Mr. Speaker, the present economic position in the Republic of South Africa directs a challenge not only at the Minister of Finance, the National Party and the Government; it is also a challenge to the entire South African people, because a growing and vital economy is the chief producer of taxable income, thereby ensuring the creation of capital necessary in the development of our Republic. As far as I am concerned it is a foregone conclusion that if this challenge is fully exploited it will entrench the Republic’s future economic position. There is a shift of emphasis; gold is and continues to be a very important foreign exchange earner, but we are entering a new era as far as ore is concerned. There the object must be to mine at least 50 million to 100 million tons of ore annually. Secondly, there is growing industrial development in our country. This industrial development in the Republic is a big challenge. Unfortunately we do not obtain any support from the Opposition in this connection. We obtain no support from them for the encouragement of this industrial development, which is essential in establishing export products and assisting our balance of payments. We simply have continual chronic criticism to the effect that we ostensibly make no use of the labour that is available in the Republic of South Africa. By the way, Sir, South Africa is exporting to no fewer than 52 countries in the world. Twelve per cent of our production in this country is already being exported, as against 5 per cent in the case of Australia. This is already proof of the fact that we are becoming a big industrial country. I want to state that we shall become an industrial giant, but then this must take place on a responsible footing. We must then ensure efficiency. If we do this we shall find that the Opposition’s conduct in saying that there is only one solution, i.e. the greater use of Bantu labour, is only a political trick to bring about a fragmentation of the homelands concept and border industries. Let us look at what Dr. Basie Kleu, chairman of the Productivity Advisory Council, had to say about this aspect—

Here this person unequivocally proves that notwithstanding an increase of Bantu labour in the industrial sector there is no increase in production. Today I want to say this: I think we must stop saying that the worker in South Africa must work harder; this is a misconception. We must speak of greater efficiency, and it is at management level where the greater efficiency must be effected. One can work hard day in and day out without being efficient, and then it serves no purpose. Let us look at the position of Sasol.

In the past two years, with a decrease of 5 per cent per annum in its White staff, Sasol has increased its production by no less than 30 per cent. Is this not unequivocal proof that our great shortcoming in the industrial sector today lies in the fact that we do not act with efficiency? The Opposition must stop discrediting the White worker in South Africa by continually stating that the White worker’s production in industry is inadequate. Sir, I have one minute left to me. I want to conclude by saying that the hon. the Minister presented a Budget embodying the inherent potential of making this country an industrial giant, within the traditional pattern of life in South Africa and not on an integration basis, as the Opposition would like it. They have only one reason for that, and that is to discredit the concept of the right to self-determination, the concept of homeland development and the concept of a White South Africa with economic integration, thereby eventually bringing about social integration. Sir, this Government will continue to rule South Africa, because this Government rules honestly and sincerely on a principle basis and not on the basis of gossip, by which manner the Opposition is trying to take over power.

Sir, it is difficult to reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg, who has just resumed his seat, when he does not accept the basic fact of life that economic integration does exist in South Africa.

Sir, having said that, I will leave the hon. member and will raise certain matters with the hon. the Minister of Finance a little later in the course of my speech this morning. Sir, you will realize that all of us sooner or later exercise the right to reminisce. If we do it too soon, we are regarded as being presumptuous; if we do it too late, we are regarded as being senile and our reminiscences are not taken very seriously. I do not become angry when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, as he did yesterday by way of interjection, refers to my short period of membership of this House; it does not worry me. But I appreciate it when the hon. member for Piketberg asks me to look back over the history of the political parties. Perhaps I have the advantage over the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and even over the hon. member for Piketberg, of a few extra years of experience and of a greater variety of experience than they have had. Mr. Speaker, for what purpose do we recall the past? Does it help us in the 1970s in South Africa to recall that in the late 1920s and in the early ‘thirties it was necessary for me to hawk (smous) home-made jams to help the economy of my family at home? Does it prove that the National Government of the late 1920s and the early 1930s was anti-English-speaking South African? But hon. members on the other side, when they recall the financial difficulties of the subsequent years from 1934 until they took over in 1948, deduce therefrom that it was because of the anti-Afrikaner attitude of the Government of South Africa at that time. Sir, if I recall to the House the words of Dr. Malan, does it suggest that I am entitled to assume that there is common ground between the National Government today and the Bolshevik or Communist Government of Russia? Because what did Dr. Malan say at one period of his political career? He said—

Sir, what does that prove? [Interjection.] The Bolshevists were merely the militant communists. I am the last person to suggest that this Government is a communist-orientated Government, because those were the views of one of its architects of the past. Sir, must I also recall that Afrikanerdom survived despite the so-called English victory in World War II, and remind the hon. the Leader of this House what his sentiments were in 1940? I quote what he said, speaking at the Nationalist Party congress in Bloemfontein—

Sir, must I say today, and must South Africa say today, what you would rule out of order, and that is that hon. members opposite are Nazis?

You want to whip up emotions now.

No, what I am trying to say to hon. members opposite and to the Chief Whip is that those things are dead. We have evolved as political parties. I concede that even the hon. member has evolved to a wiser political philosophy than he had in the past. I concede that his thinking is today different. He accepts democracy today. But what would it profit me if I were today to linger on and hold in my heart a bitterness because I was called by members of that Party during the war years one of the “Red lice”? What would it profit me or my country today if I were to look back only to the miserable self-centred party-political interests which have been raised during this debate by hon. members on the other side? I am thankful for one thing as an English-speaking South African. I am thankful that my first lesson in Afrikaner tradition came from reading a biography of Paul Kruger. We on this side of the House and the English-speaking people are prepared to accept those aspects of the Afrikaner which are in line with the great thinkers of Afrikanerdom. We believe in the philosophy of Paul Kruger, “Neem uit die verlede wat goed is en bou daarop die toekoms”. Now, what have we had from the hon. members opposite in their attempts to stir up feeling between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans? Might I say that the hon. the Minister of Defence succeeded in making a good many English-speaking South Africans angry and resentful of his expressions and of the opinions he expressed. But fortunately a few days have passed and I believe that as I sit here today in my party, in this United Party, there is something greater than the attitude of that hon. Minister. I believe there is a dedication in this party, a dedication which has been built up over the years and which is the corner-stone of our philosophy in this party? We are here to serve South Africa and not a political party or a section of the people of South Africa. It is for that reason that we are prepared to accept the challenge of the fact that we are a multi-racial state. We are prepared to accept the challenge of finding a modus vivendi not only between those of us of the White group with different languages, but also a modus vivendi between those of different colours whom Providence has put in this country. We believe that that is the challenge. I would have expected the party opposite to have built on its achievements when the referendum of 1961 was in favour of a republic. When we look back to 1961 there was great division in South Africa, great emotional division. The result of that referendum, as you will recall, Sir, was not an overwhelming vote in favour of the Republic. But it was a majority vote and many thousands of South Africans who had felt deeply against the desirability of a republic, were faced with one decision. Were they to support and accept the democratic decision which had been taken in South Africa, or were they to perpetuate the divisions and the emotional differences of the past? The South Africans in this party in 1961 accepted that there was a Republic, that we have a Republic in South Africa. We thanked God that the emotional differences had now been settled, even though not as some of us would have liked to have them settled, and that we in South Africa could now look at the problems of South Africa and see what was to be done. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister of Defence. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. We are not angry with him. We pity him. We pity him because he has not only lost our respect as individuals, but he has even forfeited the respect to which he would normally be entitled as a Minister of State.

Now I want to pass, if I may, to certain Budget proposals, to which I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will even at this late hour be able to give some further consideration. I want to refer first of all to the interest-fixing for participation bonds. Since the announcements made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech, there has been a great deal of research into the position of participation bonds in South Africa. One finds, for instance, in a research done in Durban, that there are some R200 million to R300 million invested in participation bonds which have already elapsed the initial fixed period and merely continuing to be operative by mutual agreement between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. What is the position in regard to these bonds? Is the position now that the interest rate of these bonds is to be reduced because of the expiry of the fixed period; is it to be reduced now to 8½ per cent interest? I believe the Registrar of Financial Institutions holds that view at present. There is a great deal of anxiety in the public mind over the uncertainty, and I hope the hon. the Minister will clarify the position, because if that is to take place it is feared, and I think on good grounds, that there will be wholesale calling up of these participation bonds by trust companies whose investors will wish to withdraw their participation. It is a fact that the average investment per investor in participation bonds is somewhere between R2 000 and R4 000. In other words, it is the small investor who has R2 000 to R4 000 to put in who gets the benefit of a participation bond at the higher rate of interest. The big institutions finance their own bonds. Does the Minister realize that to these small investors this pegging of the interest rate to 8½ per cent will mean a reduction of 15 per cent in their income from this source?

The second point that is of great concern is that if this participation bond source of finance is withdrawn, it can have a very serious effect on the housing position in South Africa. The Minister knows that township developers are dependent almost entirely on participation bonds for financing the early stages of the development of townships, that is before the township has been proclaimed, to provide for services. It would be a tragic state of affairs if these persons are now to be left to look for money on the grey market for the establishment of townships. I ask the hon. the Minister please to see that no hasty steps are taken in regard to bonds which are existent and which are continuing beyond their fixed period, and I would also ask him whether he will not try to find time to have consultations with the Association of Trust Companies, who mainly handle this type of investment, and with the S.A. Property Owners’ Association, who are vitally concerned with the development of townships.

Then I want to refer to one other matter and that is to the home saving scheme, which we welcome, the scheme advocated by the hon. member for Parktown some years ago. But unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Community Development was not listening and he only discovered the fact that there was this type of saving when he spent several thousands of rands on a trip overseas last year. The point I want to mention to the hon. the Minister is this : that unfortunately he has linked it in 1972 to purchasing and bond limits, which are out of date. This will not provide the benefit that it could provide. The Minister limits it to the income group of R5 000 per annum and he limits it to a purchase price of R16 000 per house, but those are not available in our big cities, and to the limit of the bond amount which has now been fixed. I want to know what is the Minister’s attitude in regard to these limits. Can he not raise it? I want to tell him that to make this scheme really effective he must take one more step, and that is to grant some relief in the costs of transfer, the cost of acquisition of a property. The hon. the Minister knows that some eight years ago it was fixed that there should be a two-thirds rebate of transfer duty up to a purchase price of R5 000, one-half between R5 000 and R10 000 and one-third between R10 000 and R15 000. Those limits are unrealistic today. The Minister himself knows that. If he takes the depreciated purchasing power of the rand over the last eight years into consideration, he will realize that these rebates on transfer duty are not realistic and no longer helpful for the purposes for which they were introduced eight years ago. I do hope that when he deals with these tax proposals, he will still find some opportunity to review the position pertaining to transfer duties.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development started his political speech in this debate with a cursory reference to housing. He suggested that everything was all right, White housing was 100 per cent and Coloured housing was being sorted out by his department. I am going to ignore the political nonsense that he spoke. On public occasions the hon. the Minister frequently attributes to himself very good reasons why we should ignore what he says politically, because he has in the past belonged to every political party which has existed in South Africa. He only has to join one more party and that is the Progressive Party, he has belonged to all the others. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Justice has found out how much the irresponsibility and the loose tongue of the Minister have cost the country in regard to costs in the defamation case. The hon. the Minister of Justice will, no doubt, at some time or another make that interesting figure available to us, because I shall see that a question in that connection is put on to the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has stated that in so far as housing is concerned everything under his control has really gone well. Let me remind him of the position. I shall only quote figures in relation to the position when he took over in 1969. These figures were given to the House by the hon. the Minister himself; they are not my figures. I shall give him the position which obtained in 1969 and the position as it was at 31st December, 1971. The hon. the Minister announced in Question No. 3, Col. 343 of Hansard, 1969, that there was a shortage of 4 860 homes for Whites. In Col. 131 of Hansard, 1972, the Minister tells us that there is now a requirement in eight centres only of 12 165 homes. [Interjections.] That is progress! He told us that the Coloured housing position in 1969 was such that the requirement was 21 410 homes; the position today is such that 43 394 homes are required. In so far as the Indians are concerned, he told us when he assumed responsibility for this department, that the shortage was 11 333 homes. He has now told us that at 31 December, 1971, 22971 homes were required. That is progress! That is the efficient Minister! He has also told us that apart from these shortages, the position in regard to disqualified persons requiring homes is at present such that there are 35 345 Coloured families, 12 267 Indian families, 1 165 Chinese families and 165 White families who require homes.

If I may, I now want to talk to the hon. the Minister who is concerned with the implementation of group areas—the same hon. Minister. Is it not time now to stop this business of regarding every disqualified person as somebody who has of necessity to move from where he is at the present time? We can speak at great length about what it has meant to some of the old Cape families. I wonder how the hon. the Minister would feel if for generations his people had lived in Newlands under the oaks on the slopes of Table Mountain, and were suddenly denied the pleasures of living there, the pleasures of living there in that area during spring, and were told to live on the Cape Flats? What is worse, is that their houses after they had been vacated were not demolished. They are dollied up and with profit to the White person who had taken those houses over.

I am not arguing with you, because you do not believe in group areas.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe … [Interjections.]

Order!

Will the hon. the Minister not consider a system whereby the Coloured people who have a roof over their heads can receive a grant as is the case in other countries? The purpose of the grant is to put them in a position to restore their decaying houses. Can they not be assisted in that way? It will be a much cheaper system than to build houses to find homes for 35 000 displaced families. Many of them have roofs over their heads.

I want to raise another question in regard to the implementation of the Group Areas Act. We realize this must take years in some cases. The hon. the Minister must think again, if he does not want these sprawling townships on the Cape Flats but wants to build proper towns, which will be the correct thing to do. However, in the meantime these people are living in a state of fear and trepidation as to what would happen.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, speaking at King William’s Town during September last year, made a statement which is contrary to the actions and the policy of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I hope the hon. the Minister of Community Development will get together with his colleague and that they will adopt the approach upon which his colleague elaborated in his speech at King William’s Town. He talked about the establishment of this new Coloured township Breidbach near King William’s Town. I want to come to the important point and I quote from a newspaper report of his speech—

That is fair enough—

That is a humanitarian, realistic and proper approach to the removal of persons when it becomes necessary for slum clearance or other reasons. Create the attractions elsewhere, as we on this side of the House have always said, and let them go of their own free will. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs continued—

That is the policy which we have advocated in these matters, a policy which I trust the hon. the Minister of Community Development will find possible to adopt in future, because when the hon. the Minister of Community Development sticks his fingers into something of a local nature, chaos results. Let me remind him for instance of the problems in District Six. Long before the hon. the Minister took over responsibility for his portfolio, the city council had commenced slum clearance. They started in the 1930s and at the time the war broke out, they had built 483 dwelling units. These were new flat dwelling units in District Six. In 1957 the Group Areas Act came into effect. What happened then? In respect of the moneys given to the city council for rehousing, they were required to give 40 per cent of the new houses to rehouse disqualified persons on the Cape Flats. There were no funds left available to the city council to redevelop District Six and development was stopped. In 1962, when the city council was able to put forward a new scheme for the redevelopment of District Six and able to finance it itself, it was told that it could not do anything in District Six until the Group Areas Board had decided how it should be handled under the Group Areas Act.

Every suggestion by the Cape Town City Council was turned down by this Government. In 1964 it became a frozen area; in 1965 a co-ordinating committee was appointed to advise his department. Sir, during the whole of this period thousands of families were placed in doubt as to what their future was going to be. And now, Sir, after 10 years, in 1972, 10 years since the time the City Council was stopped from doing any renewal, what do we find? The hon. the Minister tells us that the acquisitions by his department of the properties necessary for a renewal scheme will only be completed by the end of 1973. What has he done as far as the redevelopment is concerned? No properties have been sold pending replanning. So, in 10 years he has taken out of Cape Town and out of the use of the population of Cape Town— Whites, Coloureds and Indians—the whole of District Six. He has immobilized the whole of District Six. He has poured in millions of rands by the Government. And the hon. the Minister tells us now, Sir, at this stage, in 1972, that the replanning is not yet completed. That the replanning is not yet completed! Sir, what were the hon. the Minister’s assurances when he was challenged on this matter before? The hon. the Minister, as reported in the Cape Times of 10th January, 1969, when he entered upon his task as Minister, said—

But what do the hon. the Minister’s words mean “acquisitions will not be completed before the end of 1973 and no properties can be sold until the replanning is completed”? At that early stage the hon. the Minister said that he had to give the assurance to the present inhabitants that they would not be put out onto the street unless they were provided with alternative housing in a responsible way. And what are they doing? What do these people do? Does the hon. the Minister not realize what he is doing unto these people?

Yes, I am quite happy with it.

They sit there not knowing from one day to the next what is going to happen to them. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that if there is any reason to ignore the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]

Order!

… then, Sir, may I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I think the time has come for this expensive and incompetent Minister to be removed from his portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member who has just resumed his seat want to don the cloak of peace?

Yes, you may well ask.

