrikaans and English, subjects in respect of which there is scarcity of teachers. But in view of the requirement laid down in that they should take a course in mathematics and a third language, we simply close the gates for these young people. I therefore want to put in a plea with the hon. the Minister that we should do away with these so-called qualifying subjects.

I should also like to appeal to commerce today, to our industrialists and business men to refrain from their piracy on education by enticing away some of our most able people. They should realize that the labour potential of a country and its economic future are in the hands of the teachers and that they are simply harming themselves by enticing away those able people who are responsible for the training of the technicians who have to serve our country in future. [Time expired.]

I should like to tell the hon. member for Boksburg that I agree with him that the teachers are to-day performing a great labour of love in the service of the youth and in the service of South Africa, but that the qualifications of our teachers today are not nearly as high as those of both male and female teachers were in 1948.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Sir, I want to refer to the lonely war graves of Boer and British soldiers which lie scattered over the battlefields of South Africa. These graves are often in a state of neglect, their whereabouts unknown and forgotten, but they are the unhonoured milestones along the course of our history. It is the task of the South African War Graves Board to restore and maintain these graves and graveyards, and also to establish gardens of remembrance. However, it has been becoming less customary to restore and maintain graves. The remains of Boer and British soldiers are being exhumed throughout the country and reinterred in mass graves at central points where large monuments are erected and gardens of remembrance are laid out. Thus the Magersfontein Monument between Kimberley and Modder River was unveiled by the hon. the Minister of Defence on 10th October, 1969. Kosie Briedenhann, one of the unknown young Boer heroes, the Dirkie Uys of the Anglo-Boer War, was buried there in grave 5A together with ten of his comrades, removed from the place where he committed his act of heriosm and removed from the historical context. The British troops surprised Kosie Briedenhann’s commando early in the morning in their camp in the veld where they had spent the night about half a mile from his parents’ home on the farm Downs, approximately 12 miles from Campbell in the Northern Cape. After he and his fellowburghers had fled to safety on horseback, he raced back against the vicious cross-fire of the British troops in order to try to save his commandant, who could not mount his nervous horse. His commandant got away safely. Kosie Briedenhann was left behind alone on the battlefield—struck down by a bullet in his forehead. His grave had always been well maintained and held in honour with wreaths and prayers. However, his remains were exhumed and reinterred in a mass grave at Magersfontein more than a hundred miles away, removed from the place where he committed his act of heriosm and the historical context. When I visited the original grave a year ago, the old gravestone was still there. We found pieces of his leather braces at the plundered grave as well as small remnants of his bones and a piece of tooth. This is how our heroes are being honoured by the South African War Graves Board. They should leave the graves in peace even if they want to erect mausoleums and monuments at central places. Numerous complaints about this are being received from all over the country. At the communal grave of the Black Watch at Magersfontein which was removed to the garden of remembrance in Kimberley, pieces of human bones were found on the surface. Buttons turned up as souvenirs among the owners of farms on which the graves of British soldiers had been exhumed. Even gold coins from plundered graves came into the possession of private individuals and were displayed in hotels, bars and clubs.

It is generally rumoured that gold coins were exchanged at a shop in Modder River by prison labourers employed by a tombstone contractor while reinterments were being carried out. Reports were received from Bronkhorstspruit of gold coins taken from graves which turned up in the bar and were sold there. One monumental mason of integrity has been in possession of buttons, cartridges, bandoliers, boots, spurs, watches and numerous other souvenirs for many years, while awaiting official written instructions as to what to do with these articles. Other contracted were unable to hand in anything, and we suspect that these souvenirs were given away or sold in the trade. Hundreds of tombstones and military iron corsses from British graves are to be found in the backyards of monumental masons. Broken tombstones were smashed even further and iron crosses were buried in the garden of remembrance in Kimberley. Some of these historic military iron crosses were even sold at an auction in Natal, according to a report published in the Argus of 25th July. No wonder that in Kuruman the London Missionary Society refused to allow the remains in four British graves to be reinterred. Messrs. Marais and Jacobs, the owners of the land on which the Paardeberg battlefield is situated, also quite rightly refused to allow the graves of the Boer dead to be removed to Magersfontein. The reason is that the activities of the South African War Graves Board seem to us to be more like the violation than the maintenance of graves. We could honour the graves of the fallen far better if we left them in peace and let them fall into a state of disrepair rather than to have the violation that is taking place now. As a result of the erection of mausoleums and monuments, many of these milestones in our history are being lost. Gravestones which could indicate the course of a battle on a battlefield are being removed and one looks in vain for one’s family and forefathers on the battlefields in South Africa. One might find their names in the gardens of remembrance. Twenty-eight battles are commemorated in the garden of remembrance in Kimberley, but on the new monument there is no indication anywhere in which of those 28 battles any particular soldier was killed. What is more, hundreds of mistakes occur in the transcriptions of the names on the various main monuments. One need only compare their names with those on some of the gravestones which were subsequently erected around these main monuments. To mention only a few examples: On the new main monument, among the names of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the name of Corporal J. Movatt is spelt with a “v”. On the printed list of the War Graves Board his name is given as Corporal Mouatt, spelt with an “u”, while in the regimental history his name appears as Corporal Mowatt, spelt with a “w”. To mention another example, the name of the second, officer in command of Roberts Horse appears on his gravestone as Captain Henry Grylls Majendie, but on the monument his name is given as Captain Grylls H; in other words, his surname was omitted. Regiments, ranks, initials and surnames are given incorrectly everywhere. The correction of the mistakes alone appearing in all these monuments will cost so much money that there will be little left for the other activities of the War Graves Board. In addition to all this, money is being wasted through being spent injudiciously. To mention one example, not far from here, in Simonstown, an architect was paid R6,000 to design a new garden of remembrance, which was to have cost R200,000. This plan fell through, but the account of the architect had to be paid. Furthermore it is the intention of the War Graves Board to exhume the remains, of many boer prisoners of war buried at Simonstown for reinterment at Magersfontein, although they were taken prisoner at Modder River and had nothing to do with the battlefield at Magersfontein. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate these irregularities. [Time expired.]

Sir, we are still waiting for the Opposition to appeal to the English-speaking people to give more attention to and display greater interest in the teaching profession. It seems as if the Opposition is running away from education, because the last speaker we had, was the third on that side of the House to devote his speech to cultural affairs. As far as I know, we had only one speaker on the Opposition side who discussed the question of education.

On this occasion, where the hon. the Minister is dealing with this vote, National Education and Cultural Affairs, for the first time, I want to say to him once again that we are glad of the fact that he is the Minister of National Education and Cultural Affairs. We want to wish him every success and in doing so, we are fully aware of the magnitude of his task and its attendant problems. I do not have to deal at length with the times we are living in. However, I just want to make a few remarks in regard to the enormous “explosion” of knowledge where specialized knowledge particularly has become essential; the challenges mankind is being faced with to-day; and, of a more local nature, the problems of the manpower shortage. It seems to us that the solution lies in specialization, automation and mechanization. I want to deal with specialization in particular.

The increasing development and its attendant problems concerning manpower shortage emphasize the necessity to develop every pupil student to his fullest and maximum potential. Then I want to say that, where education serves as the preparatory period fo every person to take his rightful place in the community, the basis or the point of departure of our approach towards education should be the saving of labour through the utilization of labour. We cannot over-emphasize this idea. This should be our point of depature in our education and training. More stress should therefore be laid on differentiated education, and it is essential that we should deal more fully with differentiated education for a moment.

In the first place we have the kind of differentiation as far as the choice of subjests is concerned, and nobody can have any objection to that. Then we have differentiation in regard to streaming and that is where the A stream and the B stream or the U stream and the N stream comes in. I want to say to-day that to me it is quite absurd that there should be two standards of training in the same subject and with the same standard and two standards of examinations. To my mind this U stream and M stream differentiation can only have disadvantages, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent this is being observed and what his views are as regards this differentiation as far as streams are concerned and whether there is any possibility of this differentiation being abolished. The ideal differentiation is specialized vocational training in accordance with interest, aptitude and ability, and we will have to expand our psychological services in order to develop and expand these. Our vocational guidance services will have to be expanded; these services will not only have to be expanded but should be made an integral part of our entire national education system. We will have to give a great deal of attention to the training of our psychologists even at this stage. At present we have psychologists only at the industrial schools and this will definitely have to be extended to other schools as well, and the sooner we make a start with this the better it will be. Testing and guidance form the basis of differentiated education. This can only succeed when it is made an integral part of our entire education system. Now, this presents a problem as far as I am concerned—and it is for that reason that I ask the Minister that this matter should receive our immediate and urgent attention—in that it takes a long time to train psychologists. This is absolutely a specialized service. Then I come to the second aspect, and that is the provision of buildings in which clinics, etc., can be accommodated. The provision of buildings also takes a long time. It takes at least five years to provide a building and to have the necessary equipment installed. In order to use our human material correctly and in the right place in order to obtain the maximum productivity, we will have to provide these services as soon as possible.

I have another problem I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. This concerns the danger there is as a result of rumours which are being spread in respect of the commercial high schools and the technical high schools which have been transferred to the provinces., in that there is a tendency to have the technical training, the commercial training and the academic training under one roof. I may be wrong, but I am afraid that we will have comprehensive high schools in future. I should have liked to keep the commercial schools and definitely the technical schools separate in that atmosphere and climate to which they belong. I therefore want to put in a plea that the hon. the Minister should have this matter investigated.

There is also the question of commercial schools. In view of the fact that commercial schools are already in existence in the rural areas, we do not want these commercial schools to run empty and for that reason I feel that we should place the Std. 6, 7 and 8 pupils in these commercial schools during the period of transition. [Time expired.]

Speakers on the other side of the House have indicated that they feel we have not reacted directly to appeals made for our youth to take up the teaching profession. May I say that this matter will be dealt with by subsequent speakers, but I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House regard it as a priority that young people from both language groups, English and Afrikaans, should be encouraged with all the means within our power to enter the teaching profession. If I may say so on a personal note with some pride, the appeal which has been directed to the youth in our family circle has met with some success and that we have people in our family who will become and who are already dedicated teachers.

But what we must not overlook is the distraction and outside competition which at present are playing a very important part in the decisions which some young people are called upon to make. I want to quote certain aspects of these problems, particularly in relation to the actual present position of teachers vis-à-vis employees in other sectors. I believe this can only be done by quoting specific examples, which I quote not in a sense of destructive criticism but purely as facts. I want to take the case of a male teacher who at present is in the E Grade. This man has been to university for five years. He is the acting head of a department at a high school. He is a specialized teacher. What is his basic salary? His basic salary at present is R235 a month, which after deductions means that he has for himself at the end of each month R196, and that for a man who has been to university for five years! What are the comparisons? We have the case of a motor body builder, a younger man with a Std. 8 education, who is earning a net salary of R260 a month. Then I refer to an advertisement which appeared on behalf of the City of Germiston recently, where they are seeking the services of tractor-truck drivers. The salary offered is R175 to R250 per month, with leave bonus plus a 5 per cent bonus on pensionable salary. What are the qualifications required for this particular post? Std. 6 and three years of experience. In other words, it could be the equivalent of a Std. 9 education, and the salary is equivalent to male teachers on the C Grade. Then we have another case in an older section of our society. That is an appeal directed to pensioners by the Pretoria City Council in which they advertise for temporary traffic inspectors and they are prepared to offer a salary of R200 a month, plus a free uniform, plus leave bonuses, plus privileges for anyone who has the qualification of Std. 8 or its equivalent. Is this the incentive we hold out for young people starting a teaching career in South Africa?

Then I want to deal briefly with one example concerning the female staff, because I believe it is just as important as regards this aspect and I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Germiston on his appeal for equal pay for the sexes. I believe that this will be a positive way of dealing with this problem. Take a young C Grade female schoolteacher, who has spent three years at teachers’ college after having matriculated. To-day this person is a specialist subject teacher at a high school. She is in fact teaching Matric. “boys who are in some instances only three or four years her junior. She has responsibilities, I think, beyond her age, and she is managing, but what does she recieve in the way of salary? She receives a gross salary of R130 a month and a net salary of R118 a month. How does this compare with commerce? We can refer to the City of Germiston, which recently had an advertisement. We find that they are prepared to pay typists with a qualification of Std. 8 and no experience a commencing salary of R108 a month, rising to R225.

So I could go on in this vein, but I want to come to the question which the hon. member for Durban (Central) dealt with under the Social Welfare Vote last night. This is the question of teachers’ pensions. I know it is a difficult matter. It falls within the ambit of two departments, but I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to give very seious consideration particularly to the older teachers. Many of them have contributed in proportion a greater portion of their salary than the present teachers and many of them are living almost on the breadline. And old lady teacher receives R50 a month, whereas a married male teacher receives a pension of R100 a month. I want to suggest that in many instances these people are becoming backyarders; they have to live in quarters which they find in the backyards or in the alley-ways and passages, because they cannot afford to live in circumstances commensurate with the standard to which they are entitled as people who have served their country. I know that the benevolent funds sponsored by teachers help to overcome this, but I do not believe that people of this category should have to exist on charity.

Then, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give me some information in connection with the Straszacker report. The hon. the Minister will be aware that the commission of inquiry into the method of training for university degrees in engineering, known as the Straszacker Commission, has now sat for twelve years. It has cost the taxpayers of South Africa R80,000, and has now submitted three abridged reports. In the meantime, while the report of the Straszacker Commission was being finalized, a colleague of the hon. the Minister, the Minister of Planning, appointed a committee to investigate the need for further training facilities for engineers at South African universities. We know that this committee’s report has been submitted. We know that it was no great drain on the taxpayers’ money, because it cost only R2,000, compared with the R80,000 in the case of the Straszacker Commission, but what was the need and the object of having another committee investigating a matter which was already being thoroughly investigated by men fully qualified to do so? Now that the report of the Straszacker Commission has been tabled, can the Minister inform us what immediate steps are being taken by his department to implement some of the recommendations which I believe are becoming increasingly urgent. I say in passing that it is interesting to note that here again the report of the commission says that more attractive salaries and conditions of service are essential for people who teach in engineering. They recommend as a guiding rule that supply and demand should have some influence on the actual salaries paid.

In the short time left to me I should like to deal with the question of educational statistics. I realize that it is difficult to co-ordinate statistics and to obtain up to date statistics in regard to education. When one refers to the report of the National Education Council, one finds that under the section dealing with the Human Sciences Research Act, the collection and collation of educational statistics are subject to Ministerial approval. My question to the Minister is: Will the figures be made available either to Parliament or to interested parties? I notice too that the Statutory Committee of Educational Heads referred to educational statistics as well. In this connection it includes the Department of Statistics. It says; “Uniform basic tables should be made available to each education department to make good the backlog in tabulation and publication of educational statistics.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, underlined quite clearly at the beginning of his speech the basic difference between that side of the House and this side of the House, in that he said that remuneration was in fact the main cause for the shortage of teachers. He made certain comparisons between the remuneration received by teachers and the remuneration received by people in other careers, something which is not really at issue in this regard. In other words, he concentrated on the material aspects. As regards teachers, he did not take into consideration the fact that there are other requirements which have to be taken into consideration apart from the material aspects. There are other requirements, such as the spiritual aspects, which are much more important than purely the money aspect. I am very grateful to be able to say this morning that our teachers in this country have never made a point always to complain about the money aspect. The standards they set for themselves are much higher than that.

The hon. member for Benoni also spoke about education matters earlier. He made the statement that teachers to-day were not as well qualified as they used to be. He did not furnish proof of this absurd statement he made to the House. That is not the case, and he should know it. On the contrary, when one looks at this year’s Budget, one will see how much money is really being spent on the training of teachers. For example, universities are being given increased grants. It is clear that, in the light of this change in our approach towards education which has revealed itself over the past few years, we are concentrating on improving the training of our teachers. How is it possible for the hon. member to make such a statement? It will merely serve to cause concern in the country when stories are bruited about to the effect that the teachers of to-day are not as well equipped as they used to be in the past. To my mind this is a most irresponsible statement for the hon. member to make.

There are a few matters I want to raise in regard to cultural affairs, but before doing so, I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made quite positive contributions on two occasions this morning. He referred to the necessity of expanding and strengthening our cultural relations with countries overseas. We do not disagree with him. All I want to say, is that we have put in a serious plea last year and also prior to that that consideration should be given to the appointment of more cultural attachés in our foreign missions. If that is what he is pleading for this morning, we want to support him, but then we want to point out that he is really the person who supported this side of the House in the pleas that were made in this connection in the past.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to come back to the question that was raised here before now. I want to say at the outset that we are very grateful for the fact that the Government has once more seen fit to appropriate R2,400 this year for the purchase of the works of deserving authors. It is not necessary for me to-day to discuss the importance of the part played by our creative artists. What I do want to do, is to bring to the attention of this House once again the need of these people. I have an example here of one of our most prominent authors in this country. The example is typical of the circumstances under which our authors have to produce their best. This particular person received royalties to the amount of R33.51 over a period of six months. The cost of publication, which had to be deducted, amounted to R33.51. He therefore did not receive anything. Apart from that, he still owed to the publisher R6.49 at that time. In addition, the author had to pay R40 to a typist for typing his manuscript. I want to point out that this person is trying to devote his energies on a full-time basis to the production of cultural products of a high standard. His income from this source in one month amounted to approximately the following: The royalties in respect of Book A was R5.59; on Book B, R2.65; on Book C, R25.59 and on Book D, R22.03, giving a total of R55.87.

