Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 215 of the Order Paper, namely—

I may just mention that when this Bill was dealt with in the Other Place for the first time, Senator Getz asked whether we could not give the Church Square Committee statutory powers. I then undertook to investigate the position. That is why I have moved this amendment. The amendment now gives the Church Square Committee statutory powers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s amendment is a matter of words without meaning. He suggests that he is giving some statutory powers to this committee for Church Square, but that is not in fact so. If he were giving it some statutory powers, the Minister would have made his approval or disapproval of any plans subject to the concurrence of this committee, but that is not the case. That provision does not appear in his amendment. He is not bound by any decision this committee takes. He might be foolish not to follow their advice, but he is certainly not legally bound to follow their advice. What the hon. the Minister has done is to create another form of bureaucracy, because the committee consists of ten members and eight of them are not elected representatives of the people; eight of them are officials of the various departments. As far as the City Council is concerned, their representative will be the Town Clerk; the City Council cannot even designate a city councillor to serve on this committee. Only two members of the committee are not purely ex officio State officials or provincial officials or municipal officials, and they are the two nominees of the Council for Architects. How can this be the creation of a statutory body which is answerable to anybody? The principle in this Bill to which we basically object is that the control of the very heart of the city of Pretoria, over which the State President, by virtue of servitude, had certain powers, is being altered. Those powers of the State President are removed and the power of the City Council to control the heart of that city is removed. All the power is vested in the Minister, who merely has to consult a body of officials. This amendment does not remove from this Bill that objectionable aspect. We cannot support the amendment of the hon. the Minister, nor do we support the details of this particular clause, and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point is talking absolute nonsense (nonsens). Take the case of the board for the Foreshore of Cape Town, for example. Who has the final say there? It used to be the Minister of Lands, and it is now the Minister of Agriculture. He has the final say. If I am not to have the final say in respect of this board, who is to have it? The Pretoria City Council? Of course not. The Administrator of the Transvaal has the final say. Now the hon. member says that this committee on Church Square, Pretoria, is just a committee of officials. I repeat: The hon. member is talking the purest nonsense.

Eight of the ten members are officials.

It is a very responsible committee.

It is not “nonsens”; the word is “onsin”.

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is suffering from a sense of inferiority. He is not only talking “onsin”; he is also talking “nonsens”. It is now being suggested that something is being done which has never been done in South Africa. It is the purest … “onsin” in the world. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon. member for Green Point is so upset about this matter. He now says that I am taking the powers out of the hands of the Pretoria City Council, but the one body which raises no objection whatsoever is the Pretoria City Council. No one has objected. The town clerk serves on this board which has been established by the Bill. The hon. member for Green Point can vote against this amendment if he so wishes: I have no objection to the Bill’s remaining as it is. I have no objection whatsoever. If the hon. member is opposed to this amendment to such an extent, he should vote against it. If he wants to do that, I have no objection; then we can keep the Bill exactly as it is. I have no objection to that either. It will only contribute to the positive development of Church Square, Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister explodes in the way he has just exploded, he realizes that he is talking “nonsens” or “onsin”.

†Sir, it is typical of the hon. the Minister to go off at a tangent, and then he gets himself into even deeper waters than he was before he started replying to me. He tried to indicate that the fact that there is a Foreshore Board in Cape Town is synonymous with the situation in this case, and that therefore he must be in sole control of the heart of the city of Pretoria. The hon. the Minister was told yesterday, but apparently he was not listening, that in terms of the Seashore Act, the control of the Foreshore of Cape Town, an area reclaimed from the sea, vested in the State. It has never vested in the municipality. Under section 6 of the Seashore Act, that area, when it was reclaimed, became State-owned land, and the Minister of Lands then appointed a board to deal with that inheritance which had been reclaimed from the sea. Sir, the position in Pretoria is the direct opposite. Here you have the heart of the city, controlled by the municipality, and now he says that the municipality shall have no say. Sir, his answer is not an answer; his “ontploffing” has done nothing to clear the air and his disregard for the principles of local government just become more apparent from what he has said.

Mr. Chairman, let us leave the Foreshore there. Let us go to District Six. What powers did I take in District Six?

Did we support you in taking those powers?

Of course; the city council did. Sir, this only goes to show that hon. members opposite do not know what they are talking about. I took those powers under the Community Development Act in District Six. There I have a committee which is called the State Committee, and that State Committee advises me before I take the final decision. The same applies in South End in Port Elizabeth; the same applies in Riverside in Durban, in Cato Manor in Durban and in Jeppes in Johannesburg.

Are you suggesting that Church Square is a slum?

The hon. member for Kensington is indulging in his usual stupidities. His trouble is that he thinks that talking in Parliament is like writing a stupid column for the Sunday Times.

Answer the question.

What is the question?

Why must Church Square be removed from the control of the city council?

Are you suggesting that Church Square is a slum?

Who says it is a slum area? Is Cato Manor a slum area?

You are equating Church Square with these other areas.

Let me ask the hon. member for Transkei a simple question: Is Cato Manor a slum area?

It was.

Until I put it right. No, Sir, I am afraid these hon. members are trying to make political capital out of this question of Church Square in Pretoria. They have no support from anybody whatsoever. They are supported neither by the city council, nor by anybody else and they can talk as much as they like.