The first portion of the hon. member’s speech was a deliberate, marked attempt to don the cloak of peace. He was being the peacemaker, the benign one. The United Party wants to get away from a few things; in the first place they want to get away from their past. And therefore we are having that nervous conduct from their side after we raked up their past during this sitting. The Opposition must not think we shall desist.

Never, never!

They must be brought to account for their deeds when they ruled this country. Now the Opposition is struggling for all it is worth to get away from its misdeeds and sins. The hon. member sitting here before me and having such a good laugh is one of the hon. members who is struggling to escape his past.

You are going back to 1902.

Sir, as hon. members will now hear I am going as far as the year 2000. [Interjections.] And with all their struggling here, their rummaging around, their speeches and the smokescreens they threw up, I got to thinking a little about the fact that in our history there was also a period that counts against them as an indictment as far as the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa are concerned, just as they stand accused for their rule before we took over the reins of government. Here in the Cape, Mr. Speaker, at the corner of the Heerengracht and Longmarket Street there stood, in 1814, a house that belonged to a Mr. Dreyer. And when the rule of those years suppressed the Afrikaans-speaking people, the old Dutch element, and discriminated against them, quite a number of satirical poems saw the light. And because freedom of the Press was not allowed at the time, and the poor Dutch citizens were subjected to all manner of restricting measures, they pasted these satirical poems up against the walls of the houses at night, and so it happened that they pasted a satirical poem up on the front stoep—it was a high stoep —of the house of a Mr. Dreyer. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, after having listened to hon. members I went to look up that satirical poem, and the question I ask myself, and which the people must ask themselves, is whether this satirical poem is applicable here. It reads as follows—

Just look how the Press lauds them here— “groote mannen.”

Mr. Speaker, as I see them sitting there— particularly the hon. member for Constantia; he is, after all, a real old English ox; he will continue struggling, but he will never achieve anything. And then the satirical poem continues and reads—

Order! I ask the hon. member not to be personal.

Mr. Speaker, I obey your ruling. The satirical poem continues—

Mr. Speaker, our big question is who will rule South Africa? Who will rule South Africa in the succeeding decades up to the year 2000? And if we now wish to make a projection, Mr. Speaker, the matter looks very rosy to us under National Party rule. If we want to make a projection to the year 2000—that is in 28 years time; that is when those young men on that side and the young men on this side will be in leadership positions, and they will be placed in decisive roles against the background of history. Let us make a projection. From 1946 to 1971 our average growth rate was 8,6 per cent. This indicates a tendency for the growth rate to double every ten years. And if we now make a projection, we come to this virtually baffling figure, i.e. that in the year 2000—in 28 years time— our gross national product, very conservatively calculated, will be about R100 000 million. I say this is very conservatively calculated. If one follows another projection curve it gives one a figure of R140 000 million. What does this imply? Since today we spend, as far as capital expenditure is concerned, ,17 per cent of our gross national product on defence, ,43 per cent on education, ,03 per cent on housing and 2,02 per cent on economic services this implies that with the increase of our national product by the same percentage we can spend astronomical figures on education, defence, housing and economic services. The basis on which I make this projection is the basis I have faith in, because for the past 2½ decades, since the National Party took over power, there has been a remarkable, an incomparable stability embodied and discernible in our economic development. I do not want to repeat this, but in its economic and political development under the National Party, South Africa has escaped what most other countries could not escape. We have gained a remarkable stability in South Africa and if one makes a projection into the future, to the year 2000, and one takes the last two decades as the basis and the norm, one is justified in making, with a large degree of certainty, a projection of R100 000 million for our gross national product for the year 2000. This will bring about a consequent increase of our capacity, resulting in an increase of our defence expenditure, our education expenditure and our expenditure on economic services and our housing. A further encouraging sign is that, if we take our saving from 1946 to 1971 as a percentage of our gross national product, we see that this works out to an average of about 24 per cent. This is a very rosy and a very favourable figure. If we take our capital investment over that same period, from 1946 to 1971, as a percentage of our gross national product, this also tallies with the figure of 24 per cent. What does this mean? If one’s saving equals one’s capital investment as a percentage of one’s gross national product, this means greater independence from foreign capital influence for local development. This is an outstanding tendency and it gives me the courage to make a projection to the year 2000 with the certainty with which one can do so.

There are other less encouraging signs. On 5th May, 1970—these are the latest figures I could get hold of—we had an economically active population of 7,5 million. The per capita contribution to the gross national product of those 7,5 million economically active people was R1 563-50. That is less encouraging. There will have to be an improvement because this less favourable per capita contribution from the economically active population not only embraces purely material considerations, but also a crisis raging today in the spirit and the heart of our people. We shall have to overcome that crisis. Thanks to the privilege that befell me, I was recently on a visit to Japan. Permit me to quote what Die Zeit, a German newspaper, writes about what is happening in Japan, which is developing into one of the great super states and which we shall in fact have to take proper account of. The following is written in connection with this per capita contribution, this approach to labour, this attitude to labour and to production, the individual worker’s evaluation of labour, production and his country. I quote :

I want to make another quotation from what appeared in the German newspaper Die Welt. Die Welt asks :

This is indeed the case, because one single newspaper in Japan has a circulation of close on eight million—

They are honorary Whites.

The article reads further—

I want to quote a third article in connection with this approach, of our labourer to his work, which concerns me. I quote:

Now I want to say something. While a projection to the year 2000 is bewilderingly encouraging for us, there are, at the same time, too many people walking round in our country without performing a single productive act in the interests of the country. There are too many people walking around in our country and living on the infrastructure, which entails costly expenditure. They live on the expensive infrastructures that we have to build up, and they do not furnish a real contribution to the country’s gross national product. As far as the per capita contribution to our gross national product is concerned, there are too many people who do not comply with the requirements. We can take an example from Japan.

I was also in Taiwan. I did not see any long hair there; I did not see people slouching around in the streets; I did not see the bars full from early in the afternoon; I did not hear any noise. What strikes one is a silence that fits in with the atmosphere of industrious people. Why? Because between 60 and 80 miles from Taiwan there lies a powerful country, and they are indeed waging a war for their existence against that powerful country. Our people do not realize that we are also engaged in a full-scale war; we do not realize it, because here in South Africa things are too “jolly”. We are squarely in the midst of a war, and it is not only a cold war; it is a hot war. There our boys stand covering thousands of miles of the front.

Why do you not tell the Minister of Defence that?

He knows about it. Now that that hon. member is speaking about that, I want to say that I have never yet heard a single word of praise or encouragement to those boys from his mouth. He has never done so yet. [Interjections.]

Sir, I have now made a projection of what we can expect in the next two, almost three decades, what our strength will be and what we will be capable of, and now I want to put to you eight challenges that face the Republic of South Africa. These are realities we must take cognizance of at the moment. These points I am now going to mention are not far-off in the distance; they are not shrouded in a cloak of future obscurity; these are matters we must take into account at the present moment, and which are actually taking place.

The first is the military onslaught from the North which is in preparation. Our boys are already there. All the signs point to the formation of a new power block in Africa, in which communism will play an important role. We are not the only ones to say so. When our hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Police warned against it, hon. members on that side and their newspapers stated: “This is simply a disparagement; these are simply excuses; these are simply scare stories.” What did the leader of the newly established opposition party in Zambia say the day before yesterday [translation]? “The Tanzam railway line will serve as and be used for conducting communists from Zanzibar and Tanzania closer to Zambia.” I am now warning that hon. member for Port Natal in particular. The hon. member for North Rand said a few years ago : “What we need is a shock from outside.” I am now warning that hon. member: The “shock from outside” is at hand.

You will get a shock from inside here.

The second challenge we must prepare ourselves for is the threat to the Republic of South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Natal!

He is engaged in a cheap attempt at diversion which even a child can comprehend. The second matter is the threat to the Republic from the Indian and the Atlantic Oceans. You know, Sir, that Zanzibar is the most southernly Black state that has a harbour at its disposal in Africa. We know that there is great activity in progress in Zanzibar as far as the Chinese are concerned, in connection with the construction of a harbour and in connection with maritime operations.

The third point is the challenge and the problems the European Common Market is going to set us. This morning we heard over the radio that while Mr. Nixon is in Canada, his Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs has mentioned the difficulties awaiting even a powerful super state like America in connection with the European Common Market. We must prepare ourselves for that. Thanks to the National Party, early and provisional arrangements have been made and discussions and consultations have been conducted.

Then I want to come to an important point, i.e. that in the Far East a big power point is developing, with Japan as the key spot. After Japan was destroyed in the Second World War it experienced such an economic miracle that every projection for the future, after the year 2000, indicates that Japan will overtake America and the Soviet Union, the only two countries which are still superior to it. This will be of tremendous significance to us in South Africa.

A powerful economic bloc is developing, with a powerful and virile economy. We can thank the Lord because, as it is now developing, it appears to us it will be a non-communist bloc with the countries in South-East Asia. For us in the Republic of South Africa, who have only now made a break-through to the markets of the Far East, and will and must do so to an ever-increasing extent, this will be of far-reaching significance. We shall have to prepare ourselves for that. We must not go and look for our markets only in the Western world: we shall also specifically have to focus our attention on that part of the world which, in the future, is going to play an undeniably big role in world economy, and particularly as far as South Africa is concerned.

I want to mention a fifth point. In the succeeding decades we shall have to break through to the new Africa, that reshuffling of powers that took place when the old colonial powers were rejected under force of the militant, aggressive nationalism, which we cannot accept and understand, which has its effect in the economic and political spheres and on inter-state relations. It is an aggressive nationalism, in contrast with the nationalism that has been developed by this National Party. Our nationalism is evolutionary, not passive, but inspiring. It is not aggressive, but developing. It will be our task—it has been placed on our shoulders—to make a breakthrough, in the next few decades ahead, into the very heart of those carriers of aggressive nationalism as it is still unfolding itself before us today in all its militant forms.

Then I come to the sixth task facing us, and this is the absolute necessity for our Bantustans to obtain their political independence in co-operation with the Whites in South Africa. The seventh is the necessity for us to realize that a common market will, of necessity, have to develop here in Southern Africa and that this will exercise tremendous pressure on our economic, technological and intellectual sources. Sir, today I want to say this with a large degree of certainty : As far as these eight big objectives and challenges are concerned, as I have stated them here, the National Party is armed. Sir, this task cannot in future be entrusted to that party, because it is a party that kills everything. They are like a buck, and everything a buck eats, dies. [Interjection.] Sir, what is wrong with that hon. member? Is he sick? Let me tell you what they have killed. They have killed their own Press, which supported them throughout the years. For the information of the younger members who do not know it, I just want to say that there was a newspaper called Volk; that newspaper is dead. Eendrag, which was previously published in the Transvaal, died, while they were ruling. The old Volkstem, which was over 50 years old, is dead. The Rand’s Pos is dead; the Vrystater in the O.F.S. is dead; the Natalse Afrikaner in Natal is dead; Ons Land in the Cape is dead; the Suiderstem, with its powerful capital behind it and its advertising power when they ruled, is dead. They killed everything, and now their own supporting press is in the process of killing them. Sir, they not only killed their own newspapers. There were seven points of concurrence between Hertzog and Smuts at the time of coalition. They murdered coalition; they killed it.

That is not true.

They killed coalition as a result of their unreliability and their disloyalty. The first point of their agreement was that the government of the country would be conducted on a basis of South African principles and in a spirit of South African nationalism. And then? That ink was not even dry yet, when they issued the 1948 election manifesto, and what did they say in that manifesto? Exterminate Nationalism! They said that Nationalism came from the troglodytes; the Nationalists sitting here are a lot of troglodytes. I quote (translation)—

Sir, I could continue in this vein. Every possible principle that was entrenched in the old coalition agreement was destroyed by the spirit of that party, and therefore, as far as I am concerned, I want to say this in connection with these stories about coalition that were spread here: Never ever would I enter into a coalition with them, because their past betrays them and one cannot depend on their future because they do not have one. Sir, the other day the hon. member for Parktown said a dangerous thing here, and it is characteristic of them that they simply weave it in. He said in his speech during the Little Budget: “Back to earth; listen to the advice of real and true Afrikaners.” Sir, who are his real and true Afrikaners? Who gives us advice here? People like the hon. member for Salt River, our own noisy friend sitting there, the hon. member for Constantia and that member himself; and what does he say? He says: Stop interfering in the private sector; remove all these unnecessary control measures. Initially they said we should hand over the Railways to private initiative. Now each year they ceaselessly inquire here after the public corporation’s accounts. Sir, the hon. member, as chief spokesman of their party, ought to know better. There is not one of these economic super-states in the world today in which Government control measures and Government control are not the order of the day. What is the position in Japan? I quote—

That was in 1968, the great development year—

[Time expired.]

Sir, after the speeches of the past three days, I must say in all honesty that more than ever I have come to the conclusion that it is not in the interests of South Africa that the Party on the opposite side should continue to govern this country. Sir, there cannot be any objection to a member of any side getting up and going into the past of his rival party and criticizing his rival party for standpoints and attitudes adopted by it in the past. Whether it will yield political profit for such a side in the long run is a question which a man must decide for himself if he decides to conduct such a debate. My impression is that the people in the country are more and more beginning to adopt the attitude that at any particular moment a political party belongs to the people who support the party at that moment, and that they are not at all concerned with what other people did at a different time under the banner of the party. I myself am of the opinion that we are entering a period in which people are going to judge our political parties not in terms of what they were, but in terms of what they are and what they make of themselves today. I do not want to deny that a party should carry its history with it and, as I have said, there can also be ho objection to a man getting up here and criticizing a party on the grounds of things which happened in its past. But the fact of the matter is that every party,—and certainly both major parties in South Africa—has in its past things which it would like to remember; but in its past it also has things which it would like to forget. When one compares the two parties in this respect, I often wonder whether that side does not have many more things it would like to forget than this side has. Sir, we can conduct precisely the same kind of debate as we have had from that side; and I want to go so far as to say that if we wanted to do so, we would be able to do so with far more effect than the other side has done. Sir, there are people on that side who, prior to our becoming a Republic, made speeches and wrote articles about what the Republic should look like, who wrote articles and who made speeches on the language question, which were nothing but what the Herstigte Nasionale Party stands for today.

Subsequent to which you joined us.

Very well, so what? There are people on that side i who, if one were to read out today what they said the South African Republic should look like, would blush up to their ears. To tell the truth, it was in fact all those absurdities written by members on that side at that time about the future Republic that put us back years and that led to people opposing the Republic who had never been opposed to it in principle. There are people on that side who pleaded for National Socialism. There are people on that side who did not want anything to do with the Parliamentary system and who described this Parliamentary system as an Anglo-Jewish invention. There are members on that side who at one time did not even want to stand for Parliament, because they said they had no use for this institution. If we want to stir up feelings between Afrikaners and Englishmen or between Whites and non-Whites, look at the material we have. Hansard abounds with anti-Semitic speeches made on that side. Motions were introduced here on that side in typically Hitler fashion, motions which sought to limit the number of Jews in the professions in South Africa. Must we now launch an artificial campaign here by saying that there are elements on that side who hate the Jews?

What are you doing now?

I am explaining that we do not want this kind of debate, but if it is called for, we can give it.

Why are you keeping at it then? Pacify your emotions,

They say that only they have the right to do it. All I say is that I wonder, if this is the part they are going to play for the rest of this Parliamentary session, whether this side will not derive more benefit from it than that side will. But what assistance will we have given South Africa then? What will happen to race relations? If we want to stir up racial feeling here: I remember that people on that side attacked us by saying that we would “pick up lice” if we entered the homes of the Coloured people. Must we now rake up all these things here? They speak of foreign threats: We are alleged to be soft on foreign threats and sabotage and terrorism. But surely this is not the first time in our history that we have to deal with foreign threats and with sabotage and terrorism. In 1938, when there was a serious infiltration from Europe of forces subversive of the State in South-West Africa and the Hitler régime was trying to take over South-West Africa from within and that territory was on the verge of a coup d’état, it was Gen. Hertzog and the United Party who sent armed Police to quell the unrest; and what was the attitude then of hon. members who are now sitting on that side of the House? Stones of opposition and aversion rained down upon this side because it took those safety measures in respect of South-West Africa. And the leader of the Nationalist Party in Transvaal, Mr. Strydom, went so far as to say in the name of that party— and I am quoting him—that the Nationalist Party would not lift a rifle to defend South-West Africa if Germany (under Hitler) wanted South-West Africa back. A year later the Second World War broke out and dangers of a global nature threatened South-West Africa as well as South Africa and the rest of the world. Here in Parliament there was a serious difference of opinion about our participation, and I leave it at that. It was justified. One could agree or one could disagree; but as far as the United Party was concerned, it thought in terms of the interests of South Africa and went into action, and it wrote an impressive chapter in the history of South Africa. And today, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs goes abroad and arrives in America, France and England, what is the main point he raises? He proudly tells them that South Africa fought on the side of the Allies. This is his main argument in favour of friendship with South Africa. In the forties we had sabotage and subversion on a large scale here in South Africa, not from the same quarter as today, but in far more serious circumstances, because the Government and our Police and the South African Defence Force were fully occupied with our being engaged in a war beyond our borders. However, we not only had sabotage and subversion in the most serious degree within the country, but we also had terrorism within our country’s borders. Efforts were made to blow up post offices, trains and bridges.