I now ask in all fairness: How is it possible for a person to produce his best under such circumstances? In view of this amount of R2,400, which is actually being voted to give some assistance to such people in their attempts to produce work of a high standard, I want to put in a plea with the hon. the Minister this morning that he should consider the possibility of extending the assistance to our authors in particular. I want to say that I am convinced that any assistance given to these people will be an investment towards the spiritual viability of the people of the Republic of South Africa.

There is one other matter I want to refer to and which concerns our performing arts. An amount of R1,166,000 is being appropriated for this purpose. We appreciate this a great deal, but what is worrying us in this regard is the fact that so many artists are imported from overseas. This is not necessarily wrong. I want to say this immediately, but in view of the fact that our local artists have such a Limited field, it does not seem right to me that we should import people on such a large scale from overseas literally to take the bread out of the mouths of our local artists. I wonder whether we could not do more to enable our local artists to come into their own. These people do not have sufficient security to enable them to devote their energies on a full-time basis to the calling of being artists. I think the time has come that some attention should be given to this matter as well.

Furthermore, I want to say that we should have liked to have had an indication as to when the investigations into the establishment of cultural centres will be finalized. This is a very important matter and I think that this is an appropriate occasion to pay tribute to the retiring Secretary for Cultural Affairs, Dr. Op’t Hof. for the task he has fulfilled and the initiative he has displayed to make possible the establishment of cultural centres. I want to say that the time has come that serious attention should be given in this country to find something to counteract all the foreign influences which are being brought to bear on our country. I have here in my hand the results of an investigation into the estrangement of our youth.

According to this investigation the main causes of this estrangement are as follows: Excessive and injudicious bioscope attendance, the foreign clothes and hairstyles worn by young girls and boys, various modern dances such as rock and roll, and so forth, the foreign and wild music, taking part in the various types of Sunday sport, lack of church ties, alcoholism, gambling, “jukebox”, loitering, poor family relations, familiarity towards adults, faulty and careless use of language, neglect of family ties, and so forth. I want to say that I believe that these cultural centres will be an excellent quid pro quo for these kinds of phenomena. [Time expired.] Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I was completely amazed and surprised by the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Springs. He seems to be living completely in a dream world of his own. In fact, it looks as if he is totally divorced from the realities of to-day and out of touch with teachers as such. Hence his statement that the teachers of to-day are no longer interested in the material aspect of their profession. He mentioned this in particular to illustrate what he called the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. The hon. member challenged the hon. member for Benoni to substantiate his remark that if you compare the qualifications of the teachers of 1948 with those of to-day, you would find that in 1948 we had teachers with higher qualifications. This in fact proved that he is completely ignorant about the situation as it exists to-day.

I am sorry that he did this. I am sorry that he wanted to play politics in this respect. By doing so the hon. member is forcing me to give the House certain information which I would have preferred to remain silent about. Survey have been conducted in certain high schools and an analysis has been made of the staffing situation in schools in 1964 as compared with that of 1969. I am going to quote, for the benefit of the hon. member, some of the conclusions of this survey. Then we can talk again whether there is a lowering of standards and qualifications. I am going to refer to some of the conclusions:

My advice to the hon. member is to make sure about his facts before he comes here to challenge us to prove our statements. Furthermore, in so far as the material aspect is concerned, let us look at this further comparison:

I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps one of the reasons why some of those people left the profession is because they were concerned about the material aspect of their profession.

I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will in replying to this debate give us greater clarity about the general education policy in South Africa, especially in respect of the following aspects: Firstly, the position of the teacher. Here I refer in particular to the status of the teacher. Then there is the matter of the shortage of teachers. I would like to have the hon. Minister’s views about the shortage of teachers and about possible means of combating it. Secondly, I would like to refer to the place of the teacher in relation to his profession; in other words, the place of the profession in the general educational scene. My last point is the possibility of the introduction of a proper differentiated system of education.

A few months ago, Professor H. B. Thom, the chairman of the National Education Council, in a broadcast over the radio indicated that at present South Africa does not possess the means to bring about revolutionary changes in education. He also expressed the desire that the educational changes should be left to the process of evolution. I accept this statement as being basically sound. However, I must immediately express my doubts about the direction this evolutionary process is taking education at present. Is it in fact progressing gradually or is education slowly being subjected to a process of deterioration? I have no hesitation in saying, if we allow education to develop on the present lines, the hon. the Minister and his advisers will find that when they eventually manage to formulate the educational policy, the application of that policy will be impossible, due to an infinitely worse situation.

Furthermore, this whole attitude of leaving everything to the process of evolution has resulted in too many urgent educational problems permanently being placed into cold storage. One only has to read through the various reports of the statutory Committee of Education Heads and the National Educational Council to realize the extent of this. I want to refer to one in particular. This is the matter of the establishment of a registration council for teachers. For many years, in fact for many decades, we have had the South African Federal Council of Teachers, urging the Government to implement this. In 1964 they even went so far as to submit a draft Bill in this respect. When I asked the hon. the Minister about this a couple of months ago, he quite rightly referred me to the Consolidated Report of the National Advisory Educational Council on The Teacher which was published in 1968. Let us have a look at this. In chapter five we find that “the Educational Council has decided to defer its consideration of the question of a teaching council or registration council for the time being. That is to say, the Council at this stage does not identity itself with or reject” the recommendations. I believe I am fully justified in saying that this has been placed in cold storage. I think that 40,000 teachers are entitled to a definite answer in this respect. It is quite clear to me that the hon. the Minister and the authorities have serious objections why they cannot entrust teachers with the responsibility inherent in the creation of a council for teachers. Are teachers inferior to our nurses? Are they inferior to our doctors, to our surveyors and to our architects?

I want to know from the hon. the Minister on what grounds he bases his assumption that any future body of teachers will be better qualified for this task. If the present body of teachers cannot do this on what grounds does he base his attitude that a future body of teachers will be better equipped for this? Recently he has had requests from the Transvaal Teachers’ Association and he also had a request from the N.T.S. about the status of the teacher I may add that the T.T.A.’s request had the support of Professor Du Toit, the Chairman of the T.O. He said, and I quote—

During the debate on the hon. the Minister of the Interior’s Vote, we on this side of the House advocated the separation of education from the Public Service Commission. We did this, because we believe this is the first prerequisite towards granting teachers professional Status. I want to say that the hon. the Minister of the Interior ignored my plea, but I believe that this hon. Minister will give us his views about this matter. I believe he will give us his views because I believe that as long as the teaching profession is limited to work within the framework of the Public Service Commission, we will have in South Africa salary campaigns conducted by teachers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chaiman, I do not intend to react to the variety of subjects the hon. member for Durban (Central) mentioned. However, when he quotes the percentage of qualified teachers I want to point out that he is losing sight of certain other facets, i.e. that the percentage of teaching posts in all the provinces increased at a greater rate than the school-going pupils. I want to point out further that in our secondary schools the relationship of the percentage of matriculants to the percentage of pupils with Std. 6 increased by more than 12 per cent. What are the facts? The facts are that in the past six years in the Cape alone, 8,965 candidates entered teaching in terms of a bursary scheme for education students. There was an increase of more than 800 in one year. What is relevant is that in 1953-’54 there were 7,770 teachers in the Cape, while there are 11,311 this year, an increase in teaching staff of more than 45.6 per cent. It is very easy to think and speak euphorically, and to say that we should remove the teaching profession from the Public Service structure. However, there is not a single profession that hon. members opposite do not ask us to remove from the Public Service structure.

The hon. member for Benoni made the irresponsible statement that the teachers of today are less well qualified than the teachers of 1948. That is, surely, not only nonsense, but also an insult to the teaching profession in this country, because the obverse is true. It is very easy to play the sacrosanct role and to say that education should be kept out of politics, as the hon. member said, but to-day I want to make a general accusation to the effect that hon. members opposite are the ones who are bringing education into the midst of the political battlefield. I expect them to react to certain irresponsible statements of certain hon. members on their side, and I expect them to do so his afternoon. I want to lay the accusation at the door of hon. members opposite, i.e. that they do not truly and essentially want to serve education, but that they want to use the educational institutions, which ought actually to form the basis of the State, and apply them for the purposes of political expediency. What hon. members opposite are doing here, and what their speakers are saying outside this House, do not tally. It is very clear that in respect of education the United Party does not want to do any basic and fundamental thinking, as with any other subject of importance, but that they allow themselves to be swept along by the circumstances they find themselves in at a particular moment. The United Party must tell us whether they agree with the Leader of the United Party in the Cape Provincial Council. I told the hon. member for Wynberg I was going to speak about this.

I shall reply.

I hope she will do so. Tn an article entitled “U.P. slates white apartheid in education” this person stated the following—

I now want to know from the hon. member for Wynberg whether she agrees with the statement that the entire principle of single medium schools is ridiculous. Does she agree with that? She must tell me now.

I shall reply.

There are two basic principles that obtain here. The first is that a principle exists that has an educational basis, i.e. that a child should be educated in his mother tongue. The United Party does not agree with this. The United Party says that in the medium of a child’s education the educationally based principle should not have the upper hand and be the deciding factor; the parental choice must be the deciding factor. In other words, the United Party is prepared to sacrifice a principle, inherent in every controlled investigation, and in the report resulting from the investigation that took place, for purposes of political expediency and the supposed recognition of the democratic right of the parent to make a choice about the medium in which his child must be educated.

What is wrong with parental choice?

But let us go further. What is the historic development? In this country the historic development of education in respect of the medium of education involves recognition of and respect for this principle. This involves, for example, the exclusion of parental choice as far as the medium of education is concerned. This was placed on the Statute Book by kindred spirits of hon. members opposite during their period of office, They did so in 1911, 1919 and 1925. One of their predecessors, Senator F. S. Malan, also said that the parent had as little right to choose the medium of education for his child as he had to determine the course for a B.A. degree. While we are now continuing to build progressively on the same accepted principle, hon. members opposite say that this principle is no longer decisive. Parental choice is now decisive….

But I want to go further. There is a second facet in respect of which the parent can exercise a choice, i.e. the school his child attends. The Leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council now says that a single medium school is an absurdity, it is ridiculous. What is the practice? It is very clear, Sir, that in really wanting to judge the Opposition’s standpoint you find a contradiction between their actions and their words, a contradiction that one finds in all their actions. What is the truth? The United Party clamourously advocates the policy of parental choice with respect to the medium of education. But parental choice in sending a child to an English, Afrikaans or parallel medium school is being eliminated. Which hon. members in this House send their children to parallel medium schools? We begin there. When National Party members want to have their children educated in their mother tongue for the same educational reasons, the United Party advocates parental choice. But when it comes to the question of single or parallel medium schools, the United Party expects National Party parents to be denied their democratic right to choose the school to which they want to send their children. What are the facts? In the Cape there are 41 English medium schools with 16,000 children. I now ask, who established them? There are 50 schools where Afrikaans is the medium of education. But there are 958 declared parallel medium schools. Who send their children there? In these declared parallel medium schools in the Cape there are 190,000 children. This represents 82 per cent of the school-going children. But I have now asked pointedly, must we make the existing English medium schools in the province parallel medium schools? The hon. member for Salt River in the Provincial Council said “Yes, we must make all of them parallel medium schools”. The Leader of the United Party in the same Provincial Council says “No”.

Read his Hansard.

I have it here. He says that we must make Grey’s College, Queen’s College and Rondebosch all parallel medium schools. Then the Leader of the United Party in the Povincial Council stands up and says “No, the existing schools must remain”. They have a specific tradition. Then he says: In respect of future development we must please make them parallel medium schools. In other words, the established right which the English-speaking child has obtained must be protected, but when it comes to the extension of educational services, the same opportunity for parental choice in respect of the medium of education must not be allowed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the last time we were together here, quite a number of changes have taken place. Inter alia we have a new main speaker on educational matters on the Opposition side in the person of the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to congratulate her on the distinction which has come her way. The English-language newspapers have even commended her as the shadow minister of education. Now that we have a new dispensation in education in the sense that our earlier legislation on educational matters has been finalized, and the persons who were most closely concerned in that have disappeared from the scene, I was justified in expecting that we would be able to start afresh and that we would be able to hold positive discussions on education and planning in this country. I am very seriously convinced that if we are not able to approach this matter in a positive way from both sides, there are difficulties in store for us. In spite of the great expectations I cherished, the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg was one of the greatest disappointments I have ever experienced in this House. I do not want to be personal now. I am talking about the content of her speech. I want to couple the hon. member’s speech to what was said in other debates during this Session, for quite a number of references were made to educational matters which I cannot allow to pass without comment. I shall in the course of this summary return to a closer examination of what the hon. member for Wynberg said. On 20th July the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said inter alia (Hansard, column 32).

The educational policies of this Government have been a crime against South Africa.

In the same speech the hon. member said—

This is where it affects me—

Sir, to that I couple references made by the hon. member for Wynberg in that same debate, the censure debate. She referred to the De Villiers report which appeared in 1948. In that connection she said—

In the same debate the hon. member made the statement she repeated to-day, i.e. that our educational policy and our educational system was allegedly 25 years behind the times. This is a quotation which also appears in the official document of the United Party. “You want it, we have it”. She exulted in the fact that that quotation was taken from Volkshandel. She went further. She said that Mr. Werner Pauw of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, and one of the members of the board of Volkshandel, discussed vocational education and that he expressed a certain measure of concern at the lack of planning between commerce and industry and the educational authorities. But if it is read in that context, it creates the impression—I am not saying that she deliberately wanted to create that impression—that Mr. Werner Pauw had allegedly said that our educational system was 25 years behind the times. I want to say with the greatest emphasis now that if that is what she deduced, then her deduction is completely erroneous. I want to deal with this matter. What did the De Villiers Report deal with? The hon. member for Wynberg is now saying that in 22 years this Government has given no attention to that report. The De Villiers report pointed out certain deficiencies in vocational education and suggested certain recommendations. The most important point around which everything centred, whether those deficiencies could be remedied or not, was the question of divided control over education on the secondary level. Mr. Greyling, the director of Volkshandel, also referred specifically to this point in the leading article in Volkshandel. I agree with them that this is a matter which should have been dealt with 25 years ago. But if that is true, then it is the United Party which should have remedied this matter, and not this party which must now eventually, after so many years, remedy it. I am now asking the hon. member for Wynberg, what was her standpoint when she served on the Provincial Council? Did she express her concern in regard to vocational education, and more specifically in regard to commercial education? I never heard her do so, nor was I able to find anything on that score in writing. But she wants to charge this Government with having done nothing about this extremely important matter in 22 years. I want to say now that the facts refute what she said here. There have been 11 Government commissions since 1910. All of them have admitted that Parliament has the right to effect that change. I am now asking the hon. member why her party, if it was so active in regard to this matter, did not remedy it a long time ago? It required a National Party Government to cut this Gordian knot. It was with the Educational Services Act, Act No. 41 of 1967, that we ended this divided control and transferred vocational education to the Provinces. Eighty-one of our schools and approximately 2,500 teachers were transferred. It took planning and courage and daring to achieve this. In all the years the United Party was governing, they did not have that courage and daring. Mr. Chairman, if one has listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg and to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and one wants to argue in an honest and objective way in regard to this matter, one asks oneself what did the hon. members envisage with such statements? What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition envisaging with such a vague, non-committal statement, which he did not support in his speech? He merely mentioned it and then left it dangling in mid-air. He then went on to discuss the labour question. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did South Africa a disservice when he made the allegation that this Government’s educational policy was a crime against South Africa and the people of South Africa. I am sorry that he expressed himself in such strong language.

Mr. Chairman, I can quote other examples which were mentioned here. Just take for example the allegation made by the hon. member for Yeoville in his speech. He is not present in this House at the moment, but he also wanted to participate in this chorus of criticism, only he was quite unaware that his note was false. He came forward with the allegation that our greatest deficiency was a lack of technicians. He said that in 1948 we had had four technical colleges in this country, and that today we only had five and that the shortage had increased. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present here, but this is the only opportunity I have to reply to him. He does not know what he is talking about, and I want to advise him not to give himself out to be an authority on educational matters. What he should have said was that in 1967, in terms of Act No. 40, we established the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, which provide training to technicians, and that to-day we do not have five, but we have six. Sir, what have we produced in this short period? The technicians’ courses were introduced for the first time in 1958, and let me say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Wynberg, who claims that we have no liaison with commerce and industry, these courses for technicians were drawn up in consultation with commerce and industry. Commerce and industry has been and are being consulted in all these matters, and what is being done there, is being done according to their requirements, and in so far as we determine it to be educational. What have we achieved in these few years? We have achieved this position that we have introduced 106 courses for technicians; that last year there were 6,043 students at these colleges for advanced technical education, and that there were 24,365 subject enrolments and that more than 4,000 technicians have already been fully trained in these institutions. Sir, I ask you, what do you think of such allegations such as those made here by the hon. member for Yeoville? Surely he was talking nonsense.

Sir, I come to the other point raised by the hon. member for Wynberg, i.e. that this Government had allegedly done nothing about the situation which arose in regard to people who left school at an early age, the Std. 6 people. She spoke in the censure debate on people who were leaving school with only a Std. 6 certificate, and to-day she spoke about people leaving school with Std. 8 certificates. Sir, let us have a look at these particulars in order to prove that the hon. member still has a great deal of studying to do. I still have a lot to learn in this portfolio, but I want to tell the hon. member that I think that she has more homework to do than I have. I should like to furnish you with a few particulars, Sir. She said that increased school-leaving after Std. 6 was the order of the day, and that this Government was doing nothing to counteract this. In 1948 only 27.5 per cent of those who had been in Std. 6 in 1944 passed their matriculation examination. In 1958, ten years later, 32.8 per cent of those who had been in Std. 6 in 1954, passed their matriculation examination. In 1968 47 per cent of those who had been in Std. 6 in 1964, passed their matriculation examination. Sir, if you take these figures, i.e. 27.5 per cent, 32.8 per cent and 47.2 per cent, does that look like deterioration to you, after “years of neglect”, as the hon. member described it?