Sir, there is a deathly hush from the Pretoria representatives in this House. If the minister had such tremendous support from Pretoria, one would have expected the members of Parliament representing Pretoria to be standing up in a queue to support the hon. the Minister, but they are not. They are leaving it to the hon. the Minister to support this clause. What have we before us? We have a clause here which gives the Minister total dictatorial powers. The clause as it stands makes a complete dictator of the Minister. The amendment which he has moved makes him an apparently benevolent dictator, because he has somebody who may advise him, but the fact remains that he remains a dictator. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister is surprised that we on this side of the House do not for a moment contemplate giving powers to that hon. Minister who, by the handling of other powers vested in his department, has shown to South Africa that he does not deserve to have these powers. When he has powers, he does not know how to use them, and this is quite clear when we think what he has done with his powers in Durban in Block K, with all the land that he holds which he is withholding from occupation. The hon. the Minister is the biggest estate agent in South Africa and now, in addition, he wants to be the dictator of the heart of Pretoria. If the hon. members representing Pretoria cannot stand up here to fight for Pretoria, somebody must do it. [Interjection.] I want the Pretoria members to get up and support the hon. the Minister and say: “We are prepared to take out our heart and put it on the hon. the Minister’s plate and say to him carve it up as you wish.”

We object to the power in the original clause and to the shadow of consultation which the amendment offers. Of course the amendment is better than the original clause; it was asked for by the United Party.

Who asked for it?

Senator Getz asked it. But the U.P. asks for more; it asks for a statutory body with power, not a shadow body.

But you are only a shadow in Oudtshoorn.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Health that it will not be a shadow for long; it is becoming a reality. [Interjections.]

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

The hon. the Minister, when he talks of Oudtshoorn, tempts me, but I will resist temptation and confine myself to this clause and ask the hon. the Minister to produce the support from the Pretoria members who support him in handing over control of the heart of Pretoria to a department which has indicated that neither its Minister nor itself is able to give satisfaction to the people to whom it is supposed to give leadership, but to whom, in fact, it has become the biggest estate agent in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I iust do not know why these two hon. members and the United Party are so concerned about Pretoria and the Pretoria City Council.

They have never been there.

We are coming to live there next year!

Vause, you can stay at the station.

In opposing this clause and the whole measure they are really telling the Pretoria City Council: “You are not competent to decide about your own affairs.” The hon. the Minister has said over and over again that the City Council did not object to this measure or to the legislation as such. But now the hon. members are concerned about the Pretoria City Council. By acting in this way the hon. members are really moving a motion of no confidence in the Pretoria City Council, because they are implying that the city council is unable to handle its own affairs. That is what it amounts to.

I welcome this amendment concerning the statutory committee—the committee which used to be known as the Church Square Committee. The hon. member for Durban Point has just said here that that committee is really just a shadow body, because the Minister still has the final say. But somewhere, after all, there has to be a body or person who has the final say in the matter. That is the case with all other legislation, after all. There has to be such a person and in this case it is the Minister who is taking the powers.

I want to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech, namely that I have in my constituency five important, very prominent members of the city council, of whom two are members of the management committee, one is a former member of the management committee and one is the deputy mayor of Pretoria. I have had on objection from those hon. councillors. What gives the Opposition the right to talk on behalf of Pretoria and to tell us what Pretoria wants?

Amendment put and agreed to.

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

Clause 5:

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

This amendment is essential because this Bill was introduced in the Senate. This clause has financial implications and consequently it could not be passed by the Other Place. I now move this amendment simply to restore the Bill to its original form.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

The hon. the Minister must move that the Report Stage be now taken.

Very well, Sir. I consequently move—

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister proposing that the Report Stage be taken now or is he proposing the amendments or is he proposing the Third Reading? There seems to be some confusion.

The hon. the Minister should have proposed that the Report Stage be taken now. That he did. Is there any objection?

Objection raised.

I asked the hon. the Minister a question yesterday during the Second Reading debate under this clause and he was kind enough to say that he would reply to me in the Committee Stage. May I remind him of it?

I have specifically stood up to answer the question, and I am glad the hon. member for Wynberg is granting me this opportunity. She asked two questions in respect of clause 1 (2) which I should now like to reply to. I think these questions must be seen against the background of the fact that vocational education has been transferred to the provinces. Certain schools have passed to the provinces. The examinations conducted in certain of those vocational fields were and still are conducted by my department, at least partially. Some have already been transferred to the provinces; others still belong to my department. Therefore, against this background I should like to answer these two questions. In the first place the hon. member asked whether this clause also affects ordinary schools. She said “Does it in any way refer to ordinary schools?” I take it that by ordinary schools the hon. member means the ordinary provincial schools. If that is the case, these schools are not affected by this clause. This clause only relates to schools and subsidized schools established and controlled in terms of section 1 of the principal Act.

A second question was asked about this clause, i.e. what the circumstances are under which the Minister can refuse enrolment for an examination. I shall explain the position. In terms of clause 1 (b) the Minister is being empowered to lay down conditions or requirements a candidate must comply with to enrol for a specific examination. In the second part of that clause he obtains the right to determine the circumstances under which he can refuse to accept or cancel that enrolment. The reason for that is that it is essential for the Minister to have a measure of discretion because circumstances that can develop, to the detriment of a candidate, can exclude him from participation in such an examination. He can become ill, for example. If he now fixes the requirements that must be met and such a person, for reasons over which he has no control, does not comply, it means he is excluded from participation in that examination. It is now thought necessary to give the Minister a measure of discretion so that candidates who are excluded by the technical provision, for reasons beyond their control, can in fact participate in the examination.