May I ask a question?

No, I still have a number of questions of the hon. the Minister of Information to which I should like to reply, and unfortunately I do not have the time. Innocent people suffered. We even had political murders in South Africa. You will remember the murder of Louis Nel. It was naked terrorism within the borders of South Africa. Who was soft on terrorism then? We should just ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who was a newspaper editor at the time, what he wrote then about which side was soft on terrorism. The point is that the United Party Government took firm action and suppressed terrorism and sabotage and subversion sternly, completely and successfully.

And it gaoled people without trial.

Yes, that happens today too, without there being a war. At that time there was a war on. It stands to the credit of this party that it saw through a war successfully and wiped out sabotage, subversion and terrorism within the country, that it retained and protected South-West Africa and, in addition, that it turned South Africa into an industrial country.

That is not so.

The conversion of South Africa into an industrial country took place during the war years under the U.P. Government. The hon. members are contradicting the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself said at the U.N. that the conversion of South Africa into an industrial country took place during the war years under our Government. I am not raising these things in order to offend anyone. I am only mentioning them in order to show that it is true that every party has things it would like to remember, just as it has things it would like to forget; and to my mind a slanging match in this Parliament about the past will not get South Africa any further. Particularly this planned campaign of the National Party according to which it is alleged that the Afrikaner is now hated so terribly, is to my mind, beneath the dignity of the Afrikaner. Look, let us be honest with each other now. We know there are Englishmen who do not like the Afrikaner, but there are many Afrikaners who do not like the English either; and there are Afrikaners and Englishmen who do not like the Jews; and there are Nationalists who do not like Portuguese immigrants; and there are Protestants who do not like Catholics. This is simply the kind of country we are, and I can continue in this vein. But where is it going to get us if the Jews sitting here get up and start abusing the Nationalists whom they suspect and say that they hate the Jews; and if English-speaking people start playing the same game and abuse members opposite because they allegedly hate the English. This would simply become a political madhouse.

We are not the ones who hate the Jews; it is the English clubs.

I said that, but on this side there are no Englishmen who introduced motions, if we want to go back into the past, of the kind that members of the Government side did. I concede that in the past most of us were subject to feelings which ran very high, and one must allow for that. Most of us have at some time or other in the past made generalizations and statements we should perhaps not have made; but one had hoped that we were past the stage where we would still approve things of this kind; and if a Minister has proof that a person is an anti-Afrikaner, one does not mind if he gets up and produces that proof. But I think it is grossly unfair that the charge is simply made against a man, whether he be English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, he hates the Afrikaner, without there being a single proof of it. Sir, a new phenomenon which I think is absolutely ridiculous has now arisen here. It is the duty of this House, it is its basic purpose, to scrutinize as thoroughly as possible the way in which the country is administered, and it is also the duty of this House to take a keen look at the way in which a Cabinet member handles his portfolio. But I think it is the height of absurdity for a Minister to adopt the attitude here that he should not be attacked or criticized because, if it is done, it is done because he is an Afrikaner. I think it is extremely improper for a Minister, or any member, to hide behind his Afrikanerhood when he is criticized, because it amounts to this, that he claims for himself the right not to be criticized, because he is either an Afrikaner or an English-speaking person, like the hon. the Minister of Tourism. However, the point I actually wanted to make is that, whatever the situation between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people, I think we can still manage with this kind of thing, but what is far more serious is the new verkrampte onslaught in regard to matters of colour that we have been getting from various circles during the past four days. No one will deny that there are situations to which the White community, of which all of us form part, does not have an immediate answer. We do not have all the answers to every difficult situation. There are situations about which we as Whites will still have to think very hard, but we are not going to get any closer to the answers with the kind of speeches made here by the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Lydenburg and the hon. member for Malmesbury as well as the hon. the Minister of Information. The attitude they revealed in regard to White/non-White relations is of no value to South Africa. Take the speech of the hon. the Minister of Information. He put a number of questions to me. Let me say what I find a pity. He is the Minister of Information and everything he says in this House is studied by foreign representatives. It is analysed and sent abroad to the Governments there, because he is the person who has to polish up South Africa’s image to the outside world. However, he comes here with petty apartheid politics, which almost ought to be something of the past, and talks about separate entrances and universities and so forth. He wanted to know whether we would allow mixed universities. But his party has been in power for almost 25 years. Surely there are mixed universities at present? [Interjections.] Why does he ask us? He asks whether we would allow mixed schools, but are there not mixed schools in South Africa today?

They are private schools.

What does that matter? Which schools are the Chinese in South Africa attending? There are mixed schools; yet he asks us whether we would allow mixed schools. He asks us whether we would abolish separate entrances and where we would draw the line. These were his words : “Where do we draw the line?” Here in the Parliamentary Building there are no separate entrances. Here in the brand-new Hendrik Verwoerd Building there are no separate lifts and no separate entrances. Why does he then ask us where to draw the line?

I am testing your honesty.

I want to ask him whether there is apartheid on the aeroplanes.

I am testing your honesty.

The hon. the Minister must not misunderstand me. I am not pleading for it, neither am I attacking him about it. I now want to know from him, because he is concerned about where the line is to be drawn, whether there is apartheid on the aeroplanes. Of course there is not. Where does he draw the line then? He is asking us. [Interjections.] He asks us whether we would allow mixed hotels. Heavens! Surely there are mixed hotels in South Africa. Good Heavens, does he not go to the President in Cape Town and the President in Johannesburg or the Boulevard in Pretoria? They are mixed hotels already.

What about the hotel at the airport?

He made a whole song and dance about mixed marriages and the Immorality Act. Does he want to deny that numerous mixed marriages are taking place today under this Government, which has been in power for nearly 25 years? The whole question of mixed marriages has become a farce. It depends on the card one has. If a White gets a Coloured card, he may marry a Coloured. If Coloured—there are hundreds of them—gets a White card, he marries a White. [Interjections.] The whole situation in regard to mixed marriages is a farce. They are taking place. Here a Boer girl—I admit it was given to her out of humane considerations …

Has she got a ticket?

What farce is this?

I am not attacking it either. But an Afrikaner girl is declared a Chinese. She gets a Chinese card and then she marries a Chinese. It remains a mixed marriage. He asks us whether we would allow mixed marriages. They are taking place all the time. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if there is a fool’s paradise, it is petty apartheid. There is no logic in it, and I want to tell him that the whole thing will collapse in his and my time. There is not the least doubt about that, and he knows it.

Rather keep quiet, Connie. [Interjections.]

What particularly worried me was the hon. member for Lydenburg—look at the speech he made. He concerned himself particularly with Coloured members of the House of Assembly. It is alleged to be such a terrible thing that a Coloured would sit here in the House of Assembly. He was very quick to talk about spineless people on this side. I want to ask him—and I also ask other hon. members sitting over there : They have seen in the newspaper that Coloureds, Indians and Black South Africans are now for the first time in the history of South Africa going to be used to help fight terrorists on our borders; no longer, as in the old days, merely as assistants or attendants. No, Gen. Gideon Joubert, the Commissioner of Police, announced that they were being effectively armed, and he used the following words (Rapport, 16.1.72) (translation)—

The common fatherland …

Not the Bantustans.

This is what he said—

On a page featuring a big photograph Die Vaderland published the following (Die Vaderland, 27.3.72) (translation)—

I hope they are given the same pay, because every man’s life is worth the same to him. However, we shall be able to discuss that at a later stage. I mention this with appreciation to the Commissioner of Police, Gen. Joubert, and to the hon. the Minister of Police. This is level-headedness; this is right. But now I ask the hon. member for Lydenburg—he may reply to me later, since he is not present at the moment in any event and I do not expect someone to give answers across the floor; it is not the proper way to do so—whether he, as a White man who is not a spineless person, is of the opinion that the Coloured people … I use the Coloured people as an example, because the Coloured people are in the position that their eventual political rights cannot be organized on a decentralized basis, on a geographically decentralized basis. That is the only reason why I am using the Coloured people as an example.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he and other hon. members adopt the attitude that we are going to call upon the Coloured people to perform the highest civic duty, but that those very same Coloured people who are helping to save our skins, while we are sitting here in the shadow of Table Mountain, are to be afforded no opportunity of earning the highest civic right as well? [Interjections.] Is that his view? Is it a proper view for a White man?

They are able to get it.

Mr. Speaker, I say: If that is the view of that side, what chance does South Africa have of a peaceful future with such a party in power? I want to say that that story that direct representation for Coloured people in Parliament will split the Whites and will dominate Parliament, is the biggest political nonsense I have heard in my life. I think people who tell that story ought to be ashamed of themselves. If 166 White representatives in this House were to be unable to protect their fundamental interests in the face of six Coloured representatives, the Whites in South Africa would not be worth two pinches of salt and the writing would already be on the wall for them in any event. [Interjections.]

The Government’s approach to this matter is a misrepresentation of the facts in any event. The Coloured electorate never acted as a bloc against any specific party in the past. The old National Party under Gen. Hertzog enjoyed very strong support from the Coloured people. Mr. Bruckner de Villiers won the election in Stellenbosch on the strength of the Coloured vote and he was carried into these buildings of Parliament by the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry. Other seats were also taken with the aid of the Coloured people. There were Coloured organizers whom I saw together with Dr. Malan on the platform. What happened, was that when the parties of Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts became united at the time of the fusion and most of the Whites supported it, most of the Coloureds supported the United Party as well.

Why did the United Party have the support of the Coloureds?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister why. It was only when the National Party started advocating its offensive minor apartheid measures that it estranged the vast majority of the Coloured people; and can one blame the Coloured people for that?

Of course!

Mr. Fanie Loubser, N.P. candidate, got up in Malmesbury and said: “I find it humiliating to get a vote from a Coloured person; I ask the Coloured people not to vote for me.” And this kind of attitude estranged the Coloured people. The Coloured people never formed a bloc; they were as divided as the Whites. And if they were to get civic rights tomorrow and become an ordinary citizen and have the vote, and have representation in this House, they will be as divided among the parties as the White group is. [Interjections.] But surely we Whites do not have an equal vote either; my vote is worth two times less than that of the man living in South-West Africa. [Interjections.] There are anomalies. My friend in South-West Africa’s vote is worth three times as much as that of the man in Bezuidenhout. We have anomalies in our electoral system.

Do you want to change it?

I think: everyone’s vote should have the same worth. [Interjections.] But is it fair when the Whites fight among each other for us to penalize the Coloured people for that and to tell them they cannot come because the Whites are fighting among each other? Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfair to adopt that attitude. I am convinced that it is not right for us to penalize the Coloured people by not giving them a place in the body where the most important laws concerning them are made.

Why does Matanzima not get all the land he wants? [Interjection.]

And we shall have to face one thing, and that is that the policy of supremacy (baasskap) has no future. And what I find interesting is that the Government has acknowledged this in the case of the Black man; it is honest enough to admit that supremacy over the Black man has no future, but it obstinately clings to the myth that supremacy over the Coloured people has a future. Why then the duality? And I want to say this: They are trying all kinds of roundabout ways which are characteristic of the old colonial powers. Sham powers are dished out and councils are established which will never be able to get truly meaningful powers. And I think it is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Afrikaners, who in fact pride themselves having been the first to revolt against imperialism and colonialism, are trying to apply all the tricks of the old colonial powers all over again to the Coloured people here. It is just a question of time before you will see that a council such as the Coloured Persons Representative Council is going to collapse—the process has already set in— because in the long run one simply cannot gull someone into thinking that he has powers while he has none. And in a situation as intertwined as the Coloured people are with the Whites, one cannot establish two Parliaments in the same territory. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should give the Coloured people a share in every case where decisions are taken about their interests and their lives just as about ours.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will allow me, before I go further, to convey the sincere congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. the Minister of Transport on the honorary doctorate which he received from the University of Port Elizabeth. I do this particularly because in the curriculum vitae, which was presented, it was mentioned that the honorary doctorate was being granted to him in consideration of the services which the hon. the Minister of Transport furnished in this House. We join him in gratitude for that well-earned award that was granted to him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has just resumed his seat, of course adopted the old United Party tactics that we know well by saying that if we continue along these lines in quoting history, we shall get no further, because that will then be the position, and then he devotes more than half of the speech he made to the sins the National Party allegedly committed in the past. The hon. member even accuses them of terrorism, etc. I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, but then the hon. member says that if we continue in this vein … You see, Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story we are objecting to. But I come back to the hon. member. When the election in Oudtshoorn was announced, a report appeared in the Sunday Times about the candidate in Oudtshoorn. And the report was headlined as follows: “Horses for courses.” All kinds of accusations were brought against Mr. Myburgh. As far as I am concerned it is not a question of whether he wants to eat with Coloureds or not. What I am more concerned about is that on the same occasion he said (translation): “It does not concern me what the Bantu’s position in South Africa is : it is not my task to look after them.” Mr. Speaker, this must be read in conjunction with what this newspaper, the Sunday Times, wrote about the hon. member for Hillbrow a short while ago when he was hauled over the coals because he allegedly made certain disparaging remarks about certain Bantustans. Myburgh is praised to the skies, praised to the very skies.

But what happened, Mr. Speaker. When Mr. Myburgh became the United Party candidate for Oudtshoorn, there in the far north, in the Transvaal the English-language Press—the Rand Daily Mail and such newspapers, which do not get near Oudtshoorn, objected to Mr. Myburgh’s candidature for the edification and the consumption of the Transvaal electorate and for consumption abroad. But here in the Cape the Cape Times and the Cape Argus, which could possibly be read in Oudtshoorn, keep perfectly quiet. You see, Mr. Speaker, here is South Africa’s dilemma, i.e. that the English-language Press in South Africa has drawn a “Paper Curtain” around South Africa similar to the “Iron Curtain”. And the true image, the cross-sectional image, of South Africa cannot reach the countries abroad. The best elements of the democracy that can become known outside South Africa, except for what is done by the hon. the Minister of Information and his department, are due to your efforts, Mr. Speaker, by way of your protection of the hon. member for Houghton. That is all that is known. For the rest we are dependent upon reports that create an absolutely impossible position; which create a position such as that over the last few months in which a merciless campaign has been conducted against the Police in this country.

Those hon. members of the Opposition sitting opposite us over there—I can mention numerous examples—who conduct a campaign against the Police because, in the first place, they believe they will use every means in the struggle—it does not matter what damage South Africa suffers—as long as the National Party is simply ploughed under. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, it is because most of the Police are Afrikaners. In The Star of 2nd November, 1971, there appears a report under the following heading: “M.P. has new fear for Police.” I quote—

Then he states a significant thing—

All the hon. members know that this statement is devoid of all truth. The fact is that this report must be read outside the country’s borders. It is that “Paper Curtain”, which in many cases is more formidable than the real “Iron Curtain”. We know that story and we know how they have had various things to say, even in this Parliament, for outside consumption. The hon. member for Constantia stood up the other day and said that the process of devaluation is a process of bankruptcy.

The other day he stood up and said that the measure of revival in the South African economy is not attributable to the Minister of Finance’s Budget, but to the Budget in the British Parliament. Must everything then be discredited? Hon. members are aware of the fact that a merciless gossip campaign has been launched against every Afrikaans company on the Stock Exchange. I would not be surprised if the gossip campaign launched against the Trust Bank does not also emanate from that ride. Hon. members saw what happened last Sunday. Another big financial institution, Volkskas, was attacked in bold headlines by a certain newspaper. From a business point of view I do not think that Volkskas acted correctly, but is that a way to drag a big financial institution through the mud, as a result of a mistake in a statute probably dating from the days prior to its appearance on the Exchange? Notwithstanding that, these statutes were approved by the Exchange. No objection was raised. No, we cannot go on in that vein.

I want to come back to the basic subject we have been debating throughout the week. This concerns the policy of the United Party. No one has taken any notice of the policy of the United Party, but as the hon. the Minister of Labour stated clearly the other day, they say they want to take over and therefore we must see if there is any future. In the Volksblad of 11th December, 1971, I read the following in connection with the United Party’s Congress at Bloemfontein (translation): “Federation : Vause Raw sees no end to the road.”

He has not finished thinking yet.

Yes, he has not finished thinking yet. Mir. Raw introduced a motion at that Congress, and I quote (translation)—

That is the only sense he has spoken yet.

That is Vause Raw. From this report it was very clear that he was referring to another statement of the Leader of the Opposition. I tried to see whether I could not get hold of the report. And I did get hold of it. It appeared in the Cape Argus of 10th November, 1971, and also concerns this congress. The Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia—

As far as I am concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s conduct is the strangest phenomenon I have seen in a long time. Here, in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s presence, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must stand up at the beginning of the year and clearly say that the Leader of the Opposition said it is only an interim policy. What was the reaction to that? The hon. member for Yeoville then suddenly said to the Chief Whip : “Tell Japie he must sit down.” What the Chief Whip said I could not hear, because he speaks a little softly. The leader let it pass just like that, and for months the matter was simply left there, and there were hints, as if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had committed an offence. There were even some of the United Party members who said in the passages outside : “We really are going to wallop him; this sort of thing must stop.”