May I ask the Minister a question?

Sir, I first want to finish my argument. The hon. member, before she became shadow minister, wrote a series of articles in The Argus. She called the series “The state of education”. It consisted of four articles. I read them, and I must say I was shocked when I read them. I was amazed when I came here to-day and heard her quoting extracts only from those articles. [Interjections.] If I can find the time, I shall point out to you from the speech all the particulars which you used in that series of articles. It is obvious that the hon. member will demur now, but the facts are there in black and white, and we can always check on them.

What did the hon. member do? She alleged that more and more people were leaving school after Std. 6 and this Government was doing nothing about it. I have shown you the particulars, I want to go further. I have here figures which are taken from a report of the Human Sciences Research Council which in 1965 tested the entire Std. 6 school population of that year and followed them through the years. What did they find? They found that 1.65 per cent of the pupils eventually left school without Std. 6. They found, secondly that 8.53 per cent left school with a Std. 6 certificate, and that 10.18 per cent left school with a qualification equal to or less than Std. 6. Surely this is a damning refutation of the allegation made there by the hon. member. But I shall leave it at that. What has this Government done? The Government has laid down our policy for all Departments of education in the country that every pupil shall remain at school until the end of the year in which they turned 16 or until they passed the final examination of the secondary school, whichever is the sooner. Now I am asking whether this is not the greatest of encouragements, and to an extent even compulsion to keep those children at school so that they can equip themselves further?

But the hon. member went further and said that nothing was being done for these people. On the one hand she pleaded for consultation with trade and industry and on the other hand she stated that nothing was being done for these people who left school with such low qualifications. I want to tell you what has been done. The requirements for apprentices are laid down in consultation with industry. The courses are drawn up in consultation with them. It is obvious that the industrialists expect an apprentice to have a measure of theoretical knowledge of his subject as well, and they determine, to a very large extent, what has to be learned. Let me tell you that most of the children leaving school with those low qualifications unfortunately do not have the intellectual ability to make further progress. What becomes of them? They cannot become apprentices when they are unable to complete the theoretical studies, and they enter fields where one can receive only practical training and where one can make a profitable livelihood. In his plea for better salaries for teachers the hon. member for Berea referred to panelbeaters who were earning more than some teachers. Sir, do you know that many of those people who are doing panelbeating work are in fact some of those Std. 6 and Std. 7 pupils who were unable to progress further because they simply did not have the intellectual ability to do so? I maintain that for the hon. member to come forward with these allegations now is by no means in accordance with the facts. After I had listened to what the hon. member had to say here, and after I had read her articles in the Argus. I must tell you that if our teachers are really in such a state, then things are really going very badly for us, but thank goodness this is not the situation, and let me tell you, Sir, the hon. member herself knows that this is not the case. As far as I am concerned, I whould have welcomed it if she had come forward with a positive approach so that it would have been possible for us to conduct a constructive dialogue on this matter. I now want to lay this at the door of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In contrast to what he alleged, South Africa has an educational policy and an educational system which, within the framework of our economic ability and our potential in this country, and also as far as its aims and achievements are concerned, is at least as good and efficient as that of any comparable country in the world. Our educational system and educational policy has produced men and women who need not in any sphere take second place to any person in the world. We have produced scientists and research workers of world renown. It is for this reason that we have the problem that they are being enticed away—precisely because they are such outstanding persons. But now I do not want to imply that our educational system is perfect and has no shortcomings. In fact, I want to state with emphasis that if innovations and adjustments in education do not form the basis of our progress in this country, we are building on sand. By terminating divided control over secondary education, every Department of education is more capable than ever of supplying education which takes into account the aptitude, interest, competence and intellectual ability of every pupil. With a view to that we must think together, plan together and work together. This is not the time for negative criticism and for sowing suspicion in regard to our education. This is not the time for disparaging the faith and confidence of the teacher in the profession he has chosen. Our education now needs a period of tranquility, a time for reflection, and the Opposition ought to be able to make a valuable contribution, if it wants to. We now have a new Minister and we have a new shadow Minister and we are getting new officials. The struggle for our statutory framework is over. Now I want to ask the main speaker of the Opposition on education to help us to make something positive of this educational debate, through which we can achieve something for our country. When it came to my attention that the hon. member for Wynberg was the new shadow Minister of Education on the Opposition side, it reminded me of something. I then paged through my newspaper clippings and found one of just a few months before in which it was stated that the shadow Minister of Education on the Opposition side was Senator Horak. It seems to me we have an Opposition which not only has two shadow Ministers, but one which is going to follow a dual course in the field of education, to judge from the speeches we have heard so far.

I now want to give attention to some of the specific matters which were raised. I shall first discuss educational matters, and then matters which were raised under the “Cultural Affairs” Vote. I have already said that since 1967 we have had a new dispensation in education, since the passing of the Act of that year. I do not want to go into the implications of that legislation now. But perhaps it would be a good thing if I gave a survey of what has happened in this time. I want to do so because there was a good deal of uninformed criticism on the part of the Opposition, and also because such a survey could perhaps be relevant to the teaching profession. My task as new Minister of National Education is to give effect to the legislation of the period 1967 to 1969. I want to say that I do not accept my task in the sense that I feel I am a reformer and that I must break down what existed and rebuild from scratch; I realize that I cannot draw a pencil line through history and simply begin making history anew. When I come across a quotation such as this one from the article written to The Argus by the hon. member for Wynberg, in which she spoke of “wide powers of indoctrination given to the Minister under the Act and the four Administrators waiting to take their orders on the sideline” …

Quite correct.

The hon. member is now saying that it is quite correct. I want to ask her quite honestly whether she is not ashamed to write an article like that and to confirm such an allegation in this House. The hon. member had a good deal of criticism to level at the slow progress we are making. Let me inform the hon. member that we are dealing here with the reconstruction of existing systems and organizations, and that one cannot simply carry on without taking into account what was done in the past and what achievements were accomplished by these people in the past, of which they are justifiably proud. The hon. member said that the Committee of Educational Heads, according to their report, had apparently accomplished nothing. She barely referred to the Education Council, although this is one of the most important bodies in this new set-up. I really hoped that one of the hon. Opposition speakers would have something to say about this matter, but they did not even do so.

For that reason I want to say here to-day that I have the greatest appreciation for the work which has been done in this short space of one year by the new Education Council under the chairmanship of Prof. H. B. Thom. In doing so I do not in any way detract from the work which was done by the former National Advisory Education Council, under the chairmanship of Prof. Rautenbach. Together this work forms a sound basis on which we can build with confidence. In the report of the Education Council what has already been done and what still has to be done is clearly set out. I want to inform hon. members that our first task in this reconstruction was to restore human relationships. As a result of the struggle in the past relationships among people who ought to have co-operated with one another had been marred. The same applied to bodies which ought to have co-operated with one another. I want to say here to-day, at the beginning of my accession to office, that at the moment I have the closest personal and official contact not only with all our Administrators, but also with all our educational heads in the country. I may also say that I have already attended meetings of the Committee of Educational Heads and the Education Council, and that I know precisely what is going on at their meetings. The Education Council is doing work which one cannot make a great to-do about. Many of the matters raised in this House in other debates were of little value for the future of our people, but they were given big headlines in all the newspapers. I want to inform the hon. members that these bodies, namely the Education Council, the Committee of Educational Heads and all the various Departments, are doing work which is of a permanent nature, for which I will be eternally grateful to them. In respect of the teachers I also want to say, and we must make no mistake about this, that education has not become easier; it is becoming more difficult each day.

Well, of course.

That is why it would be more fitting if the hon. member who is now saying “of course” adopted a more positive standpoint in the debate to see whether we cannot do anything to alleviate the burden of those people. I just want to say that the Educational Council has already formulated policy provisions which have been promulgated as the policy of the Government in respect of the medium of instruction. I do not want to elaborate on this. They have announced a policy in respect of compulsory schooling, in respect of free education, and in respect of the co-ordination of curricula. What did the uninformed criticism of the hon. member for Wynberg consist of, however. She hauled out the history syllabus of the Cape secondary schools and persuaded a poor newspaperman, who was of course even more uninformed than she, to make a copy of it and to publish it. She then said that this syllabus reminded her of a comic strip. If the hon. member denies this, I shall show her the clipping. She said the history syllabus of the Cape Department of Education was a comic strip. I shall now inform hon. members how that syllabus came into being. The Committee of Educational Heads coordinates the syllabi. Secondary schools syllabi are departmentally co-ordinated. Serving on this committee are teachers, active members of the teaching profession in all provinces. If the hon. member were now to ask me on whose opinion I placed the most reliance, i.e. that of practising teachers and a responsible committee, such as the Committee of Educational Heads, or her opinion, then she must not take it amiss of me when I say that I think nothing whatsoever of her opinion.

I want to go further and say that the Education Council has made a good deal of progress with the formulation of the Christian character of education and also with its national character. It would interest the hon. member to know that the Education Council agreed unanimously, both Afrikaans-and English-speaking members in that council, on this formulation. However, these matters take time to finalize because so many bodies have to be consulted. In terms of law I am obliged to consult the Education Council, as well as the Administrators, the Committee of Educational Heads, and I must also—and this is not stated in the Act and to my regret I subsequently discovered this—the law advisors. I want to reiterate that we have already made a good deal of progress, in this respect.

I come now to a matter which was raised by various hon. members, i.e. differentiation and guidance. I want to say, and I know that my predecessor said the same thing, that we have progressed to such an extent with the formation of policy in regard to differentiation that we will in the very near future announce the details in this regard. I believe that when this happens we will have clarity on many of the matters which were raised here. There were hon. members here who discussed differentiation and guidance, as well as differentiated university admission. In the restricted time we have available for this debate, I want to summarize these matters and say that not only has good progress been made with all these matters, but also very encouraging progress. We have made such progress that I am tempted to say more than I may say. I hope, however, that during the next session we will be able to discuss the content of these matters. As far as university admission is concerned— an extremely important matter, because this is the point where one find the connection between the school and the university—I want to inform hon. members that the progress made is already such that the Matriculation Board will probably be able to take its final decision in this regard at the beginning of next year. If the decision turns out as the recommendations so far have indicated and have been accepted by all the other committees, I think it will satisfy all the hon. members who discussed this matter, without specifically mentioning any names now. The matter of guidance is of course very closely interwoven with this; it is related to this and will also receive attention along with it.

The psychological services to which the hon. member for Hercules referred, are an extremely important aspect. Of course psychological services are being applied at all schools. But if we will at this stage be able to provide so many psychologists that each school will be able to have one, is of course something which we will have to leave to the future.

I should also like to say that the Education Council plans to devote to education in the very near future an important year—let us call it an “educational year”—and that as highlight of that educational year we will be able to hold a truly national, and perhaps even an international educational congress, here in South Africa. This also requires prolonged and thorough preparation and I do not want to elaborate any further on that matter now.

It seems to me I must, in pursuance of the course taken by the debate up to now, say something further about the shortage of teachers. I want to state categorically here, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort has already done, that a definite shortage of teachers is now becoming discernible. I am not mentioning any figures here. I tried to furnish hon. members with figures, but the figures differ from one day to the next and that is why it is virtually an impossible task to give truly final figures. In particular a shortage of secondary school teachers is being experienced, and more specifically in the so-called “scarce” subjects. The “scarce” subjects are in particular the two national languages, Afrikaans and English, mathematics, physics and chemistry, general science, domestic science, commercial subjects and music. In addition we are experiencing a shortage of male teachers in the primary schools. Then, too, there is a shortage of women teachers for infant schools and pre-primary education, and in the grade classes. I want to say with the greatest emphasis however that our problem is the same as is being experienced in most Western countries. Our problem is not a problem as a result of the policy of this or that government. As far as I am concerned, it is not a problem as a result of the policy of the National Party. This shortage which we are experiencing is closely related to the manpower position in our country, as well as to a series of other factors which I shall go into later on. I heard one hon. member saying that I am looking for an excuse. I am not looking for an excuse for anything. I have mentioned a fact here and I am prepared to face up to that fact. I am going to discuss it with hon. members. I want to say that if the shortage of teachers will make our general public, our parents, aware of the importance of education, then it may even be possible that the shortage of teachers will have a positive effect on our people. But unfortunately I find that too many parents are only concerned about the shortage of teachers if some of their children are sitting in a class for which there is no teacher. The moment that immediate problem has passed, they forget it. In the second place I want to say that this has also been my experience with the hon. Opposition. We have from the Opposition side, in all the years I know about, really had no positive contribution in regard to this matter. Let us now mention an example. My colleagues from Germiston and Koedoespoort, I think, also referred to this. We are faced here with a shortage of teachers. Sir, do you know what the English-language teachers and English-language parents are doing? For example, they established on the Witwatersrand an organization which they called PACE (Parents’ Action Committee on Education). The lady chairman is a certain Mrs. Jammy, who was a candidate for the election of the Witwatersrand School Board. I take it that this explains quite a good deal of her interest at this moment. Do hon. members know what that organization is doing? They are sending letters to all schools, including Afrikaans-medium schools, with an already formulated petition attached. The schools, including the Afrikaans-medium schools, must merely sign that petition to say that they associate themselves with that organization. Let me say at once that I associate myself with many of the matters mentioned in the petition. I have no intention of obscuring the facts in this connection, but if this Mrs. Jammy, with her Parents’ Action Committee on Education, her like-minded associates, would rather make an honestly-intended attempt among her own people, the English-speaking people of this country, to furnish me with suggestions in regard to what we can do to recruit more English-speaking persons into the teaching profession, instead of merely eliciting grievances from teachers, we would solve our problem immediately. The hon. members for Koedoespoort and Germiston did in fact point this out. I may say that this problem even exists in Afrikaans-medium schools, where we cannot always find properly qualified teachers to teach English. I maintain that we have in the past received little assistance from the Opposition in this connection.

The hon. member for Benoni, to whom I shall return subsequently in regard to his remarks on the War Graves Council, said in regard to education that teachers to-day are not as well qualified as they were in 1948. With that he meant of course that there were more teachers who were not suitably qualified in regard to certain subjects which they were teaching. The hon. member for Durban (Central) who knows more about this matter, explained the matter. What are we doing now in regard to this entire matter? I want to mention two aspects in this connection. The Opposition implied that the problem had arisen only as a result of salaries and conditions of service. The hon. member for Berea stated, in a very courteous manner, that we should compete with trade and industry. In the first instance I want to say that, as regards steps to meet the needs of teachers, I believe that the Biblical truth still applies, i.e. that the labourer is worthy of his hire. In addition I believe that whatever is spent on education, it will never be enough. I think that those who are members of the teaching profession, particularly the good teachers, will never earn enough. I want to emphasize this and I want to state categorically that the teachers of South Africa can accept that they will have in me a champion for all reasonable demands and requests which may be put forward. I may say that this will not only be the case because I happen to be the Minister.

We must act in a sober and realistic manner in regard to these matters. I know that the teachers, in a questionnaire to the Education Council, stated salaries to be only the third most important point on their list of grievances. I appreciate that. It is true that attention should be given to their salaries. If demands are put forward which cannot be met at this moment, then they cannot be met and then we must also display the discernment to accept it in this way. Let us glance for a moment at the question of salaries for teachers. I am not saying this to exonerate this Government, but I am saying this to prove this Government’s interest and care for the teachers of South Africa. On 1st October, 1958, improved salary scales for teachers were applied. On 1st April, 1953, further salary improvements were applied, which amounted to an average percentage improvement for men of 18.6 per cent and for women of 27.7 per cent.

What were the dates?

I beg your pardon … the first adjustment was on 1st October, 1958. The next was on 1st April, 1963 … not 1953. The next was on 1st January, 1966, with an average percentage improvement for men of 17.7 per cent and for women of 15.15 per cent. On 1st April, 1969, another adjustment was made. In reply to what the hon. member for Germiston asked, I want to say that this adjustment was based on the recommendations which were submitted to me in regard to the question of salary structures. This was an adjustment which amounted in the first place to an increase for every teacher of at least 10 per cent, but in addition one of the most important concessions, for which teachers have been agitating for years, i.e. that there should be a notch per year adjustment, was granted. The hon. member for Durban (Central) will know what this means. He knows what appreciation there is among the teachers for that major concession.

I also want to refer to the latest announcement of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of the Interior, because some of the hon. members addressed specific inquiries in this regard. I want to state with the greatest emphasis that there is another small increase coming for the teachers, over and above these increases which I have just mentioned. In passing I did not even refer to the accellerated consolidation, because that was really related to the last salary increase. I have said that there was another small increase, because newspapers have aroused expectations among the teachers that, as one newspaper put it, there are “fat cheques” on the way for the teaching profession. This is misleading the teachers. I do not want to mislead these people. I have in my possession a lengthy and thoroughly motivated memorandum from the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, in which there is a thorough elucidation of the problems and the deficiencies which still exist in regard to teachers’ salaries and in regard to certain conditions of service. I have already replied to them that that memorandum is being considered, but it is a memorandum which consists of quite a number of folio pages, all of which envisage drastic amendments. That is why I hope that the House and my teacher friends outside will understand that it will not be possible to remedy all these matters overnight. But I have already said that I am a champion of the interests of the teacher, because I have the interests of the teacher at heart. I want to give them the assurance that as far as I am concerned. I shall attempt, as far as it is within the overall framework—because I have also learned that if you are in the Cabinet, you cannot dish everything out to Peter and leave only a crumb for Paul—in order to look after their interests. The teaching profession can be certain that they have in the National Party Government a government which takes into account the importance of their profession and which will do its best to take care of them.