Since the circumstances are under discussion I am quite satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s explanation in this regard. He will appreciate that we have no suspicions. It was merely that the word “circumstances” is so wide in this context. We were not quite sure as to what he had in mind. I am quite satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Clause put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 1 :

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I have only had a very quick look at this. It only appeared on the Order Paper today. As far as I can make out it is a technical matter. We have no objection to the hon. the Minister exercising his power with regard to the establishment of subsidized schools and so on. Obviously he must have some flexibility in this matter. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we have no objection.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister, with regard to the proviso contained in this clause, whether certain options could not be left open for teachers under certain circumstances. I asked him also whether the provision was mandatory or not. What would be the position for instance of a married teacher whose husband was already covered for medical aid purposes by membership of the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association? This might create the problem that they would have to pay twice, which would seem to be unnecessary. Could the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that the word “may” in this clause leaves the options open in this case?

Mr. Chairman, the real state of affairs is as follows. The only thing that is made mandatory is that an official is required to become a member of the medical aid scheme or society. The word “may” leaves open the possibility that, for example, married teachers whose husbands have already become members of a medical aid society, will not be obliged to join it as well. By way of regulation it will therefore be made possible for her not to have to join it. It goes without saying that men who have already become members of the medical aid society, are already complying with this provision of the Act. In other words, it is not mandatory for them again to become members of a medical aid society if they have already done so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3 :

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I also had a query with regard to clause 3. In terms of section 42 of the original Act, the governing body of a subsidized private school has the right to decide upon the appointment of staff and the ratio of pupils per staff. I asked the Minister to be kind enough to give us some assurances at this stage that he does not see the likelihood of any conflict since he is now going to delegate his powers to the Secretary or any member of the department, that he does not see any possible ground of conflict between the rights of the governing body of a subsidized private school and the right of the department itself with regard to the appointment of staff. I would be very glad to have the Minister’s assurance on that point.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is proceeding from the wrong standpoint. The controlling bodies’ decisions are still subject to those of the Minister. The hon. member asked why the two subsections, i.e. subsection (16) (1) and (18) (1) were originally omitted, and in that respect let me just refer to the introductory paragraph of my Second Reading speech. I said that the implementation of this Act has gradually brought us the experience that certain additions are necessary to realize the original object of the Act. I can tell the hon. member, for example, that virtually every day submissions are forthcoming from schools that want, to appoint one more Bantu servant, for example, or that want to change certain posts that have already been created, and that I have to approve all those changes, additions and omissions. If these two subsections, subsection (16) (1) and subsection (18) (1) grant me the powers to delegate the basis on which this must take place, it can take place in a manner agreed upon without there being any danger of the abuse of this system.

Mr. Chairman, when in the past a school committee requested applications for teaching posts the principal or the committee was empowered to notify the applicant telegraphically that he had been recommended for an appointment subject to the approval of the department. As far as my knowledge goes this is still the custom in the provincial schools; in fact, I spoke to the Cape Director of Education and he said that in the Cape it is the custom that when a school committee makes a recommendation it has the right to notify that applicant that he has been recommended for appointment subject to the approval of the department. I also have it here in writing as it appeared in the Education Gazette that is regularly given to teachers. Now there is a problem, however, i.e. that this cannot be done in schools that fall under the Minister’s department. When a governing body recommends someone for an appointment, they do not have the right to notify that person that he has in fact been recommended but that this still has to be approved by the Minister. Since the provincial schools have that right, I wondered whether the Minister could not give that right to his schools as well. I wondered whether he could not also allow the executive committee to inform the successful applicant that he is being recommended for appointment, subject to the Minister’s approval. If that is not done the following problem can crop up: A teacher applies for two or three posts, and because he himself is anxious to know what has happened, he would willingly accept the first post allocated to him. Since many of these schools—and I am thinking particularly of the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf at Worcester—frequently struggle to get staff, particularly for promotion posts, these schools will perhaps be placed in a disadvantageous position. I wondered whether the hon. the Minister could perhaps give me some clarity in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, I think that fundamentally there is quite a lot in what the hon. member for Worcester said. But the hon. member must take into account the various procedures that are still valid under various departments. Not even all the provincial departments function in this way. There are some of the provincial education departments that have so-called selection committees. These selection committees select certain applicants for a post and leave it to the controlling body to appoint any of those approved. In that case there are no problems if one informs the applicant directly that he has been appointed. In my department’s circumstances this unfortunately does not apply and we stick to the arrangement that it is more sensible to make sure that such an applicant will in fact obtain the post before the controlling body notifies him that he is being recommended. The hon. member will understand that this is a practical consideration. It creates a great deal of embarrassment for the controlling body, and also for the applicant, if the latter is notified that he has been recommended for appointment to the post and then does not obtain the appointment for some or other reason. That is why we have this difference.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister indicated that he was going to elaborate on this clause in the Committee Stage because, on account of time, he could not do so during the Second Reading. I should just like to pose a few questions in brief to the hon. the Minister. The first one is: What does the hon. the Minister have in mind as to the basis or the grounds upon which a court should decide that somebody of 18 years of age or more is entitled to be declared a major?

That brings me to the second point, namely whether it is necessary to have the lengthy and complicated procedure laid down for an application to court. I cannot deal with this in detail, but clause 2 of this Bill lays down that there can be an application to court for an order declaring the applicant to be a major. Parents can apply to have their child declared to be a major. What is the yardstick? I can imagine that if the parents themselves or the guardians of the minor were agreeable that that child should be declared a major, it would in fact be sufficient reason for the courts to grant the application. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell me whether this procedure and matters incidental to the procedure laid down in connection with that application have in fact been laid before the Association of Law Societies and before the Bar Councils for their comments?