Now I ask hon. members what they would do. If my leader were in such a position, and placed me in such a position that he could not give me that protection when I repeated what he said, I would rather leave. Then one begins to think about the possibilities of the Leader of the Opposition. Eventually one can only laugh at him, but if one thinks further one asks oneself who could become Leader of the Opposition. One then lands oneself up in the position of the man who laughed at his wife’s cosmetics. He laughed at her cosmetics until one day he saw her without any make-up. However, the report continues. Those three phases are created, the first of which is that all the discriminating laws will be repealed, something which was spoken about in the House yesterday by the Minister of Information and which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout ostensibly replied to. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned one small instance that took place, and built everything up around that.

My reply to him is with reference to the first National Party Oudtshoorn representative, Mr. C. J. Langenhoven (translation): “Who points to a hole in a sieve and pokes fun at it?” That is the first phase. Now we come to the second phase. In the second phase the various representatives are nominated. After that there are questions about how the people are going to be chosen. Then they say they must not ask that, because that is just an academic question. There will be eight, six and two representatives respectively for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. Then the Leader of the Opposition states—

That is the third interim.

Yes, that is the third interim. He states further—

Then he states—

Bring them together in a room, he says, “and then they will hammer it out”. In Afrikaans this means … dan donder huile dit uit”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thought that was the translation.

No, it is a very bad translation.

I withdraw it, Sir. I quote futher—

He therefore does not see the end either. He continues—

I find this to be the most important aspect—

Sir, there must first be eight representatives of the Bantu in this Parliament, and after those eight representatives have been appointed, they will for the first time speak to the Bantustans. In other words, those eight representatives cannot come from the Bantustans; they must just be taken from amongst the other Bantu. Only then must there be consultations with all the millions of other Bantu remaining. How can anyone else consult them without giving them representation? It is utterly and completely unthinkable.

I regret that my time is now up. It is very clear to me that the Leader of the Oposition does not see the end of the road either. He is simply going to make an interim plan. The Leader of the Opposition expects every White man in this country to put him in a position of the toad who fell into the can of cream. After he has fallen in he must just go on kicking until the cream turns to butter, and then he can get out. But the condition is: One must first fall in.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is probably not necessary to say that in Parliament there are certain important debates in which major matters of policy are discussed. One of the important debates, besides the no-confidence debate, is the debate which has been conducted over the past few days. In this debate we may discuss major matters of policy. It is not only as from today that this has been the case. In 1945, when Dr. Malan was still the Leader of the Opposition, he put it in clear terms in the Budget debate held in March of that year. On that occasion he said—

Later in his speech he said, by way of criticism of what was happening in the case of the then Government, that its attitude was—

He made these accusations and then went on to say—

Then he put the theme of his speech, the theme which had dominated the political scene, the entire national scene in South Africa over the years, like this. He said—

Sir, as a member of this side of the House, let me merely say this : Let us differ in considering methods; let us differ about smaller things and the implementation of policy, but to me the basic question we are concerned with in South Africa is not, in the first place, along what channels other peoples may be led to independence—because there have been adjustments to the policy in the past, and there will have to be in future as well—but still whether there will be a White, Christian civilization in South Africa in 20 or 30 years’ time. I make no apology to South Africa, neither to the non-Whites of South Africa, nor to Africa, the West, the East or to the world when I say that I am in the first place fighting for the survival of my own people, of my White, Christian civilization.

Unfortunately, we have always heard preciously little about this from the side of the Opposition, not only in this debate, but also in the no-confidence debate. A few moments ago the hon. member for Fauresmith said : “Who looks at a small hole in a sieve and ridicules it?” This derisive question is applicable to numerous members opposite who, over the years and now again have had the opportunity of making a positive contribution to the welfare of South Africa but only looked at one small hole in the sieve. Sir, it was necessary to examine the pattern for the future. I believe one thing, Mr. Speaker. There may be exceptions; there may be people like the member for Houghton and there may be inciters who are far worse than the representative of Houghton—some of whom have fled the country and some of whom are still here—but I believe that there are also people sitting on the opposite side, and people who vote for the opposite side, who believe along with me and this side of the House that what we are concerned with is the preservation of the White, Christian civilization in South Africa. But, Sir, what have we had from that side of this House, a side that represents people who took them at their word when they said that they, too, wanted to fight for White survival, for Christian survival? What have we had from them? They ridicule a small hole in a sieve.

Where we are concerned here with major matters, not only backbenchers of that party, but also frontbenchers, have devoted their attention to minor, insignificant things which, when the dust has settled and the history books are written, will not even be mentioned.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke here this morning. He is a very intelligent man; we know this. But for every person who wants to use his intelligence, there is one necessary component, and that is that he should use his common sense as well. If one only has intelligence and does not use one’s common sense, it does not bring one anywhere. Where does it bring one when that hon. member reproaches our side of this House with raising minor matters, when he himself speaks with a cynical laugh of small apartheid, and of a lift in which Coloureds are allowed at one place but perhaps not at another? I admit it is necessary for adjustments to be made from time to time in the implementation of our policy. But that hon. member, a frontbencher of that party, delights in talking of minor examples of apartheid, and of a notice board wrongly phrased at one place and wrongly advertised at another. Of what importance are these insignificant examples in the major issue that South Africa shall remain White? And not only that White South Africa shall remain White, but that it shall carry out its calling, its task, towards the rest of Africa? As the hon. the Prime Minister has said, our calling is not merely to preserve our Christian civilization here, but to convey that message to the rest of Africa.

What else have we had from the Opposition? It is true that certain things that have happened, such as the Agliotti transaction, have to be investigated, and I, for one, am glad that they are being thoroughly investigated, not merely as irregularities which simply occurred but that they are being investigated in such a way that even though the investigations may take longer, they will allow of measures being taken for the prevention of similar cases, which may crop up in any administration. But when the dust has settled about the Agliotti case, what would it have done as regards the preservation of the White, Christian civilization.

That hon. member for Zululand, who is a frontbencher and a leader, who has to guide not only junior members on his side, but also his voters and other people in South Africa, that man whose voice is heard by the non-Whites who should take an example from the Whites—is it fitting to hear from the lips of a senior man of the United Party, the alternative Government, from the lips of a man who is a member of the shadow Cabinet of the Opposition, a reference in this House to “maggots feeding on a corpse”?

Sis!

Has it become the task of an Opposition in these major debates, not when Votes are under discussion—because I agree it is necessary that they should continually be examined and that criticism should be exercised where necessary, and that proper administration should be ensured from all sides—but has it become the pattern of an Opposition that wants to gain a seat here and a number of votes somewhere else, to boast that it has drawn more votes? It elevates to the status of a major issue that what has to be dragged in by the hair every time year after year, such as the case of a Land Bank loan to a certain Mr. Kolver. Has this become the main thing for an Opposition, the alternative Government, that goes and tells the world as though it was the most terrible transgression that a telephone had been installed which, as it happened, served a Minister as well? Has it become the main thing in the discussion of our national policy, of the future of a White, Christian civilization, if year after year in budget debates and in no-confidence debates we have talk of the price of soap and of blades? How many times have these things been mentioned in this House, to the point of boredom, and from public platforms when we as Whites should be fighting together for the survival of South Africa?

Now it is being said that this National Party Government has created bad race relations. I am not going to bore you with long quotations. I merely want to say that in 1947, in the discussion of a private motion, the late Adv. Eric Louw rose and warned against the dangers which prevailed in Africa, and he quoted from publications which were well-disposed towards the Opposition. These things which are now being said of the creation of bad relations, these charges of hate which is growing—I admit there are bad relations; I admit everything is not right between our population groups, especially between our White and our Coloured population groups. I admit that a great deal of work must be done, and I know that we shall have to accept that task with dedication. But did this start today, or was Adv. Eric Louw wrong when he quoted what had been said by Dr. A. M. Dadoo in 1947 about the defeat of Gen. Smuts at the UN—

Is it this Government which is responsible for the flame of hate which flared up in the world as long ago as that not only against the National Party, but against the Whites, and for the following statement made by a Mrs. Z. Gool here on the square in Cape Town the day after the Prime Minister had spoken on his return from the UN—

In spite of representation in Parliament at the time and promises of further representation, this was said. What else was said? I am discussing this for the information of the hon. friend who spoke of the Utopia which prevailed at that time under the United Party Government of Gen. Smuts. Adv. Eric Louw quoted that the report went on to say—

These are not statements of today. In 1947 that flame of hate had already been planted in Africa and we have inherited it. I am not saying that was the fault of the United Party. It is petty to level that sort of accusation across the floor of this House. I do think, however, the time has arrived when we must accept that we have a joint task and that a party in Africa, a party in South Africa, a party which professes that it wants to be Christian and White, must not indulge in petty things when major matters must be discussed.

What did Piet Botha do?

That is a young member, but I am not going to call him a backbencher, because he is as much a member of this House as I am. I shall reply to what he as an Afrikaans-speaking person says. I am also Afrikaans speaking. I shall reply briefly because I think enough has been said about this aspect. I am sorry it has become necessary for these things to be repeated, but I have had the experience in Cape Town—I am making no apology for my conduct—that I phone people and speak in my language, but that I am answered in English. If somebody else says he cannot speak Afrikaans, I answer him in English. We do so with immigrants as well. Let me say to that Afrikaner son, who says he is Afrikaans-speaking, that English is a world language. I am proud of the fact that I have some knowledge of that language because it enables me to make myself understood in the world. I want to say to that fellow member what Langenhoven said. I am not saying he is a renegade, but Afrikaans-speaking people should guard against renegades in this country. Langenhoven once said (translation)—

[Interjections.] Let me say that it is far from me to accuse the hon. member for Turffontein of that, because I am pleased to hear, inter alia, that he has remained faithful to his church and his language.

Afrikaans, however, is not a world language and Afrikaans must fight for its existence. I apologize to nobody in the world because I fight for Afrikaans. When the time arrives, as it is starting to arrive once again in South Africa, we must fight for the rights of Afrikaans.

Hear, hear!

It is so that things have improved over the years, and let me say that I am grateful for it. I am grateful for the fact that a man such as the hon. member for Durban Point rises and delivers part of his speech in Afrikaans and that other English-speaking members do so as well. I can understand that there are people who cannot do so in full. However, I draw the line when people start scorning their own language. Let me address this to that hon. member for Turffontein and a few of his Afrikaner friends here. I have noticed something else in this House. I have noticed something which has hurt me, because it hurts me as an Afrikaner to know that whilst we have English-speaking people here and who look at one with appreciation when one talks of Afrikanerhood and about other things of which one is proud, there are a few of those extreme United Party members who profess to be Afrikaners, yet laugh at one when one speaks of Afrikanerhood. They do this while English-speaking people appreciate one’s standpoint. I do not apologize for being Afrikaans-speaking.

What is happening here in South Africa and in Africa, simply demands of leaders on both sides to take a fresh look at an old approach. One cannot get away from the fact that whatever is said in this House, is used against us.

Eight non-White representatives have been suggested as a solution. Surely there was representation of non-White groups in this House and surely there was talk of extending their representation. Surely there was thinking along those lines. Is it necessary for us to argue over and over about morality in this regard? People ask whether it is morally right not to give representation to non-Whites, while, as someone said a moment ago, one expects of them to join one in a fight. But is it moral to give him fewer voices than one gives oneself? Am I worth 12 Coloureds, or is a member of the United Party worth 20 Coloureds? Why should they be fewer in number? Where is the morality? If we start talking about morality, and if we are honest in our hearts as far as morality is concerned and are not playing with words which are cast before people, let us apply the consequences of morality throughout. In that case, why should a difference be made between Coloureds and Bantu? Where is the morality in an assumption that a Coloured is worth more than a Bantu, if those arbitrary norms are applied? Why should they be treated differently? If the Opposition wants to carry the morality argument through to its full consequences, do so by all means. Why did they say initially that the representatives should first be Whites? Why should Whites decide whether the number of representatives should be eight if the non-Whites ask for 10 or 12 or 20? Must they come with their hats in their hands and ask the United Party? Is that the last word? Is there any one in South Africa who is still naïve enough to think that they will want eight representatives—make it 20, no, 50 representatives—and that they would reach a final solution or come closer to a solution by those means?

Once there was an old Afrikaans statesman who was concerned about problems of franchise in his republic. It was an Afrikaans-speaking republic, but at present we are living in a Republic in which English and Afrikaans-speaking people, Jews and non-Jews, Christians, Roman Catholics and Protestants will all fight together. But he said what I should just like to tell the Opposition today: Do not think those who demand it want the franchise. “They do not want the franchise,” President Kruger said, “they want our fatherland.” Do hon. members think those people in London who collect money for Defence and Aid, those expatriates who traverse the world with their propaganda and who, under our democratic right, are even allowed here to distribute their propaganda among the people, want the franchise or three representatives in the House of Assembly?

They want your fatherland, not only mine. The National Party has said “over our dead body”. They will not get our fatherland. With the fairest and most genuine intentions as Christians, we want to say to them we shall give them their own fatherland. If hon. members only wanted to co-operate and convince the people of our sincere intentions to give them something, the term “homeland” that we use today, would no longer be used, but the day would arrive when the Tswana would refer to his country not as his homeland, but as his fatherland. This is what is being done by this party and what this party is working for.

I want to conclude by saying that an appeal goes out not only to the Opposition members who mean well by South Africa, but also to those well-meaning critics in the Afrikaner ranks, in the newspaper world, to the academics, and to those people who are critical of the National Party, often with justification. Sometimes those people, too, give sound advice to our country from afar and express well-considered criticism. But there is only one place in which the future of South Africa may be served best —we are addressing that invitation to academics, learned men and businessmen— and that is within the organization of the National Party. There is the threat to the Christian civilization of the hordes of Mohammedans and others moving across Africa. There is only one place to save South Africa and to save Africa for Christianity from those hordes which are coming, and that is within the framework of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Witbank was not bound, unfortunately, by the inhibitions of a party member, he would have explained what he really wanted to say, more particularly to the hon. Minister of Defence, who is leaving the Chamber, and to some of the other front benchers of the Government Party and those who attacked this party with regard to language. He would have liked to have told them—that is what I think he intended to convey throughout his speech; a deeply emotional speech—that he absolutely abhors the unfortunate level to which the attack of the Government has descended in dragging across the floor of this House matters of 50 years ago, differences which have been buried already. It is a time when we should be living in unity, when the people of South Africa should be thinking as South Africans. This is what he wanted to criticize the House for. He was talking his own politics, but right through his whole address it was clear that his purpose was to chide the House for having introduced the note to which we were unfortunately obliged to listen from the Government side throughout the last few days. It is not only he. He feels it as a man who has ministered to a community, but right throughout the city and the country people are questioning the reason as to why the Government allowed its frontbenchers, its leading members, to descend to the level to which they descended in the last few days, introducing racial matters and the very flame of hatred to which the hon. member who has just sat down, has referred. While we were dealing with the finances of the people, with the future of South Africa’s sustenance, with the alleviation of the problems and the difficulties of the man in the street, in addition to the economy of the country, the whole debate was diverted to a personal attack in this House on an issue which had been dealt with and settled years ago, an issue which members on the Government side themselves have maintained in recent years has been forgotten. They had maintained that South Africa was now moving on the road to unity, where the White peoples of South Africa were more concerned with the problems facing our country than the differences between them on simple, childish issues. We were accused that we had raised little issues. The reason why reference was made to these issues, was that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions introduced a number of extremely petty issues into the debate in the course of his address yesterday, to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has adequately replied, and to which the hon. Minister had no answer at all.

I think we should come back to the question of finance. But before doing so, I want to make another point clear as well. Die Burger carried a leader yesterday and made an admission. This is an admission which the Government side has unfortunately been obliged to face. It is now obliged to take notice of the fact that there is a growing feeling of support throughout the country which is going to bring the Opposition Party to Government. There is a real danger today, as far as they are concerned, that an alternative Government will take over and the time may be much shorter than they realize themselves. Whereas, instead of dealing with the policy of this party, if they wish to do so, they diverted the debate to a discussion of racial issues. They are concerned that in the event of their majority in Oudtshoorn being cut even by as little as 500 or 200 votes, it will add further stimulus to the growing conviction throughout the country that the country is preparing itself for an alternative Government in South Africa. This was evident right from the day the debate started, on Monday, but more particularly on Tuesday, when without hesitation the Government speakers immediately plunged into this peculiar debate. But I feel it is essential to bring the House back to the subject with which we are faced in this particular debate.