The hon. member for Germiston asked: Why not equal salaries for equal qualifications? This is a very important point, the more so because for years we did not have it in the Public Service, but that the Public Service has now recognized it. I want to say here to-day, without being able to compromise the Government, that I have always regarded it as my ideal that we should also try to establish this criterion for our married women and our unmarried women teachers. When I say that this must remain an ideal, then I am saying this because the facts of the situation have proved to me that we cannot effect it at the moment. But I am prepared to say that since the State is the employer of teachers, nurses, people in the Defence Force and people in the Public Service, the teaching profession can at least compete on an equal footing for the favours of those 40,000 or more matriculants who leave our schools annually. If the teaching profession cannot do this, then it cannot expect to draw people to the profession who do not have an interest in education. Sir, I do not believe a good teacher can be bought or should be bought. I believe that a good teacher, as far as it is in our ability to do so, should be remunerated according to merits, but I do not believe in buying someone simply in order to have that someone in front of a class.

Having said this, I think that I have elaborated considerably on the salary position. I think there is still one point which caused teachers concern, and that is that everyone did not benefit, as they said, from the accelerated consolidation. With that they mean that they did not at present, with this acceleration, also get something extra or are going to get something extra. Sir, the reason for that is that they have in the process of adjustment on the notch per year increase already received what they are entitled to receive, and for that reason are not receiving anything extra, but I hope that with this increase which is in the offing, there will in fact be a further encouragement for our teachers.

Sir, I also want to reply to this question which was put to me: What are we going to do to deal with the situation? This is a very important matter. I first want to inform you of what we are already doing. As far as conditions of service are concerned, to which the hon. member referred, we have arranged matters so that new teachers begin their service on 1st January, and not on the date on which they actually begin with their classes. This is a minor improvement, but it does mean something as far as pension benefits and salaries are concerned. There are more posts for advancement. Some hon. members said that there were too many opportunities for advancement in education. This is a matter which is continually receiving attention. I am convinced that in due course there will be more posts for advancement in education. A new grading of schools was established which creates possibilities for the teaching profession. Sir, it is now possible for a teacher to pay off his study debts through service. Housing loans have been introduced for the teaching profession, obviously subject to the availability of money by the building societies.

Mention was also made of teachers’ pensions. This is of course a matter which depends on the civilian pensions of everyone in this country and it is really a matter which falls under my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Pensions, but I want to say that the Education Department have introduced more favourable pension contributions from the teacher’s point of view; in other words, the teachers are paying less in contributions to the pension fund than they had to pay in order to maintain the fund.

Then there are lesser benefits. There is, for example, a disruption allowance in regard to posting which, as can be understood, is always an unpopular measure. There are better leave conditions. There are increased vacation savings bonuses and travelling and accommodation allowances and there is also an allowance to bring down high rates of interest on housing loans. I think that if we take all this into account, and if we want to be honest and view the matter objectively, we must concede that this Government need not feel ashamed at what it is doing for its teachers. With that I am not saying that we are finished now and that nothing further need be done. I repeat that the needs of the teacher are continually receiving attention and it is not necessary, as the United Party propaganda is now stating with a view to the provincial election, to appoint an ombudsman committee to keep a watchful eye on the conditions of service and the salaries of teachers. The National Party itself is maintaining that surveillance and the Minister responsible, with his statutory bodies, is the person who should maintain surveillance. The Teachers’ Associations have the right of access to the Administrator in the case of the provinces, and through the Federal Council, to me. I want to give the assurance once again that those representations which have been made, are not merely being put away in a drawer. They are receiving attention, and we will do what we can.

Hon. members have asked what the Government is doing to deal with the situation, and I want to raise a few points here and I want to let that suffice and first give hon. members another chance to speak. I want to emphasize in the first place that the teaching profession is one of the few professions in the country where it is possible for a young woman or a young man to receive training free of charge even to degree level This a tremendous concession and a privilege which is being presented to prospective teachers. In addition I want to say that the study leave benefits of teachers are among the most favourable in the world and I am not exaggerating now, because I do not come from America. I want to mention to you that the Transvaal, for example, makes available no less than 1,000 bursaries of R300 each for acting teachers, and in addition to that three correspondence courses for teachers who want to improve their qualifications or who want to concentrate on subject training. This is also the reply to the hon, member for Benoni, who complained that teachers with insufficient training had to cope with certain subjects. We are doing what we can to enable the teacher to attain a higher level of training. The Transvaal Education Department has R1,000 bursaries for Honours students to enable them to obtain the Master’s Degree. In addition they have five R2,000 bursaries for their senior teaching staff to equip them for general educational leadership. In addition there are part-time post-graduate courses. There is also early employment of part-time post-graduate students as well as of full-time students in emergency cases, by allowing them to complete their courses on a part-time basis. I know that there is criticism in this regard. There are people who are saying that we are living off our capital, but the fact of the matter is that this is an interim measure to deal with the situation.

Then here is a system where acting teachers fill certain vacancies in a part-time capacity for additional remuneration. A mathematics teacher at one school, for example, also teaches mathematics at another school and obtains additional remuneration for that. One finds a system where a teacher who has long leave, helps out in an emergency, if he is a specialist in his subject, at other schools who do not have a teacher for the class, and receives an additional salary for doing so. We have just commenced with a system in terms of which married women teachers can be employed permanently for periods of five years.

Then it is not permanent.

Yes, it is for five years, and then for another five years. One must take a calculated risk with a woman whom you appoint permanently. In the beginning of 1969 only 60 per cent of the teaching staff in the Transvaal was permanently appointed. As against that the percentage at the beginning of 1970 was 76.5 per cent. I think this is attributable to a very large extent to the appointment of married women on a semi-permanent basis. All these measures I have mentioned are measures which still do not solve the problem for us. In my opinion the solution to this problem lies therein that plans must be made to try to reconcile supply and demand. The hon. member for Hercules also referred to that.

How can this be done? We are now going so far as to try to bring training facilities, particularly for English-speaking persons, closer to them. They will then have no excuse for not entering the teaching profession. We have transferred educational training of secondary teachers to the universities. The scheme is not operational yet since a considerable amount of preparatory work is required. Teacher training will also take place at universities. Now it is the case that certain English-language universities here in our country have never before, for reasons of their own, given teacher training. I do not want to elaborate on those reasons of theirs now, nor am I finding fault with them. That is their business. These English-language universities will also, in the very near future, begin to train teachers. I trust that the reaction of the English-speaking people in our country will be such, now that they can obtain degree training for their teaching profession, that they will feel drawn to those educational institutions.

Then there are additional scientific methods of recruitment. There are many matriculants who have certain ideas on what they want to do and subsequently find that they made a wrong choice. There are also those who because of their achievements could not obtain admission to some faculty or other. Attempts are now being made by means of scientific methods to try to attract these students to teacher training. I think that when certain of these temporary measures, which are semi-permanent, together with the future measures of which I gave the House a glimpse, are in full operation, we will be able to solve the problem.

There is one other very important aspect which I still want to emphasize. This is the status and prestige of the teacher. The hon. member for Durban (Central) also referred to this. This matter of a professional council for teachers is a very important matter. But it is a matter which one cannot tackle haphazardly. It is true that the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations even went so far as to draw up a Bill. But, drawing up a Bill is one thing, and subjecting it to the test of experts in all the various branches of the Government adminisration is another. I regard this matter of a professional or registration council of teachers as an extremely important matter. That is why, when I accepted my office as Minister. I gave instructions to the effect that the National teachers’ Council should devote serious attention to it. After the hon. member for Durban (Central) asked me the question, I asked the Education Council what progress had been made in regard to this matter. The reply is lying on my desk here. It is stated therein that it is an extremely thorny and difficult matter, with which a great deal of progress has been made, and in regard to which they hope to be able to submit a recommendation to me early next year. I think this ought to satisfy the teaching profession, as well as the hon. member, that that matter has not been shelved, and that it is in fact an important one.

There are other matters in this regard that I want to emphasize. I want to say that in South Africa far too much undermining of the authority of the teacher is prevalent. When I say this, I do not want to single anyone out. I am not reproaching anybody; I am not reproaching the Opposition; I am not reproaching the governing party, but it is and remains a fact, that there are too many people in South Africa who are undermining the authority of the teacher. From time to time we see petty things in our newspapers, so petty that someone who is not attentive to these matters may not even take it seriously. For example, a newspaper writes about a school principal who stipulated that the girls in his school, for reasons of his own, were not allowed to wear jewellery. Then one finds parents who kick up a great fuss about things like this, who run to the Press or who run to the Police because a teacher punished the child. What I want to say now is the other extreme of this matter. I grew up in a house where the teacher was always right. The result of this was that I never had the courage, no matter how mischievous and naughty I may have been, to go to my father and tell him that certain things had happened to me at school, because I was afraid that my father would give me a hiding because of it. This is perhaps exaggerated, and subsequently I discovered that there is another method. I take it my father followed that method, i.e. he went to the principal and discussed these matters with him. The most important aspect is, however, that he did not take my side against the teacher. Let us now examine our own conscience and let all the parents, who may hear something of what is said here to-day, examine their own conscience and let them ask themselves whether they are not guilty of undermining the authority of the teacher in this way. This point is one of the most important factors which contribute to the frustration of the teacher. I want to let what I have said so far suffice for the present, and I shall subsequently reply to other points raised by individual members and also in regard to cultural affairs.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the Minister’s reply to me is concerned, he devoted quite a large part of his reply to some newspaper articles of mine which appeared in The Argus some months ago. Quite frankly I did not base my speech on those articles to-day in the very slightest degree. I think he must have written his speech in anticipation of what I was going to say. The hon. the Minister then went on to talk about the number of pupils who are in Std. 6 and in Std. 8 which has increased considerably, since 1948. He mentioned this as if this he was refuting any arguments I had used about how long children stay in school to-day. This is not an argument that carries any weight at all. The population generally has increased pro rata so that you would expect the number of pupils in Std. 6 and Std. 8 also to increase pro rata. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that there was compulsory schooling for everybody up to the age of 16 years and that this was a very good thing. We entirely agree with him, and then the hon. Minister said that I have a great deal to learn. I have no doubt that he is correct, but in one respect, I want to tell him that he has a certain amount to learn as well. I served on the local school board in Cape Town for 13 years, partly as a nominated member and later as a elected member. One of the sub-committees on which I sat for years and years was what is called the Exemptions Committee.

The Exemptions Committee considered all cases of parents who wanted their children to leave school before the statutory age of 16. We had a file for each one and without exception the reason why they wanted their children to leave school, and we considered hundreds of them during my period at office, was because the parents simply could not afford to keep them in school. They did not have the funds for uniforms and for their upkeep and all the rest of it.

When you consider with what lack of success we have been pleading for years for a system of family allowances or some form of assistance for these students to stay at school so that they will not be prematurely thrust into the labour market, I think the hon. the Minister's suggestion that his predecessor’s attitude was correct in this regard, is not correct at all. Our pleas have always fallen on deaf ears. No attempt has been made to subsidize people in this position.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister of something very interesting in this regard. When we discussed the National Study Loans and Bursary Bill in this House in 1964, I made a plea to the then Deputy Minister of Education, who now happens to be the present Minister of Labour, and I begged him to extend the scope of that Bill to children in Std. 8 to enable them to go up to Matriculation under the bursary system. Shall I tell the hon. the Minister what his predecessor’s reply was? I want to quote from Hansard, Vol. 12, Col. 8665 of 19th June, 1964. The then Deputy Minister of Education said the following—

In other words, he found it a perfectly logical case to plead for more assistance to children from Std. 8 to matriculation, precisely as we have done in this debate and in countless others. The hon. Minister then went on and said that there was nothing positive in my speech at all to-day and that as far as he was concerned, all I did was to be destructive. I asked Hansard to let me have my notes back so that I could have the second half of my speech here with me which the hon. the Minister heard perfectly clearly and which is headed: “What we would have done in the Government’s place” and where I stated for the record that this is what we would have done. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that I used every single word of my notes.

The hon. member for False Bay was a colleague of mine in the Provincial Council. He accused us of making politics over educational issues. May I say that until the hon. member for False Bay spoke in this debate there was no single hint of a political discussion of any kind under this Vote. The hon. member for False Bay dealt with the question of parental choice and said how we had overemphasized this point and made it a political issue. He produced a completely false equation here and suggested that parental choice is of necessity in conflict with good educational principles. That was his point. What I want to know is what makes the hon. member think that any parent gives precedence when he is considering the schooling of his child, to anything except the educational benefit which he is going to get from it? If he does not make that his main choice, he is being very stupid. I want to tell the hon. member exactly where we stand and to answer all his questions here this afternoon. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than that. As far as the United Party is concerned, we are in favour of the minimum of State interference in these matters. Let us get this quite clear. Parental choice is of primary importance to us, but I repeat that it will be for the parents to choose whatever language medium they like and to change that language medium in midstream if they wish to do so.

Has that always been your policy?

It has always been our policy. It is our hope that—and I use the word “hope” advisedly—that the majority of parents will choose mother-tongue instruction as the medium certainly up to their end of their children’s primary school education and that if they choose otherwise it is entirely up to them. But no action would ever be taken by us to prevent it where parents of either language group in any community specifically desire a single Afrikaans-medium or English-medium school. If they want it, they shall have it. That has been set out in our policy for years and years. Hon. members should know that.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does the hon. member share the view of the hon. member for Salt River in the provincial council that the existing single medium schools should be converted into parallel medium schools?

I will make my own speeches, if hon. members do not mind. I am setting out quite clearly in this House our policy here and now for the provincial council elections. The hon. member for Salt River in the provincial council was talking about certain schools in this area which have been English-medium schools since the cows came home. He was talking about specific schools and not about the matter as a question of principle. We take the view that society must decide these matters for itself. That is correct.

What we do consider to be a wise and a workable ideal, is to create a climate of opinion amongst South African parents in which increasing numbers of both language groups will become anxious to establish and to maintain parallel medium schools. That simply means one thing. Wherever possible and where the local community has no objections, we shall establish parallel medium schools, for the obvious reason that they guarantee two very important matters, namely mother-tongue instruction for both groups, which is important, and the chance of getting to know and becoming familiar with each other’s languages and to form corporate loyalties and feelings of pride on behalf of their schools. Now it is our view and our hope that loyalties built up on this basis in the schools amongst our young people, with respect for and continuous usage of each other’s languages, will help to lay even firmer foundations of partnership and loyalty on a national basis. Is there anything basically wrong with that?

So parallel medium schools is not your policy?

I have just been describing to the hon. member why we think a policy of parallel medium schools is wise. [Interjections.] I have said that where the community does not object, we will establish them.

If they do object?

If they do object, they are perfectly entitled to single medium schools. Now the hon. member has got his answer. Surely, we have all outgrown the old and tired issues and the suspicions that we had about each other at one time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to follow the hon. member for Wynberg to any great extent, but I should like to ask her whether she, the United Party and the policymakers on that side have never taken cognisance of that very well-known premise in education, namely that one proceeds from the known to the unknown? This also holds good in respect of the language medium. I also want to tell the hon. member that she should not believe that parallel medium schools will be the solution to bilingualism. It is simply unacceptable. I want to continue by making, in all modesty, the observation that I believe that next time when these Votes come up for discussion again, we should deal with them separately. This morning the hon. Opposition evaded the issue and appeared to be the greatest culture lovers we have ever come across. They never got down to discussing education, until we forced them to do so. No, Sir, one actually started to gain the impression that the hon. Opposition was going to face this election without dragging education into it as well. Actually this is merely the lull before the storm. The hon. member knows this. She is one of the first who will go from platform to platform in order to disparage the present system of education. This is true.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) has only been here for a short while. He suggested here that the hon. member for Springs should really not have talked along those lines, as it would oblige him to come closer to talking politics. These evasions are of no avail. Sir, once this House has been prorogued, education will be propagated, and also disparaged, from platform to platform. I think it is necessary for us to consider the policy of that party for a while. The hon. the Minister has already mentioned the quotation taken from Volkshandel. The hon. policymakers opposite deemed it fit to say: “We are not going to commit plagiarism. We apologize now.” Let us take cognisance of an atrocious piece of mutilated language with which the United Party started the exposition of its education policy. Literally and verbally translated they state in the Afrikaans version of this booklet of theirs, under that quotation: “Ons is verskuldig aan Volkshandel vir hierdie verklaring.” This is not Afrikaans, and these are the people who pretend to be so concerned with equal treatment being accorded to both languages. I want to make more references to this booklet of the United Party. After all, it is their booklet. There is no doubt about that. I shall show them the colour of this booklet. Here it is. It is theirs.

Where did you get it?

I got it from the hon. member for Albany. He gave it to me.

Where is your book?

No, hon. members should not waste my time. In this booklet the United Party starts by saying: “Education is specially important in South Africa because our children must maintain their position on the continent of Africa in the future.” I agree. The second sentence reads as follows: “Education is specially important in South Africa because under the National Party racial division begins in the schools.” What do we have here? Hon. members must take cognisance of the fact that we shall take advantage of that statement. We are going to exploit that statement. They go on to refer to “education free of political bias”. The hon. member for Durban (Central) is still very young and does not know about these matters, but I want to put this question to those hon. members who are old enough: Whose actions made it necessary for us during the war years to establish in Pietermaritzburg the Voortrekker Hoërskool, since justice was not being done to the Afrikaans child in Natal? Who was in power at that time? It was not the National Party. The United Party has put its foot into the trap, and I believe that we should lay this at the door of their policymakers. In reading this kind of language, and everything that is said in this booklet, one sees two figures before one. They are the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow. They are the policymakers. This is their kind of language and their kind of ideas.