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I did not have the opportunity of giving a more detailed explanation of the provisions of this very interesting Bill to this House yesterday. As hon. members know, that was at a stage when time unfortunately did not permit me to do so, and consequently I promised the hon. members that, I would if necessary, mention certain matters in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Green Point has given me the opportunity of mentioning a few of these matters under clause 2. I think I must first give a brief explanation of the procedure—this is one of the things I completely omitted from my speech yesterday—which will be followed in the case of an application to declare a minor to be a major at the age of 18 years. I think I should read out to hon. members the section which relates to this and which I would have read out had I had the opportunity. This will cover the position generally. The procedure is actually laid down in clause 3, but it is also relevant in respect of clause 2. The procedure lays down that the application shall be in the form of a notice of motion addressed to the registrar of the department concerned of the Supreme Court of South Africa. Clause 3 also lays down what particulars will be stated in the application. In this respect I should like to draw attention to the fact that the applicant must indicate whether his application is supported by his parents. If so, he must submit an affidavit by his parents or his guardian to that effect. The applicant must also furnish particulars of immovable property of which he is or probably will become the owner. This is an important point which, to a certain extent, also covers one of the questions put yesterday by the hon. member for Green Point. In terms of the Bill, if the applicant is the owner of movable or immovable property which is subject to the provisions for the Administration of Estates Act of 1965, he must send a copy of his application to the Master of the Supreme Court, who has jurisdiction. The Master of the Supreme Court must then report to the court on the application. After the court has considered the application and the report of the Master of the Supreme Court and any objections which there may be to the application, it may grant or refuse the application or give a decision in its discretion. For example, the court may direct that further evidence be submitted to it. In a later section of the Bill another part of the procedure is dealt with, and that section provides that any person to whom an order declaring him to be a major is granted—and this is an important point—shall for all purposes be deemed to have attained the age of majority. Such a person has full legal competence. I think this will cover one of the important questions put by the hon. member under another clause. This in itself covers the two questions put by the hon. member.

†He mentioned the possibility of a father who has two sons, the one being 19 years of age and the other 18 and that he wants to give them part of his business at an early stage. These two boys are then made majors in terms of this Bill and the hon. member said that this in itself could open a way to obtain, as he put it, income tax benefits. He quoted the case of these three businessmen and said that the fees could then be divided amongst the three of them and that their taxable income would then naturally be reduced considerably.

Mr. Chairman, the only reply I can give in this particular instance is that I think one must accept that the courts, who will have the full jurisdiction in these matters in future, will be in the position to analyse the situation as it will have to be put to them in these three different documents which are mentioned in the Bill itself. The hon. member will remember that I mentioned two of these documents. Today I mentioned a third, namely a procedural document, which will have to be submitted to the court and into which the court will then have insight before passing judgment, it would be most unusual, to put it mildly, if a court were to decide, in spite of the particulars submitted to it, to grant majority, for example, to these two boys of eighteen and nineteen years; in other words, to enable them to share in the dividends which accrue to the particular business. I may say that in the 63 years that courts in the Free State have been in the position to deal with these cases, there were only 21 cases in which a request was made for a minor to become a major at the age of 18. We do not therefore envisage a large number of cases being brought before the four courts in South Africa after this Bill has been, placed on the Statute Book.

The hon. member for Green Point asked what effect this legislation would have on trusts and testamentary dispositions executed prior to the granting of the order of the court, in which a trustee did not take the precaution of saying that it would be at the age of 18 …

21.

… or rather 21 years. In other words, where he did not mention the age of the beneficiary at all. Here again F can only repeat the general reply which I gave to the hon member: I believe a court will be in a position, after the documents have been submitted to it—documents with all the relevant particulars concerning the testament and the movable and immovable property over which the child has control—to judge whether the “majority” ruling should be given in respect of the age of 18. The reply is simply, as far as I can see, that the court will not be easily satisfied. I cannot see any of our four courts being satisfied by a submission to them in which these details are not set out in such a way that they can come to a conclusion which is not based on fact. Somebody said to me this morning that it would be quite easy to succeed if you were to try to falsify a document submitted to the court; but I do not think that this will be the case. It should be possible, with the three documents that have to be submitted to the court, for it to deal with the matter effectively.

One point which the hon. member for Green Point mentioned remains, namely the question of whether the matter has been or will be submitted to the law societies in the various provinces. This is a matter which can be looked into. I have no definite opinion about this, and would not like to give a final reply to the question today. If we do find that it is necessary, and provided there are matters of procedure that have not been investigated sufficiently, and that the law societies would like to have a look at them, I personally see no reason why it should not be done. It is so, however, that the provincial divisions of the courts all have had an opportunity of studying this Bill. It was referred to all the Judges President in the four provinces and to the Appeal Court, and they have all agreed to the provisions of the Bill. I hope I have dealt with the various points raised by hon. members.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is the object of the Government to afford the people of South-West Africa full opportunities for development. An obvious way of doing this is to create opportunities for meeting the educational requirements of the different population groups.

As you know, Sir, my department controls the education of the Coloured persons, the Rehoboth Basters and the Namas in South-West Africa. Up to the present, control over the education of these three groups has been exercised by means of the Education Ordinance of South-West Africa, 1962, in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969. The education authority of South-West Africa has had the difficult task of formulating, within the scope of one ordinance, a system of education which had to meet the needs of the different population groups. In order to meet the educational needs of the aforesaid population groups, each according to its own needs and with a view to the cultural-anthropological features of each ethnic group, it is now my intention to introduce separate Bills, of which this is the first, one for each population group. You will find that for the most part the general principles in the three Bills agree, but that there are differences aimed at meeting the particular needs of each group.

As far as the general aspects of policy are concerned, these principles will consequently apply to the Basters of Rehoboth and to the Namas as well. Such matters which relate more specifically to the latter population groups will be dealt with when the Bills in questions are introduced.