I had the opportunity yesterday morning of sending over to the hon. the Minister of Finance a petition signed by approximately 30 000 women. According to what has been told to me by their representatives who handed the petition to me, it was signed by women from all over South Africa, from small towns, large towns, villages and settlements. It was a wide cross-section of persons from all the different political and other convictions. It was a petition which was not organized by anyone in particular, but arose spontaneously from a desire of a group of housewives to try to say something for themselves, if they could, directly to the Government concerning the increase in the cost of living. Sir, the point has been made on the other side of the House that wages over the last couple of years have increased at a much faster rate than the consumer index. Sir, the comparison of wages with the consumer index is a fallacious one. When we find that wages increase and productivity either stands still or recedes then the cost of living automatically goes up. And that is exactly what will happen as a result of the policy as it exemplifies itself through the tone of the Budget. Whilst an effort is being made by the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Government to encourage further productivity, unless it is going to increase at a rapid pace, overall it will be impossible for it to counteract the spiralling increase in the cost of living. Sir, it is the opinion of many economists throughout the country that it is going to be almost impossible to check this.

What are these women complaining about, Sir? In their petition they state that they are aware that the health of the nation depends on basic foodstuffs—bread, butter, milk, cheese, meat, fish, etc.—and that these foodstuffs are being priced out of thousands of homes in South Africa. They are aware of the fact that the right to own a home is being denied most of the younger generation of married South Africans because of high prices. They are aware of the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult to clothe families adequately and to give them the amenities to which civilized life entitles them. And they are aware, Sir, that there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout our country whose misfortunes because of the high cost of living, exceed even those of the very people who signed this petition. Their appeal is that something should be done to alleviate and to halt this rising cost of living. And we have to consider, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister, in the course of his Budget speech, has furnished us with any plan by means of which this kind of alleviation can be provided. In common with men who have a real knowledge of this subject—and you will find this in every report that has been issued by leading spokesmen throughout South Africa, such as the General Manager of Trust Bank and leading financiers of large companies, mining companies, industrial companies and of all large undertakings in South Africa—I say that unless one solves the problem of labour, it still remains the crux and the answer to the entire economic future of the country and the possibility of growth in our economy.

Whilst the hon. the Minister has spoken about a new flexibility in labour, and whilst the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has by means of certain clichés— with which I am going to deal in a moment—indicated that he is going to use non-White labour, or let us say, unutilized labour, where it can be economically used by people to serve their own people, the hon. the Minister of Transport took an entirely different line because he spoke about training labour, about ensuring that he has the labour to enable the wheels of his industry to move. And if you will look at the various statements made by these particular Ministers, Sir, you will find that there is a complete difference in their approach. The hon. the Minister of Transport did not speak vaguely of the flexibility of labour, nor did he lay down certain restrictions for certain restricted fields in which it could be used. He went further than that. He says the following, and I am reading from column 2763 of Hansard of 8th March, 1972—

He says that Government policy is being implemented wherever possible, resulting in the releasing of Whites for work elsewhere and in filling more vacancies in the bread and butter grades. In other words, Sir, there is no fear in his mind that anyone is being pushed out of a job.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport with regard to labour. I want to conclude with one other point he made. He said in his Budget speech that it was interesting to note that, through the greater utilization of non-White labour, the department had been able to offer many White workers better positions. The point I wish to make is that, whilst the hon. the Minister of Finance is trying to ensure that we get the full benefits of the expenditure on infrastructure over the last few years and that, in the current Budget, the loan moneys should at least be sufficient to maintain the continuance of the much-needed infrastructure, it is vital to remember that the reason why economic experts say that labour is still the crux of the future growth of the country, is that manpower forms a vital part of the infrastructure of the country. Although one has machinery and equipment, roads, railways and all the other factors that are important in order to bring about production and to increase the gross national product of the country, it is nevertheless vital and essential that one has the manpower to use and man it satisfactorily. One must have efficient manpower. Experts such as Etienne Rossouw and others, who have recently delivered addresses, all make it very clear indeed that South Africa has a long way to go in order to meet its requirements for management over the next few years, not to mention the various other grades of work in which manpower will be required. The cliché that has been used by the hon. the Minister of Labour, which I think has been used purely for political reasons and only with the hope that it will appeal to some of his voters and nothing else, is that non-White labour can be used only if it does not displace other workers, if it is sufficiently controlled and so on. This is not a sound approach because non-White labour will be introduced only if it is required. Labour of any kind will be introduced into the economy only if it is required. It will be largely guided by the law of supply and demand. However, it is vital to a country such as South Africa, if we are to maintain our growth, that we should not restrict it or inhibit it because of the lack of labour resources. It is also an accepted fact today, as I have pointed out earlier, that, in introducing labour at the initial stages of an upward trend, instead of displacing others, it enables them to move into very much better positions with better pay where their experience can be of value.

The po’int has also been raised—and this is vital—that, unless one trains labour and makes it readily available for this purpose, one is bound to strike difficulties and snags, in which case the labour will not be productive. Properly trained and prepared labour can be productive. I put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance that, if he is concerned about the future wealth and economic growth of South Africa, he has a responsibility to ensure, by virtue of the fact that he is the economic expert of the Government, that the country will not suffer in years to come from the lack of plentiful, properly trained labour in its various stages of development. The appeal that is always made to workers is that they must make sacrifices and work harder. I say that what is really being done, is to inhibit the future of the young generation and those who are coming forward to play their part in the economic life of the country. I believe that what is taking place today, is that the Government is showing a complete lack of leadership with regard to the future of South Africa. The people who will take them to task with regard to their lack of leadership, are the younger generation on whom we must depend if the future of South Africa is to mean anything at all.

The other important result that will flow from greater productivity and the greater use of labour is twofold: Firstly, as a result of greater productivity, we will be able to meet our demands and, secondly, more money will be injected into the economy through a bigger consumer market because of a much wider spectrum of earnings on the part of additional workers in our economy. If our consumer market continues to expand, we have an opportunity to be more competitive with our exports. It is a well known fact that the secret of the success of the American economy has been the fact that they have been able to provide for a continuously expanding consumer market. The whole secret of the American success in the economic world is that it has a tremendous consumer market, the requirements of which it has been able to meet. Its productivity has consequently increased at a very much greater pace. Its wage-earning capacity has been at an increasingly high level and its standard of living is extremely high indeed. In addition, it has been able to meet a competitive export market when it has needed to. In fact, the American economy hardly looked for an export market until recently because of the fact that it immersed itself in the tremendous experiment of assisting backward countries and countries which had suffered as a result of war, in order to bring about a more equable economy throughout the world. That is the only reason why its economy has suffered recently and why it is paying the price.

Then there is another point of view which is put forward, namely that we have a country which is entirely different because we have to meet different classes of people and different races. We have to meet people who enjoy different standards of living and who are not on the same cultural level. Our problem would therefore appear to be entirely different. I do not believe that this is the case. An improvement in the economy of the underprivileged will not bring about conflict and difficulty in our country. If anything, it will bring about greater contentment and a greater sense of unison in preserving the future of the country and in serving the country to ensure that that future is fully protected. Therefore I want to direct a plea to the hon. the Minister of Finance that he must and should give a lead with regard to the manpower position in our country and that he should give a lead to his colleagues on this particular issue, and that he should not present the country with some of the clichés we have been accustomed to hearing from the Minister of Labour. This Minister can only use them for political purposes because he knows that, economically, he is entirely out of step with the economic development in the country.

Then I should like to mention another factor, which I believe is very important, a matter to which the hon. the Minister of Labour has not given sufficient attention. This matter was raised a little earlier and, in fact, this party dealt with it some years ago. In 1959 we raised the whole issue of the minimum wage in this country. At that time the hon. the Minister, who was the Deputy Minister of Labour, said that nowhere in the Wage Act could he find reference to the fact that wages should be based on a civilized standard. The Wage Act makes it perfectly clear that one of its objects is that the Wage Board, in making its inquiries, seeking information and presenting a plan to the country, should take into account the standard of wages required to enable a person to meet modern demands on a civilized basis. That is ingrained and is part and parcel of that particular statute. The hon. the Minister is the only person who can refuse to accept any recommendation of the Wage Board. It is not entirely in their hands. They can make the recommendation, but if the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with that recommendation, he can return it to them for further information and investigation. It is in this field, as well, that he is failing to give a lead to the country. There is no reason, today, why anyone in South Africa, whatever colour he may be, should live below the poverty datum line. As I said earlier, it not only affects them vitally in so far as their living standards are concerned, but it also inhibits the economic growth of the country and the spending power of the country. In other words, it breaks the important chain that is built up with productivity which goes together with greater earnings, a greater consumer market, a better standard of living, a standard which enables you to be competitive in your exports throughout the world. That is one reason why we are going to lose out on devaluation. We are going to lose because at this stage we are not geared up by any means to take advantage of the devaluation in South Africa. Save for the gold production, and possibly the good maize crop of last year, there are no other fields where the country has geared itself to take advantage of devaluation. In fact, for years now, due to the inhibited method of dealing with labour, the industrialists of the country have not been sufficiently encouraged nor have they received sufficient incentives which would have enabled them to export or to want to export which would have put them in the position that today under present-day circumstances they could have taken full advantage of this situation. Therefore I say to the hon. Minister he must realize that playing politics with labour is not going to get him any further. He must take an example of the fact that by proper negotiations with trade unions who themselves are not that foolish, he can possibly solve the labour problems. Recently we had numerous statements from the General Secretary of the Railway Trade Union of Salstaf and of other trade unions—Tucsa just being one of them but not the trade union that alone needs to be quoted—to the effect of the importance of ensuring that the labour market be met. This can be done, according to them, by negotiation where people can see eye to eye what are the proper steps to be taken in order to build up the labour situation in South Africa. All this, incidentally, affects the cost of living, because if we are to keep the cost of living down, the only way in which it can be done will be by ensuring greater productivity so that productivity races ahead of any increase in wages. If productivity overtakes the wage increase every section benefits. The wage earner benefits, the country’s general wealth benefits and the cost of living begins to drop. I think the hon. Minister should give us a complete answer on that issue. Hitherto the only answer has been that wages have gone up at a greater pace than the consumer index. Therefore it is maintained that the cost of living is in fact not spiralling, but now it is largely due to the ideas that the Minister has put into force in his Part Appropriation Bill and other departmental steps. He is beginning to get the benefit by bringing about a drop in the cost of living. All experts maintain, and you find it in every economic newspaper you read, that costs are going to rise.

The cost of clothes is going to spiral, the hon. the Minister knows that, because the cost of running the factories is spiralling, the costs of motor-cars are going to increase and the cost of food is going to go up. Everything is beginning to move up or beginning to meet the limited pay-packet. This is so because today you have this extraordinary situation that instead of the housewives themselves being the shoppers for the family you find the men folk, the head of the household, assisting his wife in shopping. You will find this in all the supermarkets in the city. This is especially so during the week-end. Business men, with their wives, are doing the shopping because such a careful control has to be maintained with regard to the cost of living. It is no comfort to tell us that perhaps over one or two months there will have been a slight drop. It is no good because it will never drop until you can improve the productivity. The only way you can improve the productivity is by the introduction of labour, but if, on the other hand, the Minister of Labour can produce another 1 million, ½ million or ½ million—White souls which are to satisfy him and which can be injected into the labour market—let him by all means do it. This can be done by all means because economics is not concerned with the question of Colour. Economics is concerned with the introduction of sufficient labour in order to maintain that productivity. Therefore we find that whatever authority you need and whoever you listen to in this country except for the Ministers on the Government front benches—they pose as experts—in other words, if you listen to the acknowledged experts they will tell you that the crux of your whole problem is that the secret of the future growth of South Africa is in the solution of the problem of labour. The Minister of Transport would never have had co-operation from his trade unions unless they themselves had realized the position. They did realize it and therefore he has had the co-operation. He has never done otherwise and he had the one Government department under him which over the years has almost more non-Whites working for it than Whites. It has not affected the situation of South Africa and it has not kept young men out of jobs; on the contrary, with a policy like this the future generations will have a very much higher standard of living and they will begin to play a greater part in the economic life of this country. They will begin to find that they can train their children to play a greater part in it. Therefore we shall have a standard which is very high and we shall not have to ask them to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Let me point out to the Minister of Labour a very interesting thing that is taking place even in that very labour field which he feels he should not make use of. Even they, the Bantu, when they come from the Reserves to, for instance, jobs like cleansing jobs in municipalities and jobs like the delivery of heavy articles such as bags of cement and bags of coal, are five or six months in the job before they start looking for something better. If this were all properly controlled, and if this were placed in the proper categories we would be able to infuse a steady control and scientific labour force which would be able to meet all the requirement of the country in its proper stages. This would enable the entire wage earning capacity of the country to achieve greater heights and we would not have people signing petitions, and clamouring for a reduction in the cost of living and complaining about the burdens which are placed upon them. Finally, I want to say if the hon. Minister thinks that he can find any comfort in what some industrialists have said about providing for future growth … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of a very historic week in the history of this Parliament. If one looks at the methods used by the United Party and the English Press in the politics of South Africa, it was a very essential week as well. Let me say that the members on this side, the people of South Africa and I are grateful that my colleagues, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Community Development, the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions spoke the way they did in this debate.

You will still be very sorry about it.

Furthermore, it is very regrettable and a disgrace for the United Party and its people that after 12 years of being a Republic, it is still necessary to sneak like this in South Africa. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wholeheartedly agrees with what was said by my colleague the Minister of Defence. Let me say to the hon. members that the entire Cabinet and the entire caucus of the National Party are grateful that he spoke like that. Because we dare talk of Boer-haters in South Africa and because we dare talk of the injustice being done to the Afrikaans language, a cry is going up on the United Party side that we are prejudicing national unity. Mr. Speaker, for people in executive positions and those aspiring to take a seat in these benches to be so conversant with the Afrikaans language as to be able to serve others in it, is not merely a gesture of courtesy towards me as an Afrikaner; this is not only essential in public life, but also embodied in the legislation of the Republic of South Africa.

How much English did you speak when you were in the Opposition?

Sir. I speak more English than that hon. member speaks Afrikaans, and he knows it.

Before you became a Minister?

Let me tell him that my English is better than his Afrikaans. I am saying it is not merely a question of whether one speaks English, but whether one is capable of speaking it. Is the hon. member for Parktown capable of making a speech in Afrikaans here?

He cannot do it.

He wants to become Minister of Finance. Afrikaans businessmen would have to come and see him; he would not be able to serve them in Afrikaans— and yet we may not talk about it. Mr. Speaker, after 12 years have elapsed since our becoming a Republic, this amounts to a blatant neglect on the part of hon. member of his duties as a public figure, and because this is embodied in the legislation, it is disrespect towards the Republic of South Africa. When this cry goes up from the United Party side, this cry which we heard yesterday from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, you should know, Sir, that they are at their most vulnerable.

Racialists.

No, not racialists; it is Boer-haters who are sitting there. I shall tell you, Sir, who the biggest Boor-hater is; it is the hon. member for Zululand.

†Let me tell the hon. member for Zululand that in the years during which I was in England I never met an English gentleman who behaved as he did here two days ago.

*Sir, this is the sort of people who are the Boer-haters in South Africa. Let me put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Surely there have been Boer-haters in South Africa since before the start of the Anglo-Boer War?

And how many Englishmen haters?

When did they suddenly disappear? Mr. Speaker, I hate every Englishman … [Interjections.] I hate and despise every Englishman, every Afrikaner, and everybody else who does not put the interests of South Africa first. I maintain that any person aspiring towards holding an office in the Government and who does not have a sufficient command of the Afrikaans language as to be able to serve other people in it, is disregarding the interests of South Africa.

Are you a South African first?

My South Africanhood and my Afrikanerhood are complementary to each other; the one is not first and the other is not second. My Afrikanerhood does not stand in the way of my forming a firm tie with my colleague the Minister of Sport and Recreation in the interests of South Africa.

Why does he not speak Afrikaans?

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point asked here whether it was necessary to go back into history.

†He said: “Those things have gone.” He made an attempt to point out that it was not necessary to go back into the history of South Africa.

And why did you?

Because the United Party wants to get away from the history of South Africa. The United Party wants to get away from the history of South Africa.

*Mr. Speaker, why am I saying these things? I am saying them because we should go back into the history of South Africa in order to see where we find our inspiration and where the United Party finds its inspiration.

You are looking for yours in Marendaz.

Sir, what does one do with a Fourie to whom Jopie Fourie is not a hero? I am going further. What does one do with a Fourie to whom Jopie Fourie is not a hero, but what does one do with a Fourie to whom the person who had Jopie Fourie shot dead on a Sunday morning is in fact a hero? I am referring now to Gen. Smuts. Sir, this is the difference between that side and this side. Jopie Fourie is my hero.

And Marendaz, too.

Gen. Smuts, who had him shot on a Sunday morning, on the Sabbath, is his hero. That is why, Sir, we must go back into the history of South Africa. A political party is like a human being.

Are you going to shoot under a white flag?

A political party is just like a human being. It must get its vitality somewhere. It must be anchored somewhere; it must find inspiration somewhere. Where does one find it other than in the history of one’s people?