Sir, I want to come to another point. Quite a number of reasons were advanced for there being so few teachers. There were frequent references to those subjects in respect of which there is a particular shortage of teachers. It is commonplace to hear that those subjects are the two official languages, mathematics and science subjects. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is high time for us to stop saying where the fault lies or merely to say that shortages do exist in these respects. Should we not perhaps come a little closer to the classroom and then try to find the reason for these shortages?

I want to start with the two languages. We have heard enough examples in this House to-day as to why this is the case especially in respect of English. It is because the English-speaking person fail to offer his services to this profession. I just want to point out briefly to hon. members what Dr. McMagh, an English-speaking educationist, wrote in this regard in New Nation. She puts this question: Where are all the people with degrees in English? Then, in reply to that question, she writes that they have simply never existed. Then she asks whether they will ever exist. This person is by no means an obscure personality, and this is the question she asks. Recently I also read something that had been written by a certain Mr. Brigish. He is one of the hon. member for Houghton’s candidates for the provincial election. He calculated that there was a shortage of 20,000 English-speaking teachers. This is the position. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate on this at the moment, since I still want to deal with Afrikaans as well.

Language instruction at school is one of the most difficult subjects. Nothing will induce me to abandon this point of view, since English and Afrikaans are taken by every child at every school—I am referring to the high school in particular. The same does not apply to the other subjects. For instance, part of the class may take science and mathematics, whereas the others may take other subjects. In other words, the language teacher has a full class every period. The nature of the work, seen in the light of correction work, etc., is such that a language teacher is continually engaged in hard work, from January to December. In view of the fact that he is a language teacher, he is also expected to be a bearer of culture in his environment. He is given more and more work until that little flame eventually burns itself out. This is being noted by young people at universities and others; it is something which puts them off. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to finish what I was saying about this question of language medium and the possibility of parallel medium schools where the communities have no objection to their existing and flourishing. Surely, we have all outgrown the old suspicions of each other? If we have not, then it is time we did. It is too dreary for words to be rehashing this type of argument in Parliament at this period of our history. When I talked about this the hon. member for Boksburg shouted out: “What about Milner?” The hon. member is only half a century out of date. Have we really not got past that stage in our history in 1970?

Milner certainly influenced you!

I have nothing to do with Milner.

Let me say quite clearly that there will be no force, no coercion whatsoever about our policy. I hope the hon. member for False Bay is listening. I said there will be no coercion about our policy. Unlike the Government, that is not our way. The fact is that what people do willingly, they stick to. What they are forced to do, they rebel against. Nobody knows better than hon. members on that side of the House who have been through what they call, “die taalstryd” themselves. I hope history proves that clearly enough.

Let me make it abundantly clear to the hon. member for False Bay and to this Committee on the eve of the provincial election —let us write it into the record, as they say in America—that if they think they can exploit this issue for political purposes against us, they are flogging a completely dead horse.

In the Klip River by-election you rode him to death.

Our policy is to respect everyone’s wishes; to emphasize parental choice and to encourage mother-tongue education at the same time.

Since when?

It has been so for years, and the hon. member for Stellenbosch has the impertinence to tell me that I am trying to please everybody at the same time. Sir, the younger generation in South Africa are bored to death by outdated disputes of this kind and fears of this kind, and it is to them that we shall turn for a more enlightened approach to these matters, and it is our hope and indeed it is our expectation that the approach of the young people to this matter will be mature enough because of changing attitudes in this country, changes in attitude of which, if we are to accept his word, the Prime Minister himself is the senior advocate. I think it is high time we ceased having this type of discussion in Parliament and got on with the job of being less suspicious of each other over any and all of these matters, including education.

I should just like to tell the hon. member for Durban (Central) that when he spoke a moment ago, he quarrelled with the wrong person altogether when he referred to the hon. member for Springs as having said that in a discussion on teachers and the teaching profession, the principles involved were not only materialism, but also idealism. That is what the hon. member for Springs said. Sir, I notice that the hon. member for Benoni is on the point of leaving the Chamber. I should like to speak to him, too, if he does not mind. The hon. member for Durban (Central) should actually have quarrelled with the hon. member for Benoni. As we all know, the hon. member for Durban (Central) was a teacher until shortly before he was elected. The hon. member for Benoni said that the qualifications of our teachers at present were not nearly as good as were those of teachers, male and female, in 1948. In other words, the hon. member for Durban (Central) was horribly insulted in this House to-day by the hon. member for Benoni [Interjections.] The hon. member for Benoni said that the hon. member for Durban (Central) did not have good qualifications at all. Mr. Chairman, I used to be a teacher, too. and was trained more or less at the same time when the hon. member for Durban (Cntral) received his training, and the hon. member for Benoni said here to-day that the younger generation of teachers did not receive good training at all. I want to tell the hon. member for Benoni that he did not only insult the hon. member for Durban (Central), but also all the younger teachers trained since 1948: that is more or less a whole generation. I can take him to schools and show him what the academic qualifications of all these teachers are. For a number of years I myself taught at the university, where my lectures were attended by many education students, and I can assure you, Sir. that the standard and content of the lectures is. I can almost say, raised every year. I want to say more about the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Durban (Central). The hon. member for Benoni did not only insult the hon. member for Durban (Central), but as regards the War Graves Board, he adopted an attitude to-day which is directly in conflict with the attitude which the hon. member for Durban (Central) adopted earlier in this session. Sir, listen to all the things which the hon. member for Benoni said about this Board to-day; in view of the fact that it is the policy of this Board to centralize the widely scattered graves of soldiers killed in action, he said inter alia the following—

He referred to this board with contempt. He went on to say—

Then he went on to say—

Because of malpractices.

Sir, as the hon. member is referring here to the violation of graves, I want to tell him that these are the most disgraceful words which can be used in this respect. No, I am afraid that in this respect the hon. member for Benoni went too far to-day. But I want to contrast the two with each other. He concluded his speech by saying—

But let us deal now with the hon. member for Durban (Central). When he spoke here earlier this year, on 29th July, on the War Graves Bill, he said the following, hardly a month ago—

The violators of graves have now become the conscience of the nation?

This shows how strongly that hon. member felt about if, but to-day the hon. member for Benoni says that they are violators of graves. That hon. member went on to say—

And then he goes on to plead for these graves, which are scattered all over the country, to be centralized, and a moment ago I quoted to you, Sir, the passage where the hon. member for Benoni pleaded with might and main that we should not centralize these graves, which are so widely scattered all over our fatherland, in order that proper care might be taken of them. Listen to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) had to say—

Then he went on to say—

But listen to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said here—

But to-day the hon. member for Benoni comes along and cries to high heaven because this is in fact being done by the board. Sir, with the United Party it is a case of “as the old cock crows, so crows the young”. [Interjections.] Basically, in principle, they are divided between liberalism and conservatism. No sooner have those two young hon. members been elected to this House, and they are only sitting four seats apart from each other, than they are already differing with each other. [Interjections.] I want to continue by saying that over the past 22 years we have had proof of stable growth in every facet of the pattern of life of the South African community, and the universities are proof to that effect. Go back to the University of Pretoria. I think the hon. member for Durban (Central) also knows what it looks like there. Consider the conditions that prevailed in 1948 as regards students and administrative and technical staff, buildings, faculties, etc., and go there now, in the year 1970. and see what is happening there at the moment.

Do you expect everything to stand still?

I want to say that as far as Afrikaans universities are concerned, the United Party never did anything. All your sympathies were with the English language universities, perhaps not because the medium of instruction was English, but because the liberal idea was fostered there. I want to tell you, Sir, that if there is one person in our society to-day who has a difficult task to perform, it is the principal of a university.

They are your voters!

Yes, they are my voters, and it is because the young people vote for the National Party that I am here and that the hon. member for Potchefstroom and the hon. member for Stellenbosch are here as well—because the young people vote for us. I want to take this opportunity to say that from 1948 to 1970 the University of Pretoria had one principal in the person of Prof. C. H. Rautenbach, who retired recently. Having been a student, also a student leader and later on a lecturer while he was the principal of the university, I feel that if there is one person who has really carved his name boldly in the history of the universities of our country, that person is Prof. Rautenbach. He was a very capable university graduate, an excellent administrator, a leader in his field, a good patriot and a friend and a father to his students. On this occasion I want to thank him for what he did over the years when he was principal. I also want to express the hope that for a very long time to come we shall be able to avail ourselves of his services in our society. At the same time I want to convey my best wishes to the new principal, Prof. Hamman, and express the hope that he will hold that office for as long a period and render services which are as good.

Then there is another matter to which I want to come back briefly. In Newsletter No. 15 of the Human Sciences Research Council it has been announced that genealogical research will now be done. A year or two ago I made the plea that we should devote our special attention to research in this sphere. The announcement in this newsletter reads as follows (translation)—

[Time expired.]

If ever I was pleased about a member entering any debate, it was about the hon. member for Rissik entering this debate. He furnished us with proof of the dilemma in which the National Party finds, itself. The moment hon. members opposite find that something is wrong in South Africa, they take it amiss of us if we discuss it; then they want us to neglect our duty by keeping quiet. Let me illustrate this with what was said in regard to war graves. When I made my maiden speech a few months ago, I discussed the principle of this matter. And I am still saying to-day that the War Graves Board should act as the conscience of our nation. But what am I to do now if it has been brought to light by another hon. member that in the performance of their activities, activities which I commended and will always commend, they indulged in malpractices?

Do you believe what the hon. member for Benoni said?

I must accept it. What am I to do now? Should I do what hon. members opposite are doing and tell the hon. member for Benoni to keep quiet? If I do that, I shall be neglecting my duty. In actual fact, I am pleased that the hon. member for Benoni presented this side of the matter, and I am sure he has proof for saying what he did.

Let us transpose this phenomenon to education. I think the entry of the hon. the Minister into this debate resulted in something positive. We found that we struggled in this debate to find a common basis for a dialogue, for one cannot conduct a dialogue without a common basis. Up to time when the Minister entered into this debate, it was difficult for us to find such a common basis. I found that hon. members opposite were not prepared to accept that something was in fact wrong with education in South Africa; they were not prepared to accept that there was a shortage of teachers. For that reason I appreciate the admission made by the hon. the Minister, i.e. that such a shortage does exist.

I think that it is now possible for us to proceed and to deal positively with the matter. We must analyse the matter. I should like to do this now, and I say that to certain extent this has a bearing on the salaries paid to teachers. I see a similarity between the salary and the status of the teacher. Furthermore, reasons are being sought for the fact that people from certain homes or people with a certain background do not want to enter into the teaching profession. To my mind the cause is a very obvious one, namely that to a certain extent certain people have the idea that the moment teachers have qualified, they are doing work without the restrictions of professional standards and codes. It is for this reason that one finds that there are certain people who are not prepared to enter into this profession. I believe that we can remedy the matter through the introduction of professional status for teachers.

I want to come back to this question which, to my mind, is a cardinal one, namely that the moment we grant professional status to teachers, we should prevent them from ever becoming personally involved in campaigns for higher salaries. I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a reply in regard to this question, i.e. that separation between education and the Public Service Commission is in actual fact a condition for the establishment of any professional council for the teacher. I think that basically this is the reason why the hon. the Minister referred here to-day to a small increase for teachers. The reason why he had to phrase it that way, is that the salary structure and the posts structure for teachers have to be adjusted in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the Public Service Commission. I accept that this is his problem. I believe that this is one of our priorities, and this is a positive suggestion which is being made to the hon. the Minister from this side of the House.

The second positive suggestion which I want to make and which, to my mind, has a great deal to do with the matter of the status of the teacher and the image the public has of him, is to grant more recognition to the teachers’ associations. This can be done by way of negotiations. The hon. the Minister mentioned here something which is of great importance. He said that next year the National Education Council would inform us about the status and what the position was in regard to the establishment of a registration board. Prior to this report being submitted to us as members of Parliament, I believe that it should not only be forwarded to the Federal Council for Teachers, but also to each of the nine teachers’ associations in South Africa. The same applies to differentiated education in South Africa. There is a certain fear amongst teachers that they will have to give effect to a plan which will merely be presented to them. I accept the fact that on the various councils, i.e. on the National Education Council and on the departmental committees, there are people who work out these matters and who are conversant with the teaching profession. However, there is a feeling amongst practising teachers that they are not going to be consulted sufficiently in regard to these matters, and that they are going to be presented with an accomplished fact once these plans have eventually been drawn up. For that reason there is a great deal which we can do within our present limited framework.

For instance, if one reads the report of the Statutory Committee of Educational Heads, one finds that there is a certain sub-committee. One finds this in the Erasmus Report of 1968 concerning the representation of teachers on educational committees and bodies. The position is that certain recommendations were made, and that it was conceded that teachers’ associations could in fact nominate members for appointments. But in order that the travelling and subsistence allowances may be paid for, the final appointment has to be made by the Education Department or by the hon. the Minister. To a certain extent this system actually amounts to being a motion of no confidence in teachers. Normally they are asked not to nominate one person only, but to send in a list containing the names of three or four persons. Then it is left to the education council and other education departments to select one of those persons. I think this is a major disappointment to teachers. I can speak from personal experience. When we fight for the principle of the matter of gaining representation, it is announced that it is possible for teachers to have representation. The next moment we are told, “Give us three or four names.” Teachers must be trusted, and it must be accepted that they, and particularly their associations, are a responsible group of people. Allow them to select a person whom they think is capable of doing the work.

Now I want to come back to the question of the qualifications of teachers, in regard to which it would appear to me as though hon. members opposite are trying to distort the facts a little. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Central) will pardon me if I do not adopt a tone similar to his in this debate. I want to raise a matter that is of great importance to us all, particularly to English-speaking people in South Africa. It deals with the official translation of our National Anthem. I want to say that I have corresponded with many universities about this matter. It is a fact that the English-speaking person in South Africa cannot sing our official translation of the National Anthem with the same spirit and the same passion as the Langenhoven original. For the purposes of my argument I just want to read the first verse of the official translation of the National Anthem. I then want to base the various points I make on it. It reads as follows:

• Ringing out from our blue heavens,
• From our deep seas breaking round;
• Our everlasing mountains, where the echoing crags resound;
• From our plains where creaking wagons Cut their trails into the earth—
• Calls the spirit of our country,
• Of the land that gave us birth.
• At thy call we shall not falter.
• Firm and steadfast we shall stand,
• At thy will to live or perish,
• Oh, South Africa dear land.

It is interesting that the Langenhoven original makes no mention at all of “seas breaking round”. The second point is that in the original there is not a single word written about “wagons cutting trails into the earth”. This translation in no way accords with the original. What is more, neither does Langenhoven make any mention of “the land that gave us birth”. To-day in this country, for example, we have many British immigrants. When they sing the first verse of our National Anthem, this line must, of necessity, put them in mind of their country of birth, Britain. It must remind the German, who is a prospective immigrant, of Germany, which is his country of birth, and not of South Africa. It is also very interesting to note that the lovely words that we have in the Afrikaans text, i.e. “Ons sal offer wat jy vra”, which are, in my opinion, key words in our National Anthem, are not translated at all in the official English translation.

I have here a translation that I should like to quote. It was drawn up by a Mr. Stuart Barter, an inhabitant of Otjiwarongo. He has written several volumes of poetry and displays great talent. He made a translation which he handed to me. I submitted it to virtually all the Departments of English at our universities in South Africa. One and all preferred Mr. Barter’s translation to the official one. There are various reasons for this. Here, for example, is a letter—I just want to read one— from Mr. A. Lennox-Short, head of the Department of English at the University of Cape Town. He praises Mr. Barter’s translation. Then he says the following in respect of the official translation:

He thinks that in the modern idiom they ought not really to be there. But then he goes even further and states why he prefers Mr. Barter’s translation.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to read the first verse of Mr. Barter’s translation. Then hon. members will agree with me that he has actually given a better interpretation of Langenhoven’s feeling when he wrote “Die Stem” than the existing official translation does. Instead of “The Call of South Africa”, he calls it “The Voice of South Africa”. The first verse reads as follows:

• From the azure of our heavens,
• From the deepest ocean spring;
• From eternal mountain ranges,
• Where the crags with echoes ring;
• Through our vast and lonely prairies,
• Where the sturdy wagons groan,
• Comes the murmur of our true-love:
• Of South Africa, our own.
• We shall rally to your calling,
• Give our all to serve your need;
• Bravely stand or proudly falling;
• We are yours, South Africa!

That is the opinion, not of myself, but of people who know the English language. As I have said, I submitted this translation to the various Departments of English at our universities, and they agree that it is a better translation. But I think that Mr. Barter’s translation of the second verse, in particular, is something distinctive. I think I must read it just to get it on record. He also published it in the S.A. Banking magazine. This is one of the verses of his translation that made a particular impression on me. I am now going to quote it:

• In our inward strength and power,
• In our spirit, heart and soul;
• In the fame that bred a nation,
• And our hope as years unroll;
• In our will and work and leisure,
• For as long as we may live;
• Other land we shall not cherish—
• All our love to you we’ll give.
• Fatherland, your noble standard
• We with honour shall uphold.
• As South Africans, that fire,
• In our hearts shall not grow cold.