To be successful education methods have to be adapted to serve the pupil and the community, and as we all know, the population of South-West Africa consists not of one community only, but of different communities, which differ each from the other. These circumstances inevitably exclude the possibility of a uniform system of education. Consequently the policy being adopted is to provide each community with its own schools. Experience has shown that the education of an ethnic group only comes into its own when it develops within the framework of a distinctive educational system.

Since this is the first opportunity the House has been afforded of considering the matter of education in South-West Africa, I think that it is necessary to refer to the origins and development of education in this territory.

Historical background—The first mission schools

I come now to the historical background, and the first mission schools. In the vast majority of cases mission societies were responsible for the first educational facilities in the developing countries of Africa. In South-West Africa this process began in the year 1805, when the first missionaries settled at Warmbad, north of the Orange River. The Wesleyan and Rhenish Societies opened the first schools there. In the initial stages these organizations concentrated for the, most part on spreading the gospel. However, literacy was essential to enable their converts to read the Bible and the hymn book. In this way the first White missionaries also emerged as the first teachers in the territory. In 1866 the Rhenish Mission Society established the first special school for the elementary training of teachers at Otjimbingwe, to the north-west of Windhoek, and in 1870 a school for Baster children was established in Rehoboth.

With the take-over of the territory in 1915 by the South African military authorities there was a total of 115 schools for all population groups within the territory. In 1921, after the commencement of the mandate, a department of education was established. However, the local administration of mission schools was still under the authority of the mission societies and at that stage they received subsidies from the State. For the first time the State acquired a measure of control over schools in regard to the syllabi, the school year, school hours and the right to inspect schools.

In 1923 delegates of the State and Mission Societies held talks on the future development of non-White education. Since then educational services for the latter have developed rapidly. Between the years 1920 and 1926 more mission societies concentrated on education. The South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1925 entrusted education services to the South-West Africa Administration, which were regulated by proclamation No. 16 of 1926. The Proclamation classified mission schools into two groups—for Coloureds and Natives respectively. During the period of the administration of education under the authority of the South African Government, consistent progress was made with the establishment of education facilities. Various factors retarded progress, factors such as the disruption caused by prolonged droughts, the 1930 depression and Second World War. Nevertheless, a sound foundation was laid which made the rapid progress in more recent years possible. Since 1950 the entire matter of education in the Territory has been thoroughly investigated by various commissions of inquiry, among which the 1958 commission deserves particular mention, and the recommendations of which led to considerable development.

Allow me to convey to the Administration of South-West Africa great appreciation for the exceptional contribution they have made in the field of education, and to thank them for it. I should also like to convey gratitude and appreciation to the different church societies for their contributions. I can refer only with the highest praise to all the parties concerned for what has been done in the interests of the non-White communities. I hope that they will in future, too, display the same interest in this major and important task and that there will, as is at present the case, be the most cordial co-operation between them and my department.

The present position as against the previous position, according to certain statistical data

That the Coloureds, i.e. the Coloured persons and Basters, have become educationconscious, is true. In 1931 there were seven schools for this group, with a total pupil attendance of 445. Between the years 1955, when there were 3 240 pupils at school, and 1966, the attendance figures increased to 9 402. In the same period the number of teachers increased from 142 to 346. According to this there were in the years 1931, 1955 and 1966, respectively, an average of 66, 90 and 177 pupils per school. The number of schools had increased in the meantime to 53 in 1966. Five years later there were, for the groups under discussion, 13 062 pupils attending schools. The total pupil attendance for all three of these population groups under the dispensation of my department amounted to 20 174 in 1971.

And the number of teachers?

Unfortunately I only have the number of teachers for the year 1966 here. I do not have the number of teachers in 1971.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to furnish us with the number of Coloured teachers.

Just Coloured persons, with the exception of Basters and Namas?

Yes.

The majority are, of course, Coloured teachers, because we have a quite considerable shortage of teachers from the Nama and Baster ethnic groups. We use Coloured teachers there as well. But I shall obtain the figures for 1971, and furnish them to the hon. member during the Committee Stage whilst dealing with a suitable clause, or even prior to that.

As far as the expenditure during the above-mentioned periods is concerned, I can inform the House that in 1931 it was R18, in 1966 R72 and in 1971 R81 per pupil. This figure comprises only the current expenditure, since capital expenditure for the erection of buildings is paid out of funds from the Department of Public Works.

The establishment of State Educational Institutions

The Bill which is now before the House provides the necessary machinery for the expansion in due course of all the facets of a developed and full-fledged system of education. Apart from the ordinary schools from Sub A up to Std. 10 provision is being made for the establishment of vocational schools, special schools and homes, and even nursery schools. For post-school training the establishment of training institutions is being made possible, and for adults, opportunities for self-development by means of part-time training. The generally tried and accepted educational principles are embodied in the Bill. The only aim is the furtherance of the interests of the child and, through the child, the community as a whole.

State-aided schools

The Bill makes provision for the continued existence of church schools on the same conditions as apply at present. The principle of control over State-aided institutions by managers is being retained. When the State recognizes the establishment or continuation of such institutions, the State may render financial assistance by way of grants-in-aid and loans. If, owing to specific circumstances, the take-over of a State-aided educational institution by the State becomes necessary, this will happen after consultation with the management of the institution in question so that an agreement may be reached in regard to the conditions according to which the take-over occurs.

Compulsory school attendance

Provision is being made for the introduction of compulsory school attendance. This, however, will only be possible if it is deemed that the need for it exists, and that the time for it is ripe. It must be realized that there will have to be adequate facilities and teachers to make the introduction of compulsory school attendance possible.