But you find it with Marendaz.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein!

Where does one find it other than in the history of one’s people? Sir, with whom do we find our inspiration? With the heroes of our people and of the National Party. I derive my inspiration from the history of a person such as the late Gen. Hertzog. We on this side of the House derive our inspiration from the example set by the late Dr. Malan, by Adv. Strydom, the Lion of the North, who kept the Republican fire burning, and from the past of a person such as Dr. Verwoerd. We are not ashamed to say so. From whom do they derive their inspiration? We are not talking about these people as persons; we are talking about their politics.

But surely you kicked Hertzog out.

Who are their heroes? Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts.

Yes. Hear, hear!

Their portraits hang in gilded frames in United Party homes, and who are they, Mr. Speaker?

National traitors.

Who are they? I will tell you who they are, and I want to say that I am talking about their politics only. I have never before referred to my late grandfather in this House, but I am going to do so today. In the years after 1900 Generals De Wet, Botha and De La Rey went abroad, and what happened when they returned? I had this from my late father’s own lips. When they arrived at Bloemfontein, my late grandmother was there, and so was my father as a little boy. But there were many people and they did not have time to speak to my grandfather. But when they were seated in the horse-cart on their way home, the first thing my grandfather said to his wife was, “My wife, there is something wrong with Louis.” The day when my grandfather was buried, somebody asked Mrs. De Wet: “And what did the old general die of?”, to which she replied, “Louis killed him.”

Shame on you!

I am not ashamed, and I shall tell you why not, Sir. Let the people of South Africa and our young people know from what that party derives its political strength. Who is Gen. Botha? Gen. Botha is the man who kicked someone out of his Cabinet merely because he had dared to say “South Africa first”. Imagine, Sir, Mr. Vorster saying to me, “There is the door, go”, merely because I said “South Africa first”. Surely that no longer happens in South Africa. But that is what Gen. Botha did to Gen. Hertzog, his old companion.

What did your Party do to Gen. Hertzog?

Gen. Smuts is their other hero; this is the person from whom they derive their inspiration. Sir, I told that hon. member that he had had an Afrikaner hero shot dead; that can still pass, but he showed no respect for the Sabbath day; he had him shot dead on a Sunday morning.

Do not talk nonsense.

This is a historical fact. Sir, that is why that party looks the way it does. But there is more to come, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, may I point out to you with respect, more or less a week ago that you stopped me in this House because I was speaking about the dead in a political sense. I am asking you now, with all due respect, to apply the same rule as far as the late Gen. Botha is concerned.

That hon. member is wasting my time now. Sir, I must make haste. I am pointing out that there is a golden thread of inspiration on this side of the House, the golden thread of nationalism, and that as a result of their deeds there is a ribbon of mourning running through that Party, and that ribbon is covered with bloodstains—the bloodstains of Jopie Fourie, but also those of the strikers shot in 1922.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville has raised a point or order with you, Sir. We await your ruling.

You are a Boer-hater.

You are just wasting time.

Mr. Speaker, why is it a point of order when Dr. Verwoerd is referred to and not a point of order when Gen. Louis Botha is referred to?

Hear, hear!

You are just wasting time.

We want to know, Sir, what the difference is.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

We are not allowed to talk about Dr. Verwoerd in condemnatory terms, but you are allowed to say anything about Louis Botha. What is the difference, Sir?

When the hon. member for Yeoville referred the other day to Dr. Malan, Mr. Havenga and Mr. Strydom, it was in a jocular way in reply to the way in which the hon. the Leader of the House had spoken about the composition of the shadow Cabinet of the United Party. When we are talking seriously, we may refer to the past, but when we are joking, we do not refer to the dead. The hon. member may proceed.

No, I am not joking. I am telling the truth about the history.

On a point of order. Sir, as I understand it, your ruling was that the hon. member for Yeoville had spoken in a derogatory fashion about the dead. That is precisely what the hon. the Minister is doing now.

Order! This morning the hon. member for Green Point referred in a serious vein to what Dr. Malan had said. I allowed that. Everything said here in a serious vein about the past, is allowed, but I cannot allow the dead to be disturbed by references made in jocular vein. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

All I am trying to indicate, is that we must go back to the past to find the golden thread running through the National Party, because that is what we derive our inspiration from, and I was referring to the thread of mourning which still inspires that party on the opposite side today.

There is something else—and I must make haste—which was used in the past, not only against Nationalists, but specifically against Afrikaners—and that thread of mourning has also been evident since long before the Anglo-Boer War—namely to use the non-White vote in order to plough nationalism under and keep it there.

Rubblish!

This federation policy of the United Party is merely a continuation of that. Before I proceed, let me put a question to the Leader of the Opposition. Over the years, for 12 years, I have asked them here whether a Black man may take a seat in this Parliament under their policy, and I have never received a reply. Now we have the reply, unambiguously: yes, under the federation policy of the United Party, Black persons may come and sit in this Parliament. This reply has been given. It is one of the achievements of the present Prime Minister that he has made this Parliament White, and it shall remain that way. We have the reply now. I want the hon. the Leader’s attention just for a brief moment.

I shall not reply to you after such a speech.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he would, before these eight White representatives …

I do not want to listen to this sort of thing.

In that case, why do you not walk out? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said he would hold a referendum before the eight Whites were replaced by eight Bantu, and he said “it will be a referendum only of the White people”. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader, when he holds that referendum, the Coloured representatives would already be sitting here.

When you talk about Boer generals like that, I do not listen to you. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville said …

I do not listen to you.

The hon. member for Yeoville said there would be 200 members here. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136 and debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill has now reached the final stage of its passage through both House of Parliament. We have opposed it from its first introduction in the Other Place and we intend to oppose it again at this stage. Nothing has transpired during its various stages through both these Houses to change the basic objections we have to this Bill and which I should like to reiterate again briefly for the sake of the record.

The hon. the Minister of Public Works who is handling this Bill said in reply to the Second Reading debate in this House that he could not understand why the Opposition was opposing this legislation because it was supported by the City Council of Pretoria which is most affected by it. He in fact used quite strong language. He said the City Council has no objection. No one has objection, except for these two members, referring to the hon. member for Green Point and Pietermaritzburg City, and the United Party. He said they had better decide for themselves what they are objecting to; they do not even know what it is all about. Now, it is all very well for the hon. the Minister to use language of this sort. We are used to having this type of approach from him in this House but we are as capable of reading legislation and understanding its effects as he is or as any member on his side is.

And so is the City Council of Pretoria.

The importance of this Bill, as far as we are concerned, is that it is in our opinion a vote of no confidence in the Pretoria City Council to effectively and properly develop and control the development of this important area of Pretoria.

They can speak for themselves.

Now it is surprising to us that under these circumstances the Pretoria City Council is prepared to support this legislation. However, I go no further than that. The council no doubt has very good reasons for supporting the legislation and I leave it at that. But I wish to emphasize that we on this side of the House regard this as an important principle which we cannot support because if it can be applied in respect of an area of the Pretoria City Council’s jurisdiction, it can be applied in respect of the area of jurisdiction of any other local authority in the country.

It can already apply to it.

It can already apply; why is this legislation being introduced?

For technical reasons.

The Minister must make up his mind.

Because the law advisers say so. That is why.

Either the legislation already exists or it does not. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that in introducing this legislation in the Senate, he said that there was no legislation to do what this Bill was doing and that was why this Bill was being introduced. But now he says there is already legislation. He must make up his mind.

There is already legislation to deal with such things, like in District Six, but you are too stupid to understand it.

The Minister appears to want to have the floor of the House at this stage, Sir. Would he care to listen to what he said in the Senate?

Don’t try to be funny. You are funny enough as you are.

The hon. the Minister of Public Works will have an opportunity to reply to me. If he does not like anything that I am saying, he will have plenty of time to tell me when I sit down. I would appreciate it if he does me the courtesy of listening to the objections that I have to the Bill and to the objections that I have to what he has said. If he now tells this House that there is already legislation existing to do what this Bill is doing, then perhaps he can explain to us the meaning of what he said in the Other Place. I quote from the Senate Hansard, col. 741.

Listen to what you have said; you always forget what you have said.

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi …

I am asking the hon. the Minister of Public Works to explain his statement in the Senate. Perhaps he would do me the courtesy of listening to what I am saying. I would be prepared to listen to what he has to say when I sit down, even if he wishes to criticize me. He said in the Senate—

Such an arrangement being the arrangement which is in this Bill—

He has made it perfectly clear in the Other Place. Why does he now try to this House by saying that there is already existing legislation to do what this Bill is doing.

We regard this Bill as removing from a local authority a part of the powers which it has at present.

I have the power already.

Mr. Speaker, I think I must just ignore the hon. the Minister of Public Works, because he is now starting to talk nonsense.

You are talking nonsense.

He has told this House in introducing this Bill—I am now addressing you, Sir, and I will ignore the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must always address the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will now carry out what I should have done previously. The hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill in the Other Place, told the Other Place that this Bill did not remove any part of the powers of the Pretoria City Council. This is clearly nonsense. This is the whole object of this legislation. The whole object of it is to remove from the City Council the power to deal with the future development of this particular area within the jurisdiction of the Pretoria City Council. The hon. the Minister suggested in the Other Place—and I think he made a similar suggestion during the Second Reading of this Bill in this House—that because the Pretoria City Council would have the opportunity of stating its views to the Minister, the Pretoria City Council is not being by-passed. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. The powers that are being given to the Minister, under this legislation enable him to deal with the future development of this part of Pretoria, irrespective of whether the Pretoria City Council agrees to does not agree with the proposals of the Minister. The only right that the Pretoria City Council retains is the right to express its views to the hon. the Minister, or rather, in terms of the amended clause 2 (4), to express its views firstly to the sub-committee, which will then advise the Minister as to what should be done. If the hon. the Minister decides to do something which the Pretoria City Council does not agree with, this legislation entitles the Minister to override their wishes. If that is not removing from the Pretoria City Council rights which they have at present, I don’t know what the English language, or the Afrikaans, language, if you want to look at the Afrikaans version of this Bill, means.

We therefore, oppose this Bill, on the fundamental principle that we believe that in respect of a local authority area, the local authority should be responsible for the development of its area subject, as is the case at present, to the control of the Provincial Council concerned. We see no reason, Mr. Speaker, for derogating in this instance, especially as the hon. the Minister explained in his reply to the Second Reading debate that the future development plan for this area had already been approved. According to the hon. the Minister it had already been submitted by this committee that considered it to the Council, which approved it. If that is the case, then why is it that the Pretoria City Council cannot be left with the power to deal with the future of that area in accordance with the plan that has already been approved? Why must the Minister poke his nose into this and take the power to deal with this matter himself?

I want to point out that this goes very far. If any of the owners of buildings or property within this area wish to make any alterations—demolish buildings, construct other buildings and so forth—they will not, once this Bill is passed, submit their proposals to the City Council; although this is still within the local authority area of the Pretoria City Council, they must now submit their proposals direct to the Minister through the Secretary for Public Works. This surely is completely by-passing the Pretoria City Council. We therefore oppose this Bill on the basis of this principle. We oppose this legislation also on certain other grounds which are of less importance than this fundamental principle. They nevertheless are of some importance.

Firstly, the Bill makes no provision whatsoever for private owners of property within this area to express their views to the hon. the Minister. The only provision that there is for the Pretoria City Council to express views. There is no provision for the public of Pretoria to express their views. The hon. the Minister, in replying to that allegation during previous stages of this legislation, said that he could see no reason why the public should be interested if the Pretoria City Council deals with the matter. In all matters of town planning and the alteration of town planning schemes, the public has the right at present to express its views, even though the City Council.

[Inaudible,]

It is advertised.

Under all town planning schemes …

What prevents them from doing it in this case?

I will tell the hon. the Minister what prevents them from doing it. There is no provision in this legislation entitling them to do it. The hon. the Minister may accept it. That is true. If they wish to present their views he may accept them. But he may just as well say “I am not required by this legislation to even consider representations from the public, and I will not do so”. No right has been given to the public under this legislation.

Exactly as the Administrator can do today, in the interests of the public.

The Administrator need not listen to the public, but the public has the right to present their views to the Administrator. This is the important difference. When the Minister says that the Administrator does not need to listen to the public, he is quite wrong in one respect. If the Administrator’s refusal to listen to a public objection is mala fide, the Administrator can be taken to court and his decision can be set aside. So it is not just a matter that the Administrator can simply brush aside representations from the public. He must give due consideration to them. If he is mala fide in his approach, his decision can be set aside. Unless a right is given to the public to express their views and to raise objections, the question of mala fides does not enter into it. The Minister can simply say “I don’t even want to hear what you have to say”.

A further objection we have to this Bill is that there is no right of appeal to anybody whatsoever. The Minister has the final word, and he can go entirely against the wishes, for example, of the Pretoria City Council. The Pretoria City Council can do nothing about it. The citizens of Pretoria, likewise, have no right of appeal. The owners of property within the area have no right of appeal. The Minister’s say is final.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for no compensation. I would point out that this question of compensation may well become a very material one, because the Minister has the power to restrict any development of some properties if he considers that these particular properties are of historical or aesthetic importance to the square. He can say to the owners of these properties, “You may not change their aspect in any way”. In this way he can reduce the value of these properties. He can do so without paying any compensation whatever to these owners.

Finally, there is this strange provision where the existing servitudes in respect of this area are being wiped out under clause 5. Let us just consider what these servitudes are. There are two of them. They provide—

1. (1) That no buildings, statues or memorials of any nature are to be erected, and that no improvements to the properties are to be effected without the State President having given his approval and
2. (2) that a driveway 79 ft. wide around the square should be maintained for use by the public.

Now. Sir, if one is concerned about the historical aspect of this square and its future development from that point of view, surely these are two valuable servitudes which should be retained. Why are they now being removed? The hon. the Minister has given no satisfactory explanation whatsoever.

Finally, I want to tackle the hon. the Minister in regard to a further statement that he made. He made the statement that the proposed measures of control under this Bill do not curtail any existing rights which the private owners of the sites concerned have at present. The hon. the Minister is quite wrong. In justifying this statement he has referred to the existing town planning restrictions for the properties within this area and he seemed to imply that because these were not being changed under the Bill, the existing owners’ rights were not being curtailed. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that this Bill gives him carte blanche to change these by-laws if he wishes to do so. He may impose any restrictions that he chooses. As I pointed out a moment ago, he can go so far as to say that he will not give his consent to any change in respect of any particular buildings in that area. To suggest that existing rights of property owners in the area are not being affected by this Bill, is simply either indicating a lack of understanding of the extent of the provisions, or it seems to suggest that the hon. the Minister does not appreciate what the legislation that he is introducing is. I do not know which is correct, but perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain to us, in replying, how he can possibly justify the statement which he made that the existing rights of property owners cannot be affected in terms of this legislation. I would emphasize that it may well be that the hon. the Minister may decide not to change the height and bulk restrictions that he referred to when he made that statement. He may decide not to change them, and if he does, his contention that the rights would not be affected would be correct. But he has the power to make these changes and he can decide to do so if he wishes. If he does change the height and bulk provisions, he is changing the existing rights property owners have in regard to the development of these properties. But it goes further than that. Any owner of property in a local authority area has the right to apply for changes in the height and bulk restrictions of his property. He can put in an application to put up more storeys and to put up greater bulk on his land. If he puts up a case which is convincing, the local authority may accept it. If the local authority does not accept it, the owners have the right to appeal to the Provincial Administration, the Administrator in Executive Committee. But no such power exists under this Bill. The owners may well go to the Minister and say that they want to make those changes, but the Minister is entitled to refuse if he wishes to and to give no reasons whatsoever. That will then be the end of the matter. They will have no right of appeal to anyone. There are important reasons why we on this side of the House oppose this legislation, whether or not the Pretoria City Council, which is the local authority concerned, is prepared to approve of it. As I indicated at the commencement of my address, we are still very much opposed to this legislation and we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, apparently there are in this House only Cape men and Natalians on the United Party side, for up to now the Opposition has not asked one single member from the Transvaal to raise objections to this legislation. Actually, one finds it rather strange that the hon. member for Musgrave, who hails from the Province of Natal, is now so terribly concerned about the planning of Church Square. He made a great deal of reference to the fact that the Minister had allegedly said that they did not know much about it. I am afraid the hon. the Minister is correct; they do not know much about it. They know so little about it that when this very same legislation was dealt with in the Other Place, several Opposition speakers complained terribly and asked, “Why is the hon. the Minister in such a hurry with this legislation?” At the time they wanted to suggest that there was something sinister behind the legislation and that the hon. the Minister had certain sinister motives; for what other reason would he be in such a terrible hurry? But in the meantime weeks have passed; in the meantime there was a recess. After all, during that time Opposition members could have ascertained everything and could have invited people to raise objections, etc. I suppose that in the meantime they have also received telegrams and letters, in which they were told, “Please, object to that legislation.” Now they want to object to this legislation, whilst the City Council of Pretoria are quite content with it and whilst the City Council of Pretoria had a representative on the Church Square Committee, i.e. the Town Clerk of Pretoria. Not only the City Council, but also the Provincial Administration was represented on that committee. That committee prepared this legislation. Now hon. members opposite are boasting about their wanting to protect Pretoria’s interests here.