I think that this is a very excellent translation. I feel that this translation has a greater effect on one when one reads it or sings it. While we in South Africa, on both sides of the House, are working towards national unity, I think that our official translation of the South African National Anthem should also be such that it moves the English-speaking persons. Everyone who has made South Africa his fatherland, regardless of whether he landed here with Jan van Riebeeck, or whatever the year of his arrival was, even if it was only this year, and regardless of whether he was born in another country, must sing the National Anthem in such a way that he regards this as his only fatherland. As I have indicated, with the official translation he cannot rightfully and with pride sing the South African National Anthem if it refers to his country of birth. That is why I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter. I do not know what will eventually be the best translation. I do not think that any hon. member in this House is able to say that this or that translation will be the best. But I think there are sufficient English-speaking people in South Africa who can put their heads together to translate this National Anthem of South Africa in such a way that it can move everyone and can be sung by everyone with the same enthusiasm and dedication as the Afrikaans-speaking persons can sing Langenhoven’s “Stem” to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelland has dealt with a delicate matter as far as the national anthem and its translation are concerned. I think it is an accepted fact that most South Africans like to regard the national anthem in the Afrikaans language, in its existing form, as our national anthem. Expressing my own personal views, I believe that it should remain as it is. It should be sung by both the English-and Afrikaans-speaking peoples in the language in which it was originally composed. I feel that it is up to the English-speaking people, who do not know the national anthem in Afrikaans, to make it their business to learn the anthem as soon as possible. Furthermore, the new South African citizens should make it a point to learn the anthem and to realize what it means and the spirit in which the anthem is sung.

However, I wish to deal with another matter that falls under the Minister of Education. Although it is included now as an item in the Vote of the Department of Higher Education, it is in fact not higher education at all. I refer to the question of the re-education of those persons who are accommodated at, or in many instances committed to, schools of industries and the reform schools in South Africa. This is not only a matter of rehabilitation, but also a matter of re-education. I think it is fitting that this sphere of work should fall under the Minister of Education, because obviously, in efforts to rehabilitate these people, the emphasis is on re-education rather than on punitive measures. It is, however, interesting to review the position from time to time as far as the industrial schools and reform schools are concerned. We know that there are approximately 2,000 white children committed to various childrens’ homes each year in South Africa. We know that many of them particularly the elder ones, are committed to an industrial school in the first instance. I believe that, at present, there are about 18 industrial schools in South Africa. I think it a pity that there is not a greater degree of grading of these schools. We find in a number of instances that children’s homes, if they find that a girl or a boy is becoming difficult, apply for a transfer for this child to an industrial school. We know, too, that there are also children, under the age of 18, who are committed by the Children’s Court or by a juvenile court to a school of industry. It seems a pity that there is not a school of industries which can provide for and differentiate between those young persons who have been committed on the grounds of uncontrollability or the development of certain deviate behaviour problems and those who have shown no such behaviour problems. This I mention with regard to the grading of such schools. The youngsters who are committed on the basis of neglect or ill-treatment by their parents are also sent to an industrial school. I believe it is important that, in order that a stigma is not attached to some of these young people who are attending industrial schools, these schools should be graded. This would bring about a better co-ordination of the services that these schools are performing. I do not wish to criticize the services of these schools. I believe that they are doing excellent work and it is certainly a most important field of operation that they have with regard to our young people. It does, however, appear that the industrial schools face a problem of abscondment. I would like to briefly refer to a case which occurred earlier this year of a boy of 15 years of age, who was shot dead by Police on the Witwatersrand. He had stolen a car. This I believe is a case which illustrates the difficulty involved as far as absconders from the schools of industry are concerned. This particular boy had absconded from the school on, I think, seven occasions before he was eventually committed to a reform school. Then again he absconded from the reformatory and ultimately met his end unfortunately when he was shot dead by the Police. The difficulty that arises is that when an abscondment occurs, the disciplinary action is that that boy or girl must be returned to the institution from which he or she has absconded. However, it does make rehabilitation exceedingly difficult if the pupil himself continually absconds. I believe the hon. the Minister should have an inquiry into this whole question of the number of absconders from the industrial schools particularly as one realizes that the reform schools are dealing with a much more difficult type of person. Indeed, most of the persons accommodated in a reform school have committed criminal offences. If one looks at the question of absconders, one sees that approximately 500 persons abscond from these schools per year. It would appear that, taken over the last three years, an average of about 350 per year are returned to the school. Another 50 are transferred to other institutions. In many cases, such as the case of the 15 year old boy I have referred to, persons are transferred to a reform school. Approximately 100 are not traced or they had extreme difficulty in tracing them, and over a period of time they are often discharged from the committal order. I believe that in the grading of these industrial schools, there should be set aside at least one school which has tighter security in regard to the absconders so as to discourage abscondence of this nature. I know that psychologists and so forth agree that it is perhaps not in the interest of the pupils to have a tighter degree of security. However, where we have a situation where a boy continually absconds, I think it is a pity that greater measures are not taken to prevent him from absconding from the industrial school in the first place. Otherwise, if he has a record of continual abscondment, he is eventually transferred to a reform school. Of course, at the reform school he is then associating with a large number of young persons who have committed offences and who are in fact criminal offenders. There again the position of abscondment arises. However, I believe that the grading of these industrial schools is an important factor. I also believe that the Department should endeavour to establish an industrial school in the province of Natal for boys. There is already a school for girls at Utrecht. But as far as the boys are concerned there is no school in Natal. It is looked upon as one of the means of assisting in the rehabilitation of some of these people to not entirely lose contact with their own homes and with their own parents. It does make it exceedingly difficult for parents in Natal who have sons or daughters who are committed to industrial schools which are often a thousand miles away from their home. It makes it almost impossible for them to maintain any physical contact with the child and to visit that child and to continually show an interest. I believe that the hon. the Minister should endeavour to have an investigation into the success or otherwise of the present system of the school of industries. Some years ago I had an opportunity of studying a report by Dr. J. M. Lötter, a report that was subsequently published in other periodicals. This document, “Die Rehabilitasie van Blanke Jeugoortreders”, was produced under the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research. This was a study of former pupils of the school at Constantia. Although these boys are perhaps in a slightly different category to the general trend of the type of person accommodated at schools of industries, it does show rather alarming figures in that the follow-up of past pupils of this Constantia school showed that only 26.3 per cent could be consider as having been successfully rehabilitated at that reform school. This means that the success is based on the fact that they were not convicted of any offence within five years after their discharge or release on licence from the reformatory. Then, Sir, another 10.1 per cent could be classified as partial failures because they were convicted of one or two offences of a less serious nature during that same period of five years after their discharge; 16.1 per cent could be considered as failures because they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment within five years after their discharge; 3.5 per cent were unclassified because they could not be traced. This means that in spite of the whole programme of re-educating these persons at reform schools, in spite of schooling, the commercial training, the trade instruction and the psychological treatment provided at the reform school, there was only a very small percentage of successes. [Time expired.]

I want to take this opportunity at the beginning of my speech to thank the hon. the Minister briefly for the very clear and positive guidance which he gave us in this House to-day and which he will also give in the future. I know that I am speaking on behalf of all of us on this side of the House in saying that we have full confidence in the hon. the Minister, and that we have full confidence in those councils which assist him, such as the Education Council, the Committee for Educational Heads and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, all of which will, in conjunction with him, in the light of the admirable disposition which he displayed here to-day and the proof which he furnished to this effect, afford us the opportunity to eliminate in the near future the bottlenecks which may and do exist in education. Sir, the National Party, this side of the House, has always been the greatest friend of education in South Africa. Furthermore, the National Party has always had the greatest appreciation for the teacher in the Republic of South Africa. The teacher is still in very high repute with the National Party, and this is not the case because it wants to make some political capital out of teachers. The National Party has always stood by the teaching profession and the teacher. Accordingly the National Party is appreciative of the services which teachers have rendered to the country, and it has respect for the grand task performed by them and the sacrifices they are making.

Sir, in the course of my speech I want to touch upon, in the few minutes which I have at my disposal, a few matters which I should very much like to put to the hon. the Minister. The first matter which I want to mention, is the promotion system. It is a well-known fact that if one is a member of the teaching profession, one will try to gain promotion to the post of vice-principal and eventually to that of a principal. If it is true that the best teachers are those persons who are promoted to the posts of vice-principals and principals —and everybody will probably agree with me that this is in fact the case—then it has this effect, i.e. that the “scarce” subjects, about which we heard there to-day, are actually being used as promotion subjects in many respects. This is what I mean by saying this: When a post is advertized and a specific person has the qualifications which are required in that school, his chances of promotion are good as a result of his having those qualifications; and what effect does this have on the teaching profession? If such a person is promoted to the post of a principal or even to that of a vice-principal, he is placed in a position where he has to devote a great deal of his time, attention, capabilities and experience to administrative work; therefore, he is taken out of the classroom. What my argument amounts to briefly, is that I want to ask that the educational authorities should devise plans for a system to be designed whereby it will be possible for us to promote the teacher in the classroom itself. By that I mean that we should keep him in the classroom, where we need him and where he is of great value to the pupils. We know from experience that a great deal of a school principal’s time is merely being devoted to administrative work, which can perhaps be done just as effectively by other people. But if we could have a system whereby that teacher could, in this way, gain promotion and a higher salary and still remain in the classroom, I think that we would already have wiped out to a large extent this shortage of teachers, especially in the scarce subjects. I know that I am touching upon a very difficult matter, but I believe that if we tackle this problem seriously, we are in fact going to devise a plan whereby these problems will be surmounted.

Secondly, I want to plead another cause. This relates more particularly to the area from which I come, i.e. the Witwatersrand. The position there is that there are only a few schools which have hostels. I feel that if we can design a system whereby schools in densely populated urban areas can be granted more hostels, it would also, to a certain extent, solve one of the problems with which teachers are struggling a great deal at present, namely housing. I know that where I come from, many teachers apply for posts in the rural areas, not because they really want to go to the rural areas—I have no objection to their going there—but many of them go to the rural areas merely because they can be admitted to hostels, where they then find it easy to obtain accommodation which they would not otherwise have had. But this would also have another advantage, namely that, especially in the poorer parts, those pupils who have to do without parental supervision for a major part of the day, would then be concentrated in hostels, where they would be under the supervision of the teachers. This would be of more value to them than to be aimlessly running around in the streets. But, in the third place, it would also afford thousands of working mothers peace of mind to know that their children are being cared for properly. I know that these two matters will require a great deal of deliberation, but I know that they contain the germs of a partial solution to many of our present problems.

In the short while which I still have at my disposal, I want to say a few more words about the status of teachers. A great deal has already been said about this matter, and I am particularly grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has already referred to it and that he adopted a very sound attitude. However, I want to endorse what was said and what was done to-day in regard to the increase in the salaries of teachers. I definitely want to support the case that was made out for it, and I believe that the salaries should be adjusted in such a manner that they will attract the right persons to the teaching profession, and that they will also keep in the teaching profession the right persons who are serving in it at present. Those salaries should be adjusted in such a manner that it will be an attractive proposition to men to enter into this profession, as has already been said today. If we are in earnest about the teaching profession, I want to make this appeal, not only to this House, but also to the public outside, i.e. that in future we shall have to pay more in order to obtain the services of the right teachers in sufficient numbers. But over and above the salaries there is another very important aspect, namely the conditions of service, which were also discussed to-day and on which I do not wish to elaborate again. I just want to say that fringe benefits are also of great importance to the teachers to-day, for merely earning a bigger salary means that one has to hand over a greater part of it by way of income tax, and consequently an even better pension scheme and an even better medical scheme and even better housing loans and even better study bursaries and territorial allowances are things which will, so I believe, contribute a great deal towards making the teaching profession even more important and acceptable to our people. In conclusion, therefore, I want to associate myself with what has already been said in regard to the status of the teacher. I want us to come down to earth and not to be floating up in the clouds. Status is very closely bound up with what one earns in one’s profession. It definitely has a great deal to do with one’s income. However, status is also determined according to the way in which the teacher and his profession are accepted in public and in private life. What is the attitude adopted by many of our parents in this regard? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Wynberg. Before I do so, I should like to put certain pertinent questions to her.

You know that I will not now have a chance to reply.

You can reply as I put them to you. You can just nod your head if you wish. I should like to know from the hon. member for Wynberg whether the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council, when he speaks, whether he professes to inform the Council of United Party policy. I think that is very important.

He says exactly what I say.

He does not exactly say what the hon. member has said. I should therefore like to say now that I accuse the hon. member and her party of duplicity. The hon. member for Wynberg says that we are trying to revive and rehash old suspicions …

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member suggest that the hon. member for Wynberg is guilty of duplicity?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. I said that I accuse her of political duplicity.

Mr. Chairman, you therefore allow the word “duplicity” as being Parliamentary?

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Wynberg says that we are trying to revive and rehash old suspicions. Let us deal with that straightaway. The Leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council started off an election campaign in Port Elizabeth on the 19th September this year. There he made a most deplorable statement. He said: “United Party slates white apartheid in education”. Now, what is the basis of that statement? He goes on and says that the basis of this statement is the policy to establish single medium schools in this province. When the Minister of National Education declared his policy as to the medium of instruction in schools, this declaration of policy had to be implemented by an ordinance in the Provincial Councils of our country. To this ordinance which had to implement this policy there was an objection in principle by the United Party. And what was the basis of the objection to the ordinance? In the first place the United Party said that they believed in mother tongue education, but that the deciding factor must be parental choice. It is a fact that in the ordinances of 1911, 1918 and 1925 there was no parental choice. It was obligatory that the child should be educated in its mother tongue. The United Party accused us of white apartheid because we established single medium schools. Now I put the question to the hon. member for Salt River in the Provincial Council and I quote from the debates of the Provincial Council, column 258. In reply to the accusation that we preach national unity but are not practising it in the schools I said—

Ja.

Almal?

Ja.

Ek sal baie graag so ’n versoek van die agb. lid wil kry.

My antwoord is ja.

This is the statement that was made by the hon. member for Salt River in the Provincial Council. What does Mr. De Villiers say, and I quote. He says—

T want to ask the hon. member a question: Does he not know that SACS applied to the authorities to become a parallel-medium school, but it was refused by the Nationalist Administration to which they applied?

The reply to that question is not at issue at this moment. What is at issue is the fact that in as far as it concerns policy, the hon. member for Wynberg’s policy is in conflict with the M.P.C. for Salt River which in turn is in conflict with the M.P.C. for Constantia.

Mr. Chairman, the short time at my disposal for replying to the second half of this debate, is not sufficient to enable me to reply to all the questions. I know that I still owe replies to the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Durban (Central), the hon. member for Hercules, and a few other hon. members, but I am afraid that I shall not be able to come to them, nor shall I have time to make the statements which my colleagues the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said I would probably make on my Vote. I am afraid the time will be too limited for that. I shall therefore confine myself to the few matters which I shall be able to dispose of in the remaining time.

I should like to start with the hon. member for Benoni. I do not want to repeat the shocking remarks he made in this House, but I want to say to him that he should go home and read what he said, and that he should be ashamed of what he said here. The hon. member made an unjustified and, in my opinion, a shameless attack on the integrity of the South African War Graves Board. I want to say to hon. members that this is a very honourable body and that it performs very difficult work in delicate circumstances. I concede that there can be difference of opinion on whether or not one should centralize the graves of those killed in action; in fact, we have seen that he and the hon. member for Durban (Central) hold different views. However, there is nothing wrong with that. There are probably persons on this side of the House who also differ with one another on this matter. I dealt with it at length when the War Graves Amendment Bill was considered here. Therefore I want to say that if Mr. Marais or Mr. Jacobs or whoever has a different opinion in regard to that, they are entitled to have their own opinions on the matter. However, I want to come back to the hon. member for Benoni, who stood up here as a backbencher and made such allegations and still had the audacity to request that a judicial commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate this matter. What are the facts? The South African War Graves Board consists of two committees, namely the British Forces Committee and the Burgher Graves Committee. They are divided equally, and I want to tell the hon. member who the persons are who serve on that board as members of the British Forces Committee. They are the following—

• Captain Smedley Williams.
• Lt.-Col. Kenyon.
• Mr. G. A. Chadwick.
• Brig. Kriegler.
• Mr. A. C. Long.
• Commandant G. R. Duxbury.

They are all men who are in the closest contact with the ex-servicemen’s organizations and regimental organizations. They are persons who do this work out of piety, and I deplore it most strongly that the hon. member went so far as to raise in this House the work which has been done in regard to the reinterment of the Black Watch. I can say to hon. members that this work was done by the British Forces Committee according to their lights at the time about what action should be taken in such cases. They did this bona fide to the best of their capabilities. I think it is really excessive of this hon. member to come forward subsequently and to make such a scandalous allegation. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Green Point, who I know has very close contact with the organizations of ex-servicemen, to apologize on behalf of the hon. member for Benoni to the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned here, for his having tried to throw suspicion on their work in this way. I am sure that if the hon. member had merely taken the trouble to discuss the matter with the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Green Point would have cleared up that whole matter for him. I have said that this is a delicate matter. I have said that reinterment and centralization are necessary in certain circumstances and I do not want to elaborate further on this matter now.

The hon. member for Benoni also referred to buttons, medals and coins which are allegedly available in bars everywhere and which come from the graves of soldiers who are reinterred. I have received the assurance from the Ware Graves Board that the closest supervision is exercized in the case of exhumations and reinterments. The hon. member is shaking his head to and fro. I want to say to him that he should lodge a complaint with the War Graves Board and substantiate it; I cannot now discuss specific cases which are past, such as that of the Black Watch. If the hon. member had had any positive criticism to offer, I would have listened to it gladly, but the way in which he handled this matter does not become him and I am very sorry that he has cast these aspersions on the good work of these people. The hon. member also mentioned crosses which had been removed from graves of soldiers and which one finds in the shops of scrap metal dealers in Natal. He referred to crosses lying around everywhere.

Which were sold at an auction.