Financial assistance to pupils and students

Depending upon the general or individual requirements, financial and material assistance may be made available to the pupils, as well as to the students attending colleges and universities in the Republic. Those attending hostels who are unable to pay boarding fees in full or in part may receive support from the State, depending upon the financial position.

Establishment of boards and committees

Not only is the furtherance of the best interests of the child being sought, but the Bill also recognizes the legitimate say and share of parents in the education of their children. It is the intention of my department, after the commencement of this Act, to establish school committees so that a parental say in the school system may be effected. In addition to this, parents will also be involved in other boards and committees which are intended to exercise control over educational institutions. Provision is also being made for the establishment of a regional education council. In broad outline the functions of such a council are the same as those of a school board. The intention is not to establish it at an early stage, but to afford the community an opportunity of adapting to the responsibilities of the management of education first.

Academic standards and inspectorate

The training of pupils in South-West Africa is already being measured by the standards of the Matriculation Board, so that the quality of training should keep pace with the requirements which apply to all other population groups. The syllabi are therefore geared to meeting the ordinary examination requirements. The department has at its disposal an inspectorate which provides the necessary information and generally keeps watch over the application of the syllabi.

Conditions of service of teachers and other staff

The salaries of all teachers, attached to State as well as State-aided schools, are paid by the department. This position is being specified in the Bill so that it ensures the safeguarding of the position of the teachers. All actions for the benefit of, or steps taken against teachers, are being specified, and the rights of teachers as well as the powers of the authority are being set out. In clause 11 provision is being expressly made for the transitional stage from retention of service in terms of the Education Ordinance 1962, to employment in terms of the envisaged Act. As far as staff pension privileges are concerned, the position is already being regulated in terms of the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Act, 1969. Clause 14 of the Bill provides for the retention of the pension privileges of persons, as exercised with reference to the provisions of the aforesaid Pensions Act, so that in this connection as well no person will be prejudiced in any way.

Staff Associations

My department already accords recognition to the Coloured Persons Education Association in South-West Africa. The establishment cf such associations is now being accorded statutory recognition on ministerial authority. I am of the opinion that this method of recognition will ensure the continuation of fruitful negotiations between my department and the aforesaid association.

Membership of teachers on bodies and organizations

As is understandable, teachers play a leading part in the affairs of the community as a whole, and it is expected that appeals will from time to time be made on teachers to serve in some or other capacity on bodies such as local authorities, hospital boards or statutory committees. It is being provided in the Bill that such membership shall be subject to ministerial approval. The object here is to protect the interests of education, as well as those of the individual teacher. If it should appear that a teacher’s involvement with such an organization has a prejudicial effect on his duties, or that this organization is coming into conflict with the interests of the authorities, the Department will be forced to direct him to relinquish his membership, or to refrain from allowing himself to be drawn into the dispute.

Membership of party-political organizations is not being prohibited, although active participation which could have a prejudicial effect on education will not be allowed. The Minister is being given the authority to prohibit membership of organizations which have subversive activities as their object.

In conclusion I want to assure the House that the importance of education is fully realized and that an attempt will be made to maintain the existing high standards of education, and to continue to build on those foundations. The main object will at all times be to further the interests of the child. I trust that the various provisions of the Bill will contribute to this.

Mr. Speaker, we have now completed items 1 to 6 on the Order Paper and I should like to move—

The reason is that there was an agreement between the Government and the official Opposition that after the Order Paper had been taken to and including item No. 6, the debate would then be adjourned. I understand that the hon. the Leader of the House is not prepared to adjourn the debate at this stage. I hope he may yet agree to it, but I have no reason to think he will. I therefore wish so to move. I only want to say in addition that the arrangement that was made did not involve the giving of stages. I also wish to say that at approximately 10 minutes past two I understand the hon. the Leader of the House telephoned the hon. member for North Rand and made a statement to the effect that we would stop at item No. 6 only if we have items Nos. 1 to 6 right off the Order Paper. I would suggest that the hon. the Leader of the House may have had some uncertainty at that stage whether that was the way the arrangement had been understood by the official Opposition. If necessary the hon. member for North Rand could confirm this.

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to accept the adjournment of the debate. It is a question of co-operation. If the Chief Whip is present there is always the best of co-operation. But apparently in his absence those hon. members do not know how to cooperate. We will therefore have to continue with the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a matter of cooperation.

Order! Does the hon. member desire to speak on the Bill or on the motion?

I wish to speak on the motion, Sir. The hon. the Leader of the House has spoken on the motion. I wish to follow and speak on the motion in regard to the adjournment of the House. The hon. the Leader of the House said that this was a matter of co-operation. He said he made an agreement with the Chief Whip on this side in a spirit of co-operation and that this side of the House now was not prepared to carry on in that spirit of co-operation. That is an accusation which comes very badly in his mouth. These agreements between the Government side and the Opposition are agreements which are binding in honour as between party and party. They are not in accordance with the rules of the House or the rules of Parliament. There are no rules dealing with these matters. It is a matter of good faith. The hon. the Leader of the House is aware of the fact that the Chief Whip with whom he made the agreement on this side, had left the precincts of Parliament when he phoned the hon. member for North Rand at 2.10 p.m. When he told him that in order to stop the business of the House before we reach Order No. 7, it would be necessary to take the previous Bills in items 4, 5 and 6 through all their stages, he knew that that could not be referred to the man who made the agreement with him, the Chief Whip on this side of the House, Mr. Hopewell. He knew he was not here. When the hon. member for North Rand spoke to him on the telephone in reply to his statement : I will refer the matter to the Chief Whip at once, the hon. the Leader of the House said that the Chief Whip was not here and that he had already left. He was therefore aware of the fact that Mr. Hopewell had gone. He therefore came with this suggestion after he knew that the Chief Whip on this side of the House had already left. The hon. member for North Rand then said he would refer to the Whip on duty, which he did at 10 past two just before the bells were going. The hon. the Minister talks about co-operation, but is that the kind of co-operation we are to expect from the Leader of the House and the Government side in matters of this kind? In matters of this kind a man’s word is his pledge and it is the bond which binds him.