The hon. the Minister took certain powers, which does not constitute a departure from the powers of the Administrator. What is more, the City Council of Pretoria has to obtain the approval of the Administrator. Now, what is the difference? Sir, I shall now tell you what the difference is. Instead of one body having to consult another, we now have three bodies and all three levels of government are involved. The City Council draws up the plans, the committee considers the plans, and representatives of the Provincial Council serve on the committee. Then it goes to the Minister, and the Minister, together with his department, acts in the first instance in a co-ordinating capacity, which improves the matter so much the more. But now they are talking about distrust. This is what I should like to know: Are there different voters voting for the City Council, the Provincial Council and for the House of Assembly? What is really the difference? The hon. the Minister acts in a co-ordinating capacity and takes certain powers because Church Square does not form part of Pretoria alone; it is not only a showpiece and the pride of Pretoria; it is also the show-window for the Republic of South Africa. Because it is the show-window of the Republic, and because many people from overseas come to Pretoria in order to have discussions and consultations with the Government there, it is essential that there should be good planning as far as Church Square is concerned. Now they say that the Minister has all of a sudden introduced a motion of no-confidence in the City Council of Pretoria, although they did have a share in that legislation. I invite the Opposition to tell us how many of them received objections from the public or from elsewhere. People wrote in the newspapers about this matter. Let the Opposition tell me now, “Here we have a telegram.” What the Opposition will perhaps show me, is one letter. That is all they will possibly be able to show me. They are bitterly disappointed because no complaints, etc., have been lodged and because those arguments of theirs have fallen away, arguments to the effect that the Minister is in too much of a hurry and that there is supposedly something sinister behind this legislation. Now they are bitterly disappointed. They cannot allow the Third Reading to be agreed to just like that, because they made too much of a fuss at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, reference was also made to private enterprise, the private owners, who supposedly have no say. I want to ask whether those private owners would have had anything to say if the City Council had in any case done it on its own. Surely, if they would have had something to say in that case, then they may all the more have to say to the Government. The complaint is also being heard that these private owners will lose all their privileges, that they will receive no compensation, etc. Once again they are trying to steal a political march. I want to ask the Opposition whether they can furnish proof of one case where the State imposed certain restrictions or whatever on people and where those people suffered losses. The State has always looked after the interests of its people. When are they afforded more protection: under the City Council or under the hon. the Minister who keeps an eye on this matter?

To us and especially to the Pretorians, to the Transyalers, to the Republic of South Africa and, I want to say, to us as Afrikaners, Church Square is of very great importance. In the first instance, we have on it the statue of a president of the old South African Republic. Church Square dates back to the days of the old Republic. Moreover, Church Square is surrounded by buildings which we should not like to be dwarfed or obscured, namely the Old Raadsaal, the Palace of Justice and others. To my mind it is only right that the interests and the planning of Church Square should be guarded jealously. After all, it stands to reason that one cannot simply allow uncontrolled and unrestrained planning to take place on and around Church Square. It stands to reason that there will have to be certain restrictions in order to preserve the balance and to ensure that starting from Church Square the planning will be done correctly.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation, and I want to convey my sincere thanks to him for it. I believe that this measure, once this Bill has been enacted, will bear a great deal of fruit. Furthermore, I believe that the Minister and his department will act in a coordinating capacity, and I do not doubt for a single moment that they will turn a ready ear to people who may have objections in this regard, if there should ever be any, which I doubt.

Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to what was said by the hon. member for Hercules in reply to the hon. member for Musgrave. However, I just want to point out a few things. The hon. member for Musgrave blamed me for saying that they knew absolutely nothing about Church Square. I repeat it. He knows absolutely nothing about Church Square. He does not know about the plans for Church Square; he does not know what has been done on Church Square over the past few years, and he does not know about the new plans that have been drawn up. He has not seen them; he is not interested in them and, to tell the truth. I believe that he does not know that new plans have been drawn up for Church Square. What is strange in this matter, is that the city councillors of Pretoria, the Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns and all the people who saw the plans, are satisfied with them. The Foundation of Ex-Pretorians (Stigting van Oud-Pretoriane) is also satisfied with them. The only people who are not satisfied with them, are those who have never seen them and who know absolutely nothing about them. I repeat my question : Why is the hon. member for Musgrave so concerned about Church Square in Pretoria if the City Council of Pretoria is not concerned about it? I want to put a very simple question to him.

Why don’t you get to the point of my argument? I told you that we were dealing with it as a matter of principle.

I shall come to that point in a moment. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave and also the hon. member for Green Point whether they have received any representations from one single Pretorian.

What has that got to do with the principle of the Bill?

It has everything to do with it.

We know how dangerous it is in your hands.

Let me tell these hon. members that I did receive representations. I received representations from certain Rapportryer Corps as well as from certain businessmen who have their businesses on and around Church Square. I satisfied them, but those hon. members did not receive any representations whatsoever. Now the hon. member for Musgrave makes the stupid statement that a local authority should retain all the powers it has in its area.

Yes.

The hon. member for Green Point says “yes”, but under the Development Act I have the right to take powers away from a local authority.

We are opposed to that.

The hon. member did not oppose the Development Act. Nobody raised objections to it. The City Council of Cape Town does not object to the fact that I as the Minister of Community Development control the entire District Six.

You know that is untrue.

Rut of course, this is the case. What is untrue about it?

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

What is untrue and what is incorrect about it?

You are wrong.

What objection does the Cape Town City Council have against it? The Cape Town City Council cooperates with the Government Committee that was appointed by me for the purpose of developing District Six. The hon. member for Green Point knows this just as well as I do.

That is after you took over.

He knows just as well as I do that the City Council of Cape Town are co-operating and that they are serving on the Government Committee which is developing District Six. The only national decisions on District Six rest with the Minister of Community Development. For that reason the nonsense which the hon. member talked in the previous debate, is just as incorrect. The same applies to Cato Manor in Durban, to South End in Port Elizabeth, to North End in East London, to Jeppes in Johannesburg and to all those areas. Where do the hon. members get the story from that the local authority may not be deprived of any power?

It is not the same there.

That is the biggest lot of nonsense in the world. If this step could be taken under the Development Act, we would have done so, but the law advisers say that we cannot do so under that legislation. These plans were drawn up and a committee was appointed by the Cabinet to deal with Church Square. They drew up new plans for Church Square, and at the moment that committee is the advisers of the Minister for the future development of Church Square. I shall tell hon. members what I think happened here. The hon. members opposite were under the impression which they were given by the hon. Senator Getz. The impression he gave them, was that this step was causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in Pretoria. They thought that because a great deal of dissatisfaction was being caused in Pretoria, they would oppose the legislation here and could by those means make some political capital out of it. The hard facts of the matter are that it did not cause any dissatisfaction in Pretoria. The City Council agrees, the provincial authorities agree and all the local bodies of Pretoria agree with this legislation. Therefore I want to …

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister whether the City Council agrees with the planning and whether they agree with this legislation?

They agree with the whole lot. They agree with the plan and they agree with this legislation. To tell the truth, the Town Clerk of Pretoria served on the committee which prepared this legislation. What is the hon. member’s difficulty? No, forget it, I am not going to pursue this matter any further! It is very obvious that the Opposition has made a quite abortive attempt and, to tell the truth, a poor attempt to make political capital out of a matter in which there are no politics at all.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We dealt previously at some length with this short Bill, which really contains only certain administrative changes. We accepted the Minister’s amendment in the Committee Stage, and as far as this side of the House is concerned, having had the assurance from him that certain queries which were raised on this side during the Second Reading would be satisfactorily disposed of, we agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to discuss the effect of this Bill on the South African law of majority in general. We welcome this Bill, as has been said before by this side of the House. We believe that it contains a real benefit and that it will benefit our youth in all respects. But I should like to consider the effect of this Bill, especially its effect on two aspects of the South African law of persons. We know that the old Roman rule of venia aetatis exists in this connection, and then there is the second aspect, i.e. that of tacit emancipation. Under the old law venia aetatis was granted to a minor by the sovereign power in the country concerned. The effect of that was majority, except for the fact that the minor could not automatically alienate or encumber immovable property at that stage, according to Grotius 1.10.3. In addition, however, he needed parental consent to enable him to marry. In this the Bill before us goes further than the old law. Now the minor becomes a major of full status and this, too, is an aspect we welcome particularly. Up to today the law of venia aetatis has been very uncertain in South Africa. The right apparently existed in the Orange Free State, but many arguments were conducted in legal circles whether venia aetatis could in fact be applied in the other provinces of South Africa. In any event, nowhere in South Africa was there any machinery by means of which it could be applied. This part of the law, too, is now being elucidated conclusively by this Bill. This gives one still further reason for gratitude. But then, as a matter of fact, we come to the second aspect, i.e. that of tacit emancipation.

I believe we have a problem here to which we shall have to give attention. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his viewpoint is as to the effect of this Bill on that aspect of South African law. In the first place I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not it is his intention to abrogate by means of this Bill the right to tacit emancipation. If this is in fact his intention, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this Bill, which does not put this aspect plainly, should possibly be referred by the Minister to his law advisers for further investigation. If it would appear necessary to do so, an amendment could be moved in the Senate in order to effect an improvement.

As I see the problem, tacit emancipation in fact has no provision relating to age. This Bill makes provision for it to be applicable to minors who have reached the age of 18 years. Tacit emancipation on the other hand has no age restriction. In other words, it applies not only to 18 year olds, but in fact to minors of any age. As regards the only condition attached hereto by law. I should like to read to you from the book by Hahlo and Ellison Khan, i.e. The Union of South Africa—Development of its Laws and Constitution, as follows—

There are further ramifications, but I do not want to go into them now. This, however, is the basis on which tacit emancipation is based. There are two possible effects which this Bill may have on the legal aspect. It may be that the Bill abrogates tacit emancipation for minors who have attained the age of 18 years or older, whereas tacit emancipation may still take place and may still be applicable to minors under the age of 18 years. Or, in the second place, the two systems of venia aetatis and tacit emancipation may continue to exist side by side. In other words, a person of 18 years or more may still be emancipated by means of tacit emancipation as well. I want to suggest that if this is going to be the effect of this, we have to investigate the matter further, because I believe that it may possibly be undesirable.

There are various problems as regards tacit emancipation. In the past this has led to many lawsuits. In the first instance, there may be various degrees of tacit emancipation. In addition there may be emancipation for certain purposes only. It all depends on the circumstances of a particular case. Consequently this causes many uncertainties in law, especially in commercial law and law of contracts. I should like to read to you from the same book I have just quoted, on page 366, in order to illustrate to you one of the problems which may arise. I quote—

In other words, if a person is tacitly emancipated, and the contract is not completely to his advantage, it is still possible that he may obtain restitutio, in other words, the contract may be declared invalid and the other party has to surrender what he has obtained from the contract, and similarly the minor. Since we have this Bill and therewith a very just and easy method of emancipation, it would be undesirable to allow this fluid and obscure position to continue to exist.

A further obscurity is the real effect of tacit emancipation. To date there are various conflcting judgments in South African law in this regard. It is precisely here where the degree of emancipation and the facts of the circumstances enter the picture. This Bill does not seem to clarify this matter. I think one would like to see people using this procedure instead. It is just, final and certain. One would like to see clarity being introduced, also as regards this aspect of the law. I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank the hon. member very sincerely for having indicated on behalf of the Opposition that they support the principle of this Bill. I think the two important aspects of the matter are, firstly, the question of perpetuating the present position, in other words, reproclaiming what existed prior to Union. This is the first principle of the matter and, secondly, to make venia aetatis possible by leaving it in the hands of our courts. This is the second important principle. Now, however, the hon. member has dragged in another matter and that is the question of tacit emancipation. I did not know the hon. member was going to do so, but my information is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with and cannot be directly affected by any of the clauses of the Bill under discussion, and that the Bill may simply remain as it is at the moment. In other words, tacit emancipation will not be affected by the question of the right of the citizen to apply to a court to obtain his majority at the age of 18 years. This, in brief, is what I can tell the hon. member.

I have already discussed the matter with a law adviser and it is something we can look into. And I shall do so too. I promise the hon. member that I shall do so prior to the next sitting of the Senate, but our present impression is that the two matters are completely detached from each other and need not affect each other. Consequently this is all I can tell the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech on this long and very complex Bill was made, we consider, with unseemly haste as hon. members may remember, on the afternoon of March 30th, a few minutes before the House adjourned for the Easter recess. One received the impression that afternoon, while listening to the hon. the Minister, that the full text of his speech was considerably curtailed because of the dispute over the adjournment which took place between the parties that afternoon. The more is the pity, for educational matters of this complexity should not be dealt with, we consider, in a hurry, whatever the circumstances.

In the course of his opening remarks, the hon. the Minister made the following statement (Hansard, Col. 4469): —

In order to meet the educational needs of the aforesaid population groups, each according to his 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.

A little later, he went on and said :

The suggestion of “cultural-anthropological” groups and features and the use of the term “ethnic groups” reveal of course that in this case the Government is steering clear of its normal description of “multi-national” groups, which in the context of South-West Africa, has particular significance. There may be diplomatic reasons for this curious terminology; but I must say that it must have required some mental agility on the part of the person who drafted the Bill to think out the term “cultural-anthropological”. If the hon. the Minister can tell me precisely what that means, I will be very glad indeed.

Here at the start I want to ask the hon. the Minister a straight question: Has he himself consulted with the people concerned over this proposed new dispensation for education now being instituted for these three Coloured groups in South-West Africa? Then their is another question : Have the Coloured Representative Council and the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa asked for this measure? I think it is very important that we in this House, and the public generally, should know the answer to that question. I must say I doubt very much, knowing the territory a little myself because of having lived there, whether the Rehoboth Basters’ Council wants this kind of interference by the central Government. What are their views? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. What options if any, were these “cultural anthropological” groups given in the first place in regard to this matter?

There is another aspect to this Bill and this legislation generally, and that is the question of international concern. The hon. the Minister knows very well that the South-West African position is a matter of great international concern. Surely, at this stage, it is extremely unwise for the Government to impose any legislation upon the people there unless they specifically ask for it. I do not have to remind the hon. the Minister that after Dr. Waldheim’s recent visit to the territory it was made perfectly clear, both by him and by the Prime Minister himself, that no conflict existed between the United Nations and the South African Government over the ultimate granting of independence to the people of South-West Africa. In fact, Dr. Hilgard Muller said as much himself when addressing the Ovambo people in the territory on March 28th, a few days after the Secretary of the United Nations had left. I want to read to the hon. the Minister what the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the Ovambo people, with special reference to all the other peoples in the territory. I quote from his speech which was handed out by the Division of Information. This is what the hon. the Minister told the Ovambos—he said it applied to everybody else: —

Then he said—

Then he said this—

That is the population groups in South West—

For that reason neither the Government of the Republic of South Africa, nor the United Nations nor any other country in the world, can decide in this regard. After that categorical statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regard to the future independence of these population groups, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister on what grounds this degree of independence should not apply equally in the field of education. Why should the Government at this stage wish to centralize control of education in this way by means of a very elaborate Bill? Control will be exercised from Pretoria. Unless the Government’s promises in regard to independence are meaningless, these complex proposals which are under discussion today will sooner or later have to be undone. Financial assistance from South Africa to South-West Africa for educational purposes can be fully reconciled with our development plans for the Territory and with the line we have always taken towards these people. But I submit that sooner or later all this machinery will have to be undone in terms of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This arrangement can only lead to increased inefficiency and not to greater efficiency.

Surely the local parents who know the local conditions and the experience of the Director of Education in Windhoek and his staff are the people who should have final jurisdiction over these matters and not a Minister sitting thousands of miles away in Pretoria, even if he has powers to delegate his authority. In terms of Government policy, namely ultimate independence for these areas, the whole administrative egg which we are now busy laying here will sooner or later have to be unscrambled. It is absolutely ridiculous. It will lead to an interim duplication of educational power in the Republic and in South-West Africa and greatly increase public expenditure all round, which is not going to benefit the taxpayers of the Republic nor the taxpayers of South-West Africa. We now have the ridiculous situation that we have before us three large and complicated Bills to deal with a number of pupils—the Minister himself gave these figures during his Second Reading speech—just over 20 000 in 1971. We have three big Bills laying down all sorts of regulations and controls from Pretoria for 20 000 odd people who have been broken up into three different groups for the purpose. The whole thing is ridiculous.