Yes, that is correct I now want to read a letter to the hon. member. I have here a copy of a letter with the letter head of the Provincial Building Service Department, Bramhill Building, Pietermaritzburg. This letter is dated 7th August, 1970. I can furnish the hon. member with the reference number as well if he questions this letter. It reads as follows—

I hope that the few remarks I have made will bring the hon. member for Benoni to the realization that although you sit in the back benches, you still have a great responsibility, especially if in this House you want to drag through the mud the name and the honour of such an honourable organization as the War Graves Board. The point which the hon. member for Durban (Central) made here to the effect that one wanted to draw attention to a wrong state of affairs, cannot be applicable here. The way in which the hon. member did so, is not at all above suspicion.

†Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed in lighter vein. As the Minister under whose jurisdiction the South African Merchant Navy Academy Gen. Botha falls, I put it to the Cabinet that the Academy at Granger Bay would be the starting point of the January Cape to Rio yacht race, that several similar oversea institutions have entered and that our own Acadamy’s ketch, the Howard-Davis, would be a worthy carrier of the South African flag across the ocean. The Cabinet accordingly resolved that it would financially make it possible for the Council of the Academy, if it decided to enter for the race. This resolution was passed on the 11th September and it now affords me great pleasure to announce that the South African Merchant Navy Academy will enter the Howard-Davis for the race, and, what is more, that it will be commanded by Captain-Superintendent Nankin and manned by a crew of predominantly Botha Old Boys. I need hardly emphasize that all steps necessary to safeguard the safety of the vessel and the crew will be taken, that both the vessel and crew will be appropriately insured and that a Lloyd’s certificate of seaworthiness will be obtained. I am convinced that I speak for all hon. members when I wish Captain Nankin and his crew success with their preparations, as well as fair winds and a pleasant voyage.

I should furthermore like to reply to those who raised certain matters on the Cultural Affairs Vote. I shall start with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He referred to the Africa Institute. I shall speak rather briefly about that, and I hope he will not take it amiss of me. I just want to say to him that the increase of R29,000 on the Estimates is due to the creation of two professional posts, increased rent and, improved salaries, which normally applied. In regard to the appointments of Prof. Weiss and Dr. Van Wyk, these were of course done by the Board of Control, and my Department has no control over that. Therefore I cannot accept responsibility for it. The services provided by the Africa Institute, i.e. their information and publications, are made available to all race groups who want to make use of them. In regard to membership of the institute, the general accepted policy of the Government in regard to membership of scientific societies applies.

May I put a question? Is this forced on them by the Government, because according to their articles of association their membership in open to all South African citizens?

On whom is it forced?

On the institute?

The societies co-operate voluntarily and also make free use of the information. There is no question of compulsion.

In regard to the purchase of musical instruments for schools. I just want to say that this is a matter which does not fall under my Department. It is actually the concern of the provincial administrations. I know, however, that there are certain provincial education departments that are doing something in this regard. My Department is concerned with adult education.

In regard to donations of works of art to public institutions, I may say that such donations are free of tax at the moment. The hon. member actually proposed something else. That aspect can be considered later. The decision, of course, rests with my colleague the Minister of Finance.

In regard to the integration of immigrants, I just want to say that the selection of students for courses and camps, educational journeys, etc., are initiated by the regional offices of the Department of Cultural Affairs, in consultation with school principals and voluntary organizations, both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking, which organize such undertakings. If one were to judge by the reaction of the parents and the children, the success which has been achieved is very encouraging. We are operating on a sound and fruitful basis in this regard. About 40 of these projects take place annually and they are attended by several thousand pupils.

The hon. member further inquired about the bursaries in librarianship for students from African states. These are bursaries which are made available to the University of South Africa by the South African Library Society. I do not know to whom they have awarded or award them. Therefore I cannot reply to that point. It is actually a matter which is dealt with by the University of South Africa.

In regard to cultural treaties—both the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded for the expansion of cultural contact with foreign countries—I just want to say that in principle we are completely in agreement with that. It is hoped that the vacancy in Belgium will soon be filled. The problem has been to find someone who speaks French, but we hope to be able to fill the post before long. I may point out that we have considerable cultural contact with foreign countries apart from cultural treaties. In fact, there is a system of bursaries apart from these treaties, although no formal agreement exists in that regard. Therefore, although we are progressing along this road, it remains a matter of “make haste slowly”.

The hon. member for Springs also discussed the encouragement of good books. In this connection I may just say that the selection of Afrikaans books is done by the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns and of English books by the South African English Academy. The hon. member remarked quite rightly that the amount made available for this purpose is not a large one. Seeing that the matter concerned here is a very important one, we will have to try to obtain more in future. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked why we restrict ourselves to writers in South Africa. Well, this is in order to encourage writers in South Africa. There are no ulterior motives.

The hon. member for Springs also drew attention to the dangers inherent in importing too many artists from overseas to participate in our performing arts. We are fully aware of that danger and I can assure him that it is not the intention to take the bread from the mouths of local artists, but to ensure that our own artists make progress and improve their standards. Sometimes it is necessary, especially in the performance of operas, to get artists from overseas, because we do not always have the people in South Africa who are able to do justice to those roles. In any case, we shall guard against the danger which the hon. member thinks he spotted.

Inquiries were also made here in regard to the report of the committee which investigated the distribution of culture. It is hoped that this will be available by the second half of next year.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to all the questions in regard to matters on this Vote. Have I perhaps omitted something?

A good deal, but we will pardon you.

I undertake to furnish written replies later to the questions which I could not reply to now due to lack of time. In the time left to me I just want to say that on this occasion we have to take leave of two of our most senior and respected officials—the Secretary for Cultural Affairs, Dr. Op’t Hof, and the Secretary for Higher Education, Mr. Erasmus.

Dr. Op’t Hof is retiring after 44 years in the Public Service. Of those 44 years, he spent 41 years in Cultural Affairs and Education. Hon. members will agree with me that his retirement is a great loss to us. He has come a long way and has achieved a great deal. I trust that he has received other than mere monetary reward for the service which he has rendered.

Mr. Erasmus is retiring after 42 years’ service in education. Of those 42 years, he spent 24 years in Higher Education.

The careers of these two officials should serve as an example to all officials who are in the Service to-day and also to those who are still to come. I learnt to know Dr. Op’t Hof in the most unfavourable circumstances. This was when we were agitating in Johannesburg for the establishment of a commercial school. He was the Secretary for Education at the time. In the meanwhile, I have become Minister of the Department and therefore know him well. One of Dr. Op’t Hof’s outstanding characteristics has been that he has literally exemplified the term “civil servant”—he has indeed been a civil and courteous servant of the public. Both these officials have been competent, friendly and helpful. Both studied hard in order to equip themselves better for the responsibilities attached to their posts. They entered the Public Service at a time when there were far fewer training facilities than there are to-day. But during their periods of service they equipped themselves further. If there is one man who is concerned about the correct use of language, it is Dr. Op’t Hof, and this applies to both English and Afrikaans. As far as this is concerned, he set a fine example to his Department. Mr. Erasmus came the whole way—from a teacher in a one-man school, to principal, school inspector, chief inspector, professional advisor, Undersecretary. Deputy Secretary and then Secretary for Education. This is a long career.

Can any of us assess the true value of what these two gentlemen meant to us during their periods of service? Who can thank them properly for what they have done for us? To a certain extent they have already received recognition for it during their periods of service. Dr. Op’t Hof, for example, received an honorary doctorate from the University of Stellenbosch. But there were also other forms of recognition for their ability and courtesy. As far as I am concerned, I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I say to them that we have a high regard for them as persons and great appreciation for their work. On behalf of myself, the Department and the Government, I want to thank them and wish them everything of the best for the future.

As hon. members know, the Department of Higher Education and the Department of Cultural Affairs are again being combined into one Department. The new Department will be under the leadership of Dr. J. T. van Wyk, at present the Director of Education in South-West Africa. I shall say more about his abilities next year. I am convinced that he will be a worthy successor to the two gentlemen who are now leaving the Service. Then I also want to announce that the Deputy post in Higher Education is being filled by Mr. S. C. M. Naudé, the Director of the College for Advanced Technical Education in Johannesburg. I think this is an appointment which will also meet with general approval and I am sure that he will also serve this cause as he has served the Department in the past. Sir, my time has expired.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 48.—“Planning”, R14,875,000 and 50,—“Statistics”. R6,504,000, Loan Vote H.—“Planning”, R7,500,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 26.—“Planning”, R136,000:

Sir, in view of the lateness of the hour, the privilege of the half hour in this important Vote will be sought when the debate is resumed, possibly on Monday or on a subsequent date. At this stage I would like merely to put before the Committee certain thoughts in regard to this Department. I refer now particularly to the Department of Planning. But before I go on to that, in view of the fact that the Vote of the Department of Statistics has also been put, I. think that I ought at this stage to say to the hon. the Minister that we hope that he will be able to give the Committee at least some preliminary indication of the results of the recent census. I think that this Committee and the country as a whole are keenly interested to have information on this subject and, if possible, preliminary figures.

Before I go on. Sir. the Department of Planning is now in the hands of a new Secretary, and I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of this side of the House to congratulate him and to wish him well in this new position. We know him well from his functions as chairman of the Committee for the Location of Industry, and we are sure that he will fulfil his task in this new post with distinction. The Department is in the hands also of a new Minister and we on this side of the House would like to take this opportunity of wishing him well also.

But a very short stay in power.

As I said a moment ago, I believe that the Department of Planning is possibly one of the most important of all Departments in the present context of the new decade of the seventies. I believe that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to review the functions of this Department and to broaden those functions and the whole vision of the Department of Planning in this country. It has tended in the past, I believe, to concern itself almost exclusively—I emphasize “almost exclusively” because it is not exclusively—with the establishment of group areas and border industry areas, two obviously important functions in terms of Government policy. But I believe that a Department of Planning of any State should see its function in a far broader light, and I hope that now that the Department is in the hands of a new Minister and a new Secretary, thought will be given to the question of broadening these functions. Sir, we must not forget that we are living in times of great expansion and of large-scale developments. We are living in a rapidly changing world where this expansion and these developments change rapidly almost from year to year. If we want to keep pace with the developments that are taking place in the rest of the world, and if we want to continue to do big things in South Africa, as I am sure all hon. members on this side do want, then we must be prepared not only to think big but also to plan big. I believe that the function of this Department should be to lay down the broad basis upon which the plans which are to be made for the future, can be properly made. I want to emphasize, Sir, that we must not lose sight of the fact that because of the nature, the scale and the rapidity of the developments that are taking place in all spheres in the modern world, these developments carry inherent dangers if they are not wisely controlled and imaginatively planned. I would like to emphasize these two things—wisely controlled and imaginatively planned.

Sir, what should the Department of Planning be doing? First of all, before any sort of planning can take place, before any broad plan for the future of South Africa can be drawn up, what is perhaps one of the most fundamental things is a reasonably accurate population projection because without that, plans made for the future will tend to be inaccurate and to go astray even, and I believe that it is in this sphere that the Government has failed in the past. The population projection figures that we have had in the past have been found to be wholly inaccurate, and one of the most glaring examples as the population projection upon which the Tomlinson Commission based its report. Sir, what is the value of broad-base programmes of that sort when the very base of these projects, namely the population projections upon which they are based, are shown to be wholly inaccurate as time goes by? I believe that the first task of the Department of Planning should be to establish reasonable population projection figures. Obviously one can never be absolutely accurate with projections of the population but I believe that those that we have had in the past have been so inaccurate that this is something to which the Department of Planning must give its attention as a priority. Having done that much, one is then in a position to know what sort of population has to be catered for in this country; one must then, as the next step, make a close study of the material resources of the country, and from that one is in a position to take the next step, to determine the areas of growth. Sir, I believe that it is things of that kind which the Department of Planning should be doing on a broad base. From that, the ensuing stages should be planned on a regional basis. I believe that regional planning should be left in the hands of the provincial administrations. I believe that it is quite wrong for the Department of Planning to concern itself with that type of planning. But on the other hand I do believe that regional planning —and the statistics upon which this regional planning is based should, I believe, be prepared by the Department of Planning—has become more and more important and necessary in the light of the growth which is taking place. [Time expired.]

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Musgrave who conveyed his congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Planning and also to the new Secretary. Because of a lack of time we do not want to dwell on this at any length; we just want to wish the hon. the Minister and the Secretary a very profitable period of office. I think that at this stage we can only express the hope that this Department will correctly evaluate the task it must carry out, and determine its policy accordingly. If that is done, and we know precisely what the task of this Department is, then it will develop into one of the most important departments in our entire national economy, as the hon. member for Musgrave also said.

Sir, the hon. member for Musgrave expressed certain ideas here about future population surveys. We do not want to contradict the hon. member altogether, but while conceding that it is very important, we must nevertheless also not lose sight of the fact that at present we already know where we have the largest concentration of certain population groups, for example Whites, Bantu, Coloureds or Indians. Those could be good projections, but I do not think for one moment that we should, at this stage, so concern ourselves about that that we spend too much time on it. I agree with the hon. member that this Department must take a look at regional planning, but I do not think I can agree with him completely when he says that this must be left to the provinces. I would rather say that we should have regional planning and that this Department must play the primary role in it, while doing everything in its power to obtain the co-operation of the provinces and local authorities. We hope that this Department will do everything in its power to let balanced growth take place in South Africa. In passing I just want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that we must be very careful in talking of our growth rate; that we should not simply say that we must aim at maintaining South Africa’s growth rate at 10 per cent, for example, as he put it. Sir, growth is a good thing, but then it must not continue unchecked. I want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Hillbrow that we, as practical people, know that a plant can, for example, grow in such a way as to smother itself; it grows watershoots and eventually there is nothing left of it. We must have growth, but it must be planned and balanced growth; it must be growth at a rate that we can afford and maintain in South Africa.

Sir, this afternoon I just want to touch upon one small matter here, a matter which has not only been emphasized in recent times and during the recent sitting, but actually over-emphasized. It is this question of the manpower shortage we are allegedly experiencing in South Africa now. No-one on this side of the House wants to belittle that problem in any way, but what we want to do on this side of the House, and what I want to do now, is to emphasize that labour, and the availability of labour, do not constitute the only fact, for example, in the establishment of industries. There are also other factors, such as the availability of capital and of land, the cost of land and the accessibility of water. In this connection I just want to refer to the report we obtained from this important commission of inquiry into water affairs. On page 2 they state clearly that water is not always freely available in our metropolitan areas and that the metropolitan areas are not always situated near large rivers. That is why this water factor is so important. Then there is also still the question of the infrastructure. If we were simply to allow labour alone to determine where we are to establish our industries, we would have this large concentration of industries in our metropolitan areas, resulting in congestion that will make us realize that we must do something in this connection, and we now want to say this, and say it very clearly: This Government believes in the decentralization of industries. That is the statement I am making. I want to state clearly that we believe in decentralization, and if we had the time we would have replied to this in full, but one of the measures we now want to use to implement this process, and which we have already used for this purpose, is Act No. 88 of 1967, the Physical Planning Act, particularly sections 2 and 3. The Prime Minister made it very clear to us how far we have already progressed in this connection. I want to endorse this. From the Prime Minister’s speech it has become clear to us that there were, in round figures an extra 130,000 Bantu requested for expansion and for the establishment of industries in our metropolitan complexes, and 94,000 were granted. There we kept 35,000 Bantu away from those areas. That is not to be sneezed at. In other words, we are in fact doing a great deal towards decentralization, but we are not doing it at the expense of our industries in South Africa; in other words, we shall not strangle our industries. I have here the Financial Mail of 7th August, in which it is stated that—

They state that now there is a new group of people acting as consultants to advise our people to leave the metropolitan areas for the border areas. One of those consultants is a Mr. Hurwitz, and what does he say?—

That is what this consultant wants. He says: Do not give these people concessions and border industry benefits. Just tell them: We shall ensure that not a single Bantu in your line of business is allowed to offer his labour in the metropolitan areas, and the Government cannot agree with this because we would then be strangling established industries to death. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down told us what the Government believes in. but I would rather hear about what the Government has done. For 22 years we have heard what the Government believes in; I would like to see some material benefit resulting from this belief. But I would like to deal with something entirely different. I would like to bring the Minister back to group area proclamations and reproclamations.

Since 1958. 12 years ago, the Grey Street complex in Durban has had the sword of Damocles hanging over its head. This is 20 years after the Group Areas Act was passed; yet in answer to a question not many weeks ago in this House, the hon. the Minister said to me that it was not possible at this stage to say when a final decision would be reached with regard to the Grey Street complex. I would like to ask the Minister just what is the problem with regard to Grey Street. It is 95 per cent Indian-owned; so there is no problem there. R54 million worth of Indian property is involved as against roughly R3.5 million worth of white property; so there is no problem there either. Every single authority in the area, the Durban City Council, the Chambers of Commerce and every single other authority of any weight, say it should become Indian or stay Indian; so there is no problem there either. In 1963 the then Minister said it would remain Indian and would be developed for Indians. In 1964 the then Secretary for Planning made a similar statement. What has happened since then? Twenty years after the Act was passed and 12 years after Grey Street was first looked at, it is still uncertain as to its future. Why the delay? Slum conditions are now beginning to come about in the Grey Street area because of the controls imposed through the actions of the Department of Planning and the Department of Community Development. Everybody in authority, as I said, has asked why it should not remain Indian. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in all fairness to the people concerned—and there are many thousands; the whole economy of the Indian community in Natal revolves around the businesses in the Grey Street complex—to make a statement in regard to Grey Street. This uncertainty cannot continue. If it does continue, then all the scorn we can heap on the Minister’s Department would be richly and fully deserved. Surely 20 years is long enough for the Government to make up its mind about an area which is so important to a large community. If this is the way in which the Government plans, if this is the reaction of the Department of Planning, I wonder about anything that they do in fact plan. Will it take 20 years to put some of their other plans and airy-fairy schemes into operation? This is a matter which can no longer brook of any delay. Speculation among the Indian community is rife. They are nervous about their future. Surely we owe at least this to them after 12 years of investigation, to be able to say: This is what we will do with Grey Street. [Interjections.]