You know nothing about the arrangements. You are talking about things you do not know anything about.

I am very well informed indeed on what I am talking about and if the Leader of the House will say that it was not 10 past two when he spoke to the member for North Rand, and that he was not aware that Mr. Hopewell had already left, I want that denial to come from him because he made the agreement with the Chief Whip on this side of the House, Mr. Hopewell, and he knew when he phoned the member for North Rand that Mr. Hopewell had already left. If it was in terms of the agreement with Mr. Hopewell, why did he phone the member for North Rand at 10 past two? There was no need for him to phone anybody if it was in terms of the agreement he has made with Mr. Hopewell. He phoned the member for North Rand at 10 past two when he knew Mr. Hopewell had gone, because he knew it was not in terms of the agreement with them. That is why he phoned, and that is why he tried to get the arrangements changed at that late hour. I say this is a shocking thing and it stands ill against the name of the hon. Leader of the House that he at this late hour should come with an attempt to try and vary the agreement which he arrived at with Mr. Hopewell as soon as Mr. Hopewell has left the precincts of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the motion of the hon. member for Pinelands and that the debate will stand adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that the only arrangements I made with Mr. Hopewell were in regard to … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the hon. Leader of the House will persuade this House and persuade the hon. gentlemen on his side of the House to accept the motion of the hon. member for Pinelands. This is almost unprecedented and, as hon. members know, this would never have been raised on the floor of this House unless it was a breach of an agreement.

It is not a breach of the agreement.

Well, you can call it what you like, but the hon. the Leader of the House …

The only agreement I had with Mr. Hopewell was in regard to yesterday.

Well, this is a quite different kettle of fish. Is the hon. the Minister saying that someone had mentioned an agreement which did not exist?

The only agreement I had with Mr. Hopewell was in regard to yesterday’s Order Paper.

You had no agreement with him?

The agreement I made was when I asked the co-operation of your side through Brig. Bronkhorst.

Does the hon. Leader of the House then say that he had no agreement with the Chief Whip on this side of the House in relation to today’s business?

Not in regard to today’s Order Paper.

None whatsoever?

Not in regard to today’s Order Paper.

None at all?

Not in regard to today’s Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Order!

One of the difficulties we have is that the hon. member for Pinetown, who is the Chief Whip on this side of the House, is at the moment on an aeroplane … Actually I think he is no longer on an aeroplane; he is probably in Durban at the moment. If there was an agreement, and it is now suggested that there was an agreement in relation to the adjournment of this House and the business to be discussed here and the manner in which it would be discussed, and if the hon. Leader of the House had perhaps misunderstood what the hon. member for Pinetown had said, I am sure the hon. Leader of the House would be prepared to honour that if that was the agreement. I am sure the hon. Leader of the House would agree that he would if there was in fact such an agreement. Obviously there has been confusion about the agreement on the part of the hon. Leader of the House, to put it at its highest or lowest, whichever way he likes it.

I am sure that the hon. Leader of the House, more than anyone else, would, in the interest of the House, not want this matter to be the subject of debate across the floor of this House if there is the possibility, only the possibility, that there was an agreement and the hon. Leader of the House has misunderstood it. I am not a party to this agreement, or to whatever arrangements had been made; I do not know what the arrangement was. But quite apart from that, we here have a Bill which, as you will see, Mr. Speaker, is 37 pages long. The purport of the Bill is a very important one. We received this Bill last Monday. I do not know anything about this agreement, but it does seem to me that someone else does know something about an agreement. I will now resume my seat so that this matter can be resumed by someone who has more information about the agreement than I have.

Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. the Leader of the House correctly to say that he had no agreement with the Chief Whip of the United Party in regard to today’s Order Paper?

He is on record as having said that.

That is right. The hon. the Minister will not answer now. Did he say that or not?

I said that I had no agreement with Hopewell in regard to today’s Order Paper. I spoke to Hopewell about yesterday’s Order Paper.

I have here a piece of paper …

That is right. One to six on yesterday’s Order Paper, but one to eight …

But this is a letter you have written today.

Yes.

This is what you said—

Yes.

But just now, Sir, the hon. the Minister said that he had no agreement with Hopewell in regard to today’s business. But here it is in his own letter.

I spoke to Bronkhorst about today’s Order Paper.

It does not matter to whom the hon. the Minister spoke about the Order Paper. The hon. the Minister told this House just now that he had made no arrangements with Mr. Hopewell with regard to today’s Order Paper. Here I have a letter in his own handwriting to the hon. member for Pinelands in which the Minister says that he did arrange with Hopewell. Mr. Hopewell in fact reported to the Leader of the Opposition and to us that he had arranged with the hon. the Leader of the House that we would go as far as Order No. 6. That is what he reported to us. This is confirmation of the arrangement. I submit that the hon. the Leader of the House had not been fair with us on this side of the House, in trying to pretend that he has made no such agreement. I suggest that he did make an agreement and that he has gone back on that agreement. I appeal to him now to stand by that agreement because, unless we can get agreement between

Col. 4481:

• Line 39: For “Rents Amendment Bill”, read “Church Square, Pretoria, Development Bill”.
• Line 41 : For “Rents Amendment Bill”, read “Church Square, Pretoria, Development Bill only”.

the whips and the Leader of the House, the running of this House becomes impossible. I appeal to him now to agree to have the House adjourned in terms of the agreement he has made with Mr. Hopewell. He may have intended something different; I do not know, but that is what he told Mr. Hopewell and this is what his note in fact supports. I ask him now to please abide by the agreement which Mr. Hopewell said he had made and which this note indicates that he did in fact make.

Even if you think it is wrong, Ben.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, may I point out that the agreement I made with Mr. Hopewell yesterday was in regard to yesterday’s Order Paper, namely that if we deal with those matters and get them off the Order Paper, I will allow these particular Bills to stand over until after the recess. I phoned Mr. Bronkhorst at 2 o’clock this afternoon and told him that if we could take all the stages and get these matters off the Order Paper, I was prepared to leave these Bills over. That is what I told Bronkhorst. I told him that if we could take all these stages of the Bills from one to six today, I was prepared to leave them over. That is what I told him. He said that he would discuss it with Mr. Hopewell. I then told him that Mr. Hopewell had told me that he was leaving and that he would not be here. That was the arrangement this afternoon. Mr. Bronkhorst came to me and told me that they would object to the taking of the Third Reading of one particular Bill, namely the Rents Amendment Bill. Instead of objecting to the Third Reading of the Rents Amendment Bill, hon. members opposite all objected to the Third Reading of the next Bill on the Order Paper. Therefore, if hon. members opposite cannot co-operate, I am not prepared to cooperate and we must carry on with the business.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I am sorry, I have heard sufficient about this matter.

But, Sir, I want to raise a new matter in regard to this. Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the point that under item No. 2, the Rents Amendment Bill was dealt with this afternoon. We dealt with the Report Stage and the Third Reading. The hon. the Leader of the House has just stated that we breached the agreement by objecting to the Third reading of the Rents Amendment Bill. I submit that we did not object to the Third Reading of the Rents Amendment Bill, that in fact the Third reading was taken and passed. Similarly, we took the next Order. The one we objected to was Order of the Day No. 4, the Church Square, Pretoria, Development Bill which is a measure which we totally oppose. We moved “This day six months” …

Order ! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss all those Bills.

The hon. the Leader of the House gave us as reason for his refusal to accept the adjournment that we had breached the agreement, in that we opposed the Rents Amendment Bill and the Church Square, Pretoria, Development Bill, when in fact we did not oppose them. May I then ask what we are arguing about? The reason just given by the Leader of the House a moment ago was that we had opposed these two Bills. We did not in fact oppose the Bills which the hon. the Leader of the House says we opposed. I submit that there has been no breach of agreement. We did not agree to the Church Square, Pretoria, Development Bill because this is a Bill to which we are totally opposed.

Mr. Speaker, my name was mentioned and I am a party to this matter. The hon. the Leader of the House is quite correct up to where he said that I had told him that we could not allow the Third Reading of Order of the Day No. 4. I did not say anything about Order of the Day No. 2. I think there is a misunderstanding, because I never mentioned Orders of the Day Nos. 2 and 3.

I am not talking about Orders of the Day Nos. 2 and 3, but about 4 and 5.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House has now spoken twice …

Order! I cannot allow the debate to continue. I have heard both sides of the case now.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? My point of order is that this is not a decision for you to take. You have just said that you have heard both sides, but my submission is that this is a decision which the House should take. There is a motion before the House that this debate be now adjourned and it is a decision not for you, Sir, but for the House to take. My submission is that anyone in this House may submit reasons to the House for the decision of the House as to whether they should vote in favour or against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for Durban North is quite right. This is a decision for the House to take. I wish to point out to the House that the explanation of the hon. the Leader of the House is quite unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Transkei drew to the attention of the hon. the Leader of the House the fact that there had been an agreement between him and the Chief Whip on this side of the House and he produced a note in the handwriting of the Leader of the House to substantiate this. The hon. the Leader of the House then got up allegedly to reply and did not even refer to this note. He did not dispute the fact that he had given this note, and the note is quite clear as to what the agreement was. In view of this I would again like to appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider his attitude in the interests of the smooth working of this House, because if one cannot rely on agreements made between the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, then it is impossible to see how this House can function properly.

Mr. Speaker …

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am going to address you …

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order, or is he going to speak …

On the motion before the House. I want to refer to the fact that the hon. Leader of the House is a parliamentarian of considerable experience in this House. He has been here for many years and he is the Leader of the House. In fact he was well aware—if one looks at the merits of the matter which is before the House at the present moment —that we on this side of the House had moved an amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill under item 4 on the Order Paper, “that this Bill be read today six months”. Sir, I am sure that you, with your vast experience, as well, would have regarded it as extremely unlikely, in fact as an unreasonable request to make to the Opposition which has moved such an amendment at the Second Reading, that they should concede a stage of that Bill. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister— unfortunately he is busy at the moment —that I can only assume that there must have been some grave misunderstanding if he believes that we would concede a Third Reading of a Bill, to the Second Reading of which we moved an amendment that it be read this day six months. I do hope, in dealing with this motion, that that is a matter which will weigh with this House and that they will support the motion for the adjournment, as has been moved by the hon. member for Pinelands.

I now put the question.

Mr. Speaker, have I no chance to reply?

No. The question before the House is a motion by the hon. member for Pinelands …

Mr. Speaker, there has apparently been a misunderstanding about the whole matter. I have just spoken to the Leader of the Opposition. He was definitely under the impression that I had told Mr. Hopewell that these three Bills would stand over until after the recess. I am prepared to accept in good faith that they understood that. If that was their understanding, I am prepared to accept the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned until Monday, 10th April.