I would now like to deal with the reproclamation of a particular area. In answer to a question earlier on to-day. The hon. the Minister told me, dealing with the reproclamation of Ladysmith, that one of the people who gave evidence was Mr. Stahlhut on behalf of himself and another white person. I would like to ask the Minister to tell me who this other white person was. Is it possible for him to tell me now? I would like to know this, because the Minister in his reply very correctly and carefully gave me the names of the other people who gave evidence for and against reproclamation, but in this one particular instance we are not told the name of this person. He said Mr. Stahlhut gave evidence on behalf of himself, and another white person. I think we are entitled to know who this white person is.

Do you want to start a gossip?

No. There are other matters in regard to Ladysmith which I would like the Minister to clear up for me. In an earlier debate the Minister of Community Development told me that reproclamations had nothing to do with him at all; they were not his province; yet in a reply a couple of weeks earlier during this Session, a reply from the Minister of Planning, he said that the reproclamation took place after a thorough investigation and consultation and consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and after more than one inspection in loco by the two responsible Ministers. This was the reply of the hon. the Minister of Planning. I would like to ask again, who was the other Minister? I put a question this morning to the Minister of Planning and he replied that at Ladysmith the inspections in loco were made by the Ministers, by Dr. De Wet, who was then the Minister of Planning, and Mr. Blaar Coetzee. But Mr. Blaar Coetzee, the Minister of Community Development, says he has nothing to do with reproclamation. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to me how it is, if he has nothing to do with reproclamations, that he was involved in this inspection in loco in Ladysmith. The Minister also said that the reproclamation only took place after full investigation and I would like to ask him how many members of the Indian community did these two Ministers see when they made the inspection in loco. Because I want to tell the Minister that in this particular instance, at this particular inspection in 1968, they never saw a single member of the Indian community, and yet the Minister says in his reply earlier on, on 21st July, that a full and thorough investigation had been made. How full and thorough could that investigation have been if they did not even see any members of the Indian community, the community affected by the reproclamations?

That was a Group Areas Board investigation.

The Minister must understand me clearly on this. I am talking about the inspection in loco by two Ministers. This is part of the reply dealing with more than one inspection in loco.

The re-proclamation was after the third investigation.

Then could the Minister tell me why those two Ministers visited Ladysmith? What did they do there? They made an inspection in loco and the hon. the Minister now says that the investigation was done by the Group Areas Board. What were they doing in Ladysmith in the first place? The problem here is this. The Minister of Community Development says reproclamation has nothing to do with him, and the Minister of Planning linked his name to the reproclamation of Ladysmith, and I am entitled to know then what happened at Ladysmith, because against all the evidence at Ladysmith, a decision was taken and one is entitled to know how it was arrived at. That is why I want to know the name of this mysterious white person who was mentioned in answer to the question this morning when every other name was given, and what people did the Minister see when they visited Ladysmith. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Saldanha Bay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the honour! Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, put certain direct questions to the Minister, and I leave the matter at that. In the few moments at my disposal I should like once more, as in the past, to make a plea for the establishment of a master plan for the greater Western Cape. I believe that the inhabitants of this region have never before been activated for what I want to call a master view of the future, and the handling of concrete problems that the new times bring along with them, as is the case at present. What is the situation here? What brought about this attitude to which I am referring? There is a history attached to this to some extent. The publication of the Tomlinson Report in the early ’fifties served at the time as an important incentive for the initiation of new interest in the whole future pattern of the Western Cape. The first result of this new interest at the time was the report known as the Western Cape Research Project, which was undertaken by the staff members, if I remember correctly, of about 12 departments and other fields of study at the University of Stellenbosch, under the leadership of Professor Schumann. Eventually about 25 official studies were completed, and the results were gathered together in 1964 in a single publication under the title Western Cape, a Socio-economic study. It is a neat, basic piece of work about the fundamental circumstances of the future of this particular region.

This was followed by the Report of the N.R.D.C., known as the Haak Report, which embodied further incentives for the creation of a new attitude towards development among the inhabitants of the Western Cape. Since then numerous regional studies have been completed over smaller regional units within the larger framework of the Western Cape. I want to refer to the studies in connection with the Namaqualand vicinity, the central West Coast and the Olifants River area, that were completed under the leadership of Professor Page of the University of Stellenbosch, together with a few students in the Department of Planning. There were other studies about certain parts of the Cape Peninsula. There was also a study about the entire regional set-up in the Southern Cape. Then there was the important Slater Report, which also created great interest at the time.

This basic work did not only stimulate a new attitude towards development among our people in the Western Cape, but after these reports appeared attention was given on the part of the authorities to very important aspects concerning the general growth pattern of the Western Cape. Noteworthy work was done by the authorities. In the little time at my disposal I just want to mention a few without motivating my statements.

Firstly, new and deliberate attention was given to the modern concept of regional planning in general, and to the establishment of regional associations. Secondly, problems involving transport and communications received attention as a result of these reports. New industrial establishment in backward areas within the Western Cape pattern was investigated. Agricultural labour received attention. A Water Plan for the Western Cape, in connection with which the first part of a report was recently presented to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, received attention. The fishing industry received attention, particularly in respect of the provision of fishing harbour facilities. Early school leavers among the Coloureds received attention. In other words, this work that was done in various fields received attention from the authorities, and we reaped the benefits.

In spite of what I am saying here this afternoon, there is still some concern about the general growth pattern in the Western Cape. I cannot motivate this in detail at present, but in passing I want to mention three aspects that are causing us concern. The first concerns the definite signs of an over-concentration in the Cape Peninsula and environs. About 80 per cent of the total population of the Lesser Boland are at present concentrated in the four magisterial districts of Cape Town, Simonstown, Wynberg and Bellville. In Cape Town there are at present 3,240 persons per square mile. In the Wynberg magisterial district there are 2,080 persons per square mile, in the Bellville area, 1,100 and in Simonstown 320 people per square mile. At the same time the concentration in the rest of the Boland is about 82 persons per square mile. I want to assume that when the new statistics appear we shall probably obtain an even less favourable image in this respect.

As far as the background in this connection is concerned, there is one aspect in particular that is creating a great deal of concern within our Western Cape pattern, i.e. the tremendous concentration of our Coloured population the Cape Flats. I do not want to speak about that now, but I am just referring to it in passing. The second great concern, which I also do not want to elaborate on, is the seizure of some of our best agricultural land in our Boland growth pattern. Thirdly there is the suction that Cape Town and its environs are still exercising on the water potential of the Greater Boland. I do not have the time to elaborate on that, but the latest example is the pipeline from the Voëlvlei neighbourhood, through which about 40 million gallons of water are sucked to Cape Town and its environs daily. However, I do not want to discuss the merits of this case, but I am just mentioning it as a phenomenon.

In short, the entire growth process in the Western Cape is to-day still being initiated by too much of what I want to call cash-economic thinking and too little socio-economic thinking in our planning framework for the future. The total absence of proper advanced planning in this region in the past results in the fact that to-day we have to come along with a very costly process of subsequent planning. I would be able to mention numerous examples of this, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

I briefly want to say that the desirability of rounding off industrial development and residential area development in the Cape Peninsula and environs, and a further shift of all forms of growth to other Western Cape regions, have to-day reached a new urgency in this larger context. The time has now come for all the research work and regional reports to which I have referred, and which have been compiled in recent years, and also the stimulus that developed as a result, to be pooled together, so that we may build up a master view or a master plan for the Western Cape from the present development attitudes in this field. Here we have a reasonably new Department, i.e. the Department of Planning. Here we also have a new young Minister who wants to look ahead. As I have said, a new Secretary has also been appointed to the Department. They all have a great measure of enthusiasm and zeal for the creation of a new future pattern in South Africa, and it is against this background that I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that we come along with such an overall view of this area.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to hon. members who to-day congratulated me and the new Secretary for Planning on our appointments. I should like to assure them that we appreciate their words of congratulation. To-day, unfortunately, I cannot make mention of the Secretary for Planning who retired at the end of August, because I hope he will be present on Monday and I should prefer to direct a few words to him on that occasion.

†I want to assure hon. members, especially the hon. member for Musgrave, that I appreciate the words of congratulation which they expressed to me and the new Secretary in my Department. At this stage I am not going to reply to the questions put to me, because I think that to save time it will be better if I reply after nearly all the members have spoken, because I believe we are pressed for time if we want to finish next week. In passing, I can just say to the hon. member for Port Natal that I will try to give him the name of the other person whom he has inquired about. I can also say that the matter of the Grey Street complex will receive my very earnest consideration and attention during the recess. I know that the Group Areas Board have completed their investigations. They have also completed their report and their recommendations, and I have personally undertaken to make an inspection in loco during the recess and I hope that the decision will then be made very soon after that. In regard to the other matters raised by the hon. member for Musgrave, these were general matters and I think I will reply to them during the course of the debate.

*This applies also to the hon. member for Moorreesburg in regard to the points which he raised, and to a large extent I am sure that the points which the hon. member for Smithfield raised, will again receive considerable attention in this debate, whereupon I shall deal with them by way of summary in my reply.

At this stage I just want to say that this afternoon I am able to make a statement on the first data which have become available as a result of the 1970 population census. I had hoped that it would have been possible for the hon. the Prime Minister to have done so during the discussion of his Vote, but that, unfortunately, was not possible. Therefore I am now availing myself of this opportunity offered by the discussion of my Vote, to give this House the data.

Since the 1960 population census, South Africa has undergone basic constitutional changes, whereas a rapid rate of growth has been experienced in the economic field. Even in the early planning stages the prevalence of these circumstances in the country created the realization that the 1970 population census would be the most important census to date, and for that reason all attempts had to be made to carry it out as thoroughly as possible.

In order to promote thoroughness and quality in the survey, the Department made an intensive study of previous censuses made in South Africa and in certain major Western countries, as well as the directives published from time to time by the United Nations Organization.

Of special importance in the determination of the census task was, inter alia, the identification of the Bantu homelands which did not exist in 1960 and the population numbers of the various Bantu national units which were also unknown in 1960. So as to enable the drawing of meaningful comparisons, the Department was obliged to make geographic adjustments in such a way that the then Bantu areas would cover the same areas geographically as the Bantu homelands as demarcated for the purposes of the 1970 census. Therefore, in the 1970 census, the Bantu homelands were recognizably separated from the white areas, and consequently a separate statistical service will be established for the homelands which will facilitate and promote planning and development.

In order to make the census even more practicable and at the same time to lay the foundation for the purposes of geographic adjustments, economic and physical planning, the Republic had to be divided into 25,000 sub-districts, in each of which approximately 800 to 1,000 persons lived.

With the sub-districts as basis, the Bantu areas of 1960 could be reconciled with the Bantu homelands of 1970 to such an extent that a true comparison could be drawn and the population numbers of the various national units within the white area and the Bantu homelands could be ascertained.

A requirement for the successful and qualitative fulfilment of the census task, was that reliable staff had to be appointed. For this purpose the Cabinet approved of public servants being used for the survey. Furthermore, inter-departmental negotiations resulted in other services, for example, the Departments of Defence, Education and Prisons, also releasing staff. The staff at the disposal of the Department was utilized in such a way that the non-white national units were served mainly by members of their own people, something which ensured very good co-operation.

For the rest, the Department made use of the Press, the radio, films and talks to inform the public everywhere in the country, even in the most outlying districts, of the proposed population census.

An intensive plan of training was also launched for the purpose of preparing enumerators thoroughly for their task, and for eliminating in this way delay and slipshod work when the survey was due to start.

The organization which was set up after intensive study and research had been carried out, operated so successfully that the provisional numbers of the various national units, inside as well as outside the white areas and the Bantu homelands, can now be made known. The figures show, inter alia, the growth of the various national units, the ratio between the numbers of Bantu in the homelands and in the white areas, as against the numbers for the corresponding areas of 1960.

According to the census survey, the number of Whites in white areas and in Bantu homelands increased from 3.1 million in September, 1960, to 3.8 million in May, 1970, an increase therefore of 22.4 per cent. In the Bantu homelands alone, the number of Whites decreased by 6,000 (25 per cent)—from 24,000 to 18,000. Seen as a whole, the ratio of Whites in the total of all national units in white areas as well as in Bantu homelands, decreased from 19.3 per cent in 1960 to 17.8 per cent in 1970, but in the white areas the ratio of the Whites to all national units in the white areas increased from 25.8 per cent in 1960 to 26.2 per cent in 1970.

Over the period of nearly 10 years the number of Coloureds increased from 1.5 million (1,509,000) to almost 2 million (1,996,000), an increase of 32.3 per cent. As regards the Coloureds in the Bantu homelands, the number decreased from 15,000 to 13,000, i.e. by 13.3 per cent.

The number of Asians increased from 477,000 in 1960 to 614,000 in 1970, i.e. an increase of 28.7 per cent. The number of Asians in the Bantu homelands decreased from 6,000 in 1960 to 3,000 in 1970, i.e. by 50 per cent.

The total number of Bantu in all areas increased from 10.9 million (10,928,000) in 1960 to 14.9 million (14,893,000) in 1970. Of the total number of Bantu of 14.9 million (14,893,000) 6.9 million (6,918,000), or 46.5 per cent, are in the Bantu homelands, as against 8 million (7,975,000), or 53.5 per cent, in white areas. In 1960 4.1 million (4,101,000), or 37.5 per cent, of all Bantu were in the homelands, whereas 6.8 million (6,827,000), or 62.5 per cent, of all the Bantu were in white areas. The increase from 37.5 per cent to 46.5 per cent in the Bantu homelands indicates a considerable movement of Bantu from the white areas to the Bantu homelands.

The movement of the Bantu from the white areas to the homelands can be seen more clearly from the following analysis:

Expressed as a percentage, the increase in the total number of Bantu in white areas as well as in the Bantu homelands from the 1960 census to the 1970 census, was 36.3 per cent, i.e. 14,893,000 in 1970 as compared with 10,928,000 in 1960. But during the same period, the number of Bantu in the homelands increased by 68.7 per cent, from 4,101,000 in 1960 to 6,918,000 in 1970, whereas the number of Bantu in white areas increased by only 16.8 per cent, from 6,827,000 in 1960 to 7,975,000 in 1970 In other words, the number of Bantu in the homelands increased much more rapidly than the increase in the total number of Bantu (68.7 per cent as against 36.3 per cent), whereas the increase in the white areas was less than half the increase in the total number of Bantu (16.8 per cent as against 36.3 per cent.)

A distinction is drawn among the various Bantu national units in the census On the basis of home language. On this basis, the census indicates the size of the various groups (to the nearest 1,000) as follows—

The figures which are now being released, relate mainly to population numbers in the various white areas and in the Bantu homelands. However, exceptional progress has been made in the processing of data by the Department, and the intention is to publish the other data in connection with, for example, ages, levels of education, trades and professions, home language etc., as soon as such data becomes available.

A population census is a major undertaking and consequently, costs are an important element in such a survey and for this reason the Department has made a calculation of the costs under the subheads as they appear in the Estimates. The figures which are now being furnished in the form of a summary, with minor deviations, relate to the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st May, 1970. It is the first time that such an analysis has been made but it will undoubtedly be of great value in future calculations.

Summary of Costs—January, 1968-31st May, 1970.

On behalf of myself as Minister and on behalf of the Government, on behalf of hon. members and on behalf of the country, I want to thank the Secretary for Statistics and his entire staff, i.e. temporary and permanent staff, most sincerely for the thorough and persevering way in which they tackled and completed this major task.

Hear, hear!

They really rendered a great service to the country and accummulated a mass of basic information, information which is indispensable to the authorities as well as to the private sector in the formulation and planning of policy and in its implementation. The figures which I have made known here, are of great importance. This occasion may still come to be known in history as the day when proof was submitted that the policy of separate development is succeeding in regard to the Bantu peoples. [Interjections.] The positive progress made in this respect in the past decade will undoubtedly strengthen our determination to continue carrying our policy purposefully and systematically into effect and to take it to even greater success in the decade of 1970.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his announcement. The figures he has given us are obviously going to constitute a talking point in the months that lie ahead. The hon. the Minister will understand that we shall want to have a good look at them. He will also understand that the conclusions we shall draw from them will differ from those drawn by himself and by his side of the House. In any event, we are thankful for having these figures; we shall go into them very carefully indeed.

There is another matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister in connection with the proclamation of group areas. The hon. member for Port Natal dealt with the Grey Street area and in this connection I welcome the Minister’s statement that he intends seeing to it that this particular matter is brought to an early conclusion. He has all the facts in his possession now and I hope that he will take it upon himself personally to see to it that a decision in this matter is expedited, that the interests of the people involved are protected and that they are given an indication of the intention of the Government as early as possible. As the hon. member for Port Natal has pointed out, this matter has been hanging fire now for a considerable time, and for anyone who knows the Indian community and is aware of the scope and the size of their investments in the Grey Street area, this is a matter of considerable concern. An hon. member has just informed me that this matter has already been under discussion for 20 years.

I should like to deal with the question of Pietermaritzburg and the declaration of a Coloured area there. Originally it was another department that made a decision in the matter —the Department of Community Development, I believe. In any event, the original decision was a wrong decision. The hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about expensive adjustments that had to be made.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.