If the hon. the Minister will refer for a moment to clause 25 he will agree that this is a new provision. I say “new” because as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech all three Bills are based in the first place, on the 1963 Act dealing with education for Coloured people in the Republic. Clause 25 deals with the holding of office in certain public and statutory bodies, which nobody can do without the Minister’s consent. Clause 25 (4) reads as follows—

That means, anybody other than an officer, and an officer is someone who is under the control of the Public Service Act. In other words, this refers specifically to teachers. I will read the subsection again—

It goes on to say that such a person could apply for membership of the Coloured Representative Council in South Africa. No specific mention is made in this clause of the existing Coloured Representative Council in South-West Africa. We all know that it is a purely nominated body and we also know that the Government has been promising for years that the people there will have the right to elect this body. But the Government has been avoiding this issue and we would be very interested to know why. Of course the real answer to this is quite apparent; the South-West African Council is not mentioned in this subsection because scarcely anyone but the teachers in South-West Africa, are, in fact, competent to make adequate contributions to a Coloured Representative Council. Where this clause talks about these people standing for Legislative Assemblies and Parliament, what has the Government in mind?

As I understand, from people who know the territory well, 99 per cent of the teachers in South-West Africa are Coloured people and they will be covered by this Bill. So presumably this clause refers specifically to Coloured people. Since when was a Coloured person in South-West Africa, or anywhere else, in terms of Government policy, entitled to stand for the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa, for Parliament or for the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in the Republic? White employees who may be involved in terms of this clause are already covered by other legislation such as our National Education Act, as the hon. the Minister well knows. I imagine he is here specifically referring to Coloured teachers. The thing just does not make sense.

I also want to refer to a specific matter in regard to clause 15. This is also an entirely new provision, if one compares it with the Coloured Persons’ Education Act of 1963. It deals with the requirements for appointment. These requirements are dealt with at some length. What is quite fantastic to me—I do not understand it at all and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some clarity—is that it is stated that “subject to the provisions of section 10 every (permanent appointment to a post included in the establishment of a State school or a State-aided school shall be on probation …” What does that mean? I mean, this is a contradiction in terms. It is an unheard of stipulation in any legislation dealing with education anywhere as far as I know. The whole thing seems to me suspicious concerning the status and standing and activities of teachers in South-West Africa.

Paragraph (b) of clause 15 (1) states that the person concerned must be of good character, but surely no one is appointed to a post as a teacher in an establishment unless he is of good character? This is not stipulated in the 1963 Act for the Republic. Why is it necessary to insert it here? Paragraph (e) of the same subsection states that such a person must be a South African citizen. What does that mean? To expect Republican teachers to be South African citizens is one thing, but for a territory with an international status surely this provision is both unnecessary and unwise.

Another point is that in terms of the definitions no mention is made anywhere of “agricultural schools”. They are specifically omitted in comparison with the 1963 Act for the education of Coloured persons in the Republic. I should like to know why agricultural schools were omitted. It is specifically mentioned in the other Act and South-West Africa surely is a territory where agricultural instruction is perhaps more necessary than in any other territory, particularly in the “Rehoboth Gebiet”, where the hon. the Minister must know, a large experimental farm was established by the South-West African educational authorities for this very purpose some time ago. I find it a very serious omission that no mention is made of agricultural schools in dealing with this matter administratively. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why they have been omitted.

In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred specifically to staff associations. He said that the Department had already recognized the body known as the Coloured Persons Education Association in South-West Africa and that this recognition is now to be made statutory. There is no provision in the Bill for making this body a statutory body. It was merely mentioned by the Minister in his speech. He obviously has powers of his own and he can presumably do this by regulation. He said—

Statutory recognition—

This is a very strange and unheard of precedent. What it really means, in hard fact, is that the teachers’ association which will receive this statutory recognition will now virtually come under Government control. Why should this be necessary? It does not apply to teachers anywhere else that I know of, and certainly not to teachers in the Republic, either Coloured or White. Why should these people suddenly be given statutory recognition? It sounds fine, but in effect it simply means that the Minister will exercise control over this association, its objects and also, I imagine, its activities, because he does not specify but merely says that he thinks it will help negotiations between them and his department. I think that this is a very unhappy note to strike in relation to the Territory as a whole, particularly as it is the focus of international interest and attention at this time.

There are just a few more points that I want to make. The main text of this Bill is almost identical with that of Act No. 47 of 1963. The same applies to the Bill we have for the Namas and the Rehoboth-Basters. However, there are certain obvious omissions and I want to mention these. The definition of a Coloured or a Nama or a Baster carries no reference to the Population Registration Act. We know that it is not applicable in South-West Africa, but the interesting thing is that anyone is a member of any of the three groups provided he is “generally accepted” as a member of that population group. When the hon. the Minister says “generally accepted”, does he mean this definition of acceptability to be “cultural-anthropological”, or what is it? This is a strange, a kind of woolly, messy definition. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will make the position clear.

The Bill only mentions State schools or State-aided schools, training schools and training colleges, with an occasional reference to vocational and special education if they are needed. Then it refers to education for deviate children. We do not like the use of the word “deviate”. It carries an unpleasant implication. Somebody who is a deviate is, for all intents and purposes, a delinquent of some kind. If that is what the hon. the Minister means, then he must say so, but I would have thought that “retarded” was a better expression to use. There is no provision in terms of this Bill for an education council for the three groups, although the Minister did say that provision was also being made for the establishment of some kind of regional educational council. In broad outline, the functions of such a council are to be the same as those of a school board. If the Coloured Persons’ Education Association, referred to by the Minister under the heading “staff associations”, is to be given statutory recognition, which means that they are presumably people who are qualified and suited to serve on this educational association, why is there no provision for an education council straight away for these people, as is provided for the Coloured people in the Republic?

The 1963 Act also lays down that until the Minister decides otherwise, the Department of Education, Arts and Science, that is to say the Department of National Education, shall institute all courses and lay down standards for examinations in all educational institutions. In other words, the standards here remain the same for Whites and Coloureds. The hon. the Minister went to great pains in the course of his speech to say that the whole idea was to keep standards as high as possible. We accept that he meant what he said. But in terms of the present Bill, it is not the Minister of Education, Arts and Science who lays down the standards, but the Minister of Coloured Affairs, who may institute new courses and examinations to be conducted and diplomas or certificates to be issued to persons passing such examinations as he has decided on—he and not the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. The Minister of Coloured Affairs can also abolish any course so instituted. This suggests to us that whatever the Minister may say to the contrary, general educational standards will not or need not follow the pattern laid down for Whites and Coloureds in the Republic. My submission is that they will probably be lower.

The hon. the Minister did say in his Second Reading speech that the Matriculation Board will set examination standards. That the Matriculation Board should set standards for that level of schooling is entirely understandable and commendable. But in spite of the Minister’s protests that there is an adequate inspectorate who will look after the whole business and will oversee the question of standards, I should like to ask him whether he really thinks he has a sufficiently adequate inspectorate to uplift the academic or educational standards of these schools to the level that they should be raised to in terms of the 1963 Act for Coloured people here in the Republic. I have my doubts about this question of standards, I am afraid, and I should like to have some explanation from the hon. the Minister as to what his real intentions are.

Why are you sowing doubts?

She is a Boer hater.

And you are an Englishman hater.

Order!

The Minister’s reassurances about the maintenance of standards, line up with the provisions of clause 15, which deals with the requirements for appointment. Clause 15 is an entirely new clause and it embodies some very strange provisions. Subclause (2) reads as follows—

Therefore, it refers specifically to the teacher—

1. (a) who does not possess the qualifications determined by the Minister, but possesses other qualifications which, in the opinion of the Minister, will enable such person to render satisfactory service, be appointed in a permanent capacity.

What are the other qualifications, other than the normal qualifications, that the hon. the Minister has in mind? He made no statement on that in the course of his address. He could have said that there are not sufficient teachers who are up to standard and that they are trying to improve this but the hon. the Minister gave us no indication as to what these other qualifications, other than the normal qualifications, are likely to be. I think we are correct in our suggestion that it means that the standard will be considerably lower. I suggested this earlier.

Then there are some innovations apart from the omissions. Clause 9 on page 9 deals with the classification of certain posts as posts in the Public Service. That is administrative, and we have no objection to it. But in terms of clause 10, all appointments, promotions, transfers and discharges of all teaching staff are vested in the Minister. This is a new provision. It does not appear in the 1963 Act for the Coloured people in the Republic. What are the reasons for this provision? Surely the South West African Education Department could be entrusted with this responsibility. After all, they have been considered competent in the past. They are familiar with local conditions; they are familiar with the background and the qualifications of personnel, and we consider that these decisions should be left to them as they are in fact left to the provincial administrations here in the Republic.

Clause 18 (2) refers to moneys received by any teacher who has employment outside his teaching job, or who receives money from any other source. He has to pay that money into a common fund. Well, this is also an innovation, and a strange one. One can understand that there should be some regulation preventing him from taking employment over and above his teaching job, because it might affect his ability and dedication as a teacher. Supposing, however, that he inherits money or has fixed property which he lets to someone, from which he receives rent or that he has a similar complementary income; is he in terms of this clause prohibited from retaining his income from sources such as these?

Clause 20 on page 17 of the Bill is really one of the most extraordinary clauses I have ever come across. It is also an innovation. It deals with “promotion of persons employed at State schools and State-aided schools”. Promotion is to be on probation only for all grades of teachers. Have you ever heard of such a thing anywhere in the world! It does not say whether this promotion on probation applies only to junior teachers. It could apply to a vice-principal or a senior member of staff as well. There are no specifications in this regard. The period of probation, too, is not specified. What does the hon. the Minister expect these teachers to be—a lot of stooges or what?

“Stooges” or what?

Well, stooges. This is a most extraordinary situation. The definition of “officer” and “employee”, who are defined by the Public Service Act, are specifically omitted. Therefore this applies to the teaching staff. It seems to me that the teachers can have no security of tenure under these circumstances. If teachers of every single grade are only promoted on probation, what sort of dedication, loyalty and stability are you going to have in the educational system under those provisions?

Then, clause 22 on page 19 deals with the definitions of misconduct. Paragraph (f) differs slightly from the 1963 Act, but we object very strongly to the new paragraph (r) and (s). I want to refer to these for a moment. The new paragraph (r) says that a teacher can be charged with misconduct if—

I think it is unheard of that a provision of this kind should be written into a statute providing for education. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House take the view that there are enough laws on the Statute Book governing subversive activities or the creation of ill feeling between population groups. The Ministers of Justice and Police have every means at their disposal for dealing with this. Why should this have anything to do with the Minister of Education, particularly in terms of misconduct of teachers? Is this going to mean that there will be periodical witch-hunts in the department to find out whether they are encouraging feelings of hostility amongst each other, or what is it all about? I think that it is a disgrace and that it should never have appeared in a Bill on education at all.

Paragraph (s) says that any person can be accused of misconduct if—

What does the hon. the Minister mean by “any department”? Suppose a teacher, in his spare time, does a bit of farming and has a quarrel with the Department of Agriculture; is he then going to be charged with misconduct in terms of this Bill, or what is meant by “any department”? This is the most extraordinary terminology and we cannot understand it at all. Before my time expires I should like to move the following amendment—

(Time expired.)

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make a few comments on this Bill. Until now there has been a consolidated ordinance in South-West Africa, Ordinance No. 27 of 1962, which leaves the general control over education for Whites and for Coloureds—i.e. for all non-Bantu—in the Territory, in the hands of the Administrator, and through him in the hands of the South-West Africa Department of Education. The Legislative Assembly in Windhoek had the power to determine “the general education policy”, which was to be followed for the Whites and the Coloureds. It is interesting enough to note that in the preamble to the Ordinance it is provided that the education policy for these two groups should be planned in such a way that “a spirit of national unity should be cultivated and racial co-operation should be furthered in the Territory”. A special chapter in the Ordinance, as the hon. the Minister will know, Chapter 9, dealt with education for the Coloureds in the Territory. What is happening now is that the hon. the Minister is repealing the entire Chapter 9 and is putting in its place a Bill which effects radical changes. In the first place this Bill removes all control over education from local hands, in other words, it is being taken out of the hands of the people who are on the scene and who have first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of South-West Africa. It is now being placed in the hands of someone in Pretoria. In other words, it is being placed in the hands of the Minister of Coloured Affairs. That, in itself, is not the main point of criticism, but where I do in fact find grounds for criticism is in the fact that provisions and restrictions which are applicable in the Republic to Coloured education and Coloured teachers are being made applicable, almost word for word, to the Coloureds of South-West Africa. In this way certain circumstances are being created, circumstances which in my opinion can do no good under the present difficult international position in respect of South-West Africa. I want to mention an example to hon. members. If the Coloured teachers in the Republic, for whatever reasons, cannot receive pay equal to that of the Whites for equal services and qualifications, because the money is not there owing to the large numbers of teachers, it means that the Coloured teachers in South-West Africa cannot receive this either, since the hon. the Minister would not be able to make a distinction there. He will not be able to do it, however necessary it may be, for international reasons, for a special arrangement to be made in respect of the limited number of Coloured teachers, for example. It will not be possible to do this, if this uniformity is applied. There are today only about 14 000 Coloureds in South-West Africa. The Odendaal Report put the number at 12 708. If my information is correct, then we have almost 20 000 Coloured teachers in the Republic. In South-West Africa—the hon. the Minister was so kind as to let me have the figures for 1972— there are only 8 397 pupils and only 277 Coloured teachers. Actually, there are 119 more Coloured teachers who are teaching the Namas and the Basters, but the hon. the Minister will concede that there can be no question, as far as this little group is concerned, of ultimate entirely independent control, on the lines that each group can take care of itself. Sir, owing to the growing problem which is confronting us in regard to South-West Africa, an obligation is going to rest on us to eliminate as many discriminatory practices as possible in that Territory. Last year already members of the Cabinet made a start with legislation to eliminate discriminatory practices there dealing with colour and race, and this is going to become progressively more necessary in the case of South-West Africa. Therefore I think that the entire step of equalizing matters at this difficult international stage and making the conditions of the Coloured teachers equal to those of the Coloured teachers in the Republic is not a sensible step. I am not saying that the position of Coloured teachers in the Republic should not also be improved; this will also have to be improved, but if one links the two together, then it means that it is going to be difficult for the Government to adopt any measures which may be necessary for the small group in South-West Africa, if it cannot do the same here as well. That is why it seems to me highly undesirable to come forward now, at this stage, with a Bill of this nature.

The second point I want to make is that the Bill which we now have before us provides that a teacher for a Coloured school in South-West Africa must be a South African citizen. I concede that, generally speaking, it will most certainly be better, or the best thing, that a man who is a South African citizen should be appointed as teacher in South-West Africa, because one may virtually accept that he will have a knowledge of the two official languages. Sir, until now there has been nothing of this nature in the existing ordinance, and there are certain traditions in South-West Africa which make the situation rather different. With the churches and the missionary societies there was a very tolerant relationship in regard to education. Not all parts of South-West Africa are attractive: it is not always easy to find teachers for South-West Africa, and particularly in the case of Coloured teachers it is more difficult than in the case of Whites to find teachers for undeveloped and unattractive places. Under these difficult circumstances the churches and the missionary societies did excellent work and played a major constructive role in the old days. In this important task we were frequently assisted by people who are not citizens of South Africa, but who nevertheless acquired a knowledge of the two languages very quickly. It is remarkable how quickly some of the teachers who were imported to South-West Africa acquired a knowledge of the two languages and became proficient in English and Afrikaans. The same applies in the White schools. At the German schools in South-West Africa a major importation, if I may call it that, of German teachers from Germany takes place; the schools would not otherwise be able to exist, and those people are not citizens of South Africa. I say again that it would of course be better, as a general rule, if one could find a citizen of South Africa, but, unlike the case of the Whites, to go and stipulate this now as an obligation for the Coloureds—while there is already a shortage of Coloured teachers —that they should be South African citizens, otherwise they cannot be appointed, is not, I think in the best interests of the Coloureds; it is not in the best interests of South-West Africa and of Coloured education in the Territory, and in any case it creates a new discrimination which is in itself undesirable. The Coloureds are in any case a group which has to deal with the problem of a greater shortage of teachers than in the case of the Whites.

A further objection which we have to the Bill is that the Bill places all kinds of restrictions on Coloured teachers which are not contained in the existing ordinance. The hon. member for Wynberg has already referred to a few of these. She referred to clause 18, where the teacher is now prohibited from accepting extra work. Sir, we already have the situation that the Coloured teacher is remunerated at a lower rate than the White teacher. So if there is a teacher who should in fact take something which comes to hand to improve his position, since that gap does exist, he is prohibited from doing so. The Coloured teacher is now being placed in the especially difficult position that he cannot perform additional work in order to earn something extra; and very often in a community which has not yet achieved the same situation as the Whites, it is always the teacher who has to knuckle down to his additional task and help to uplift this population group. This is particularly the case in the smaller communities in South-West Africa; there the teacher is frequently obliged to play a more general role than in the larger communities. I do not think that this is a fair provision, and this is another reason why we are opposed to the Bill.

Another question I want to mention is the discrimination which is also being created now between White and Coloured teachers in the sphere of behaviour. Clause 22 (e) of this Bill provides, in the case of a Coloured teacher, that he may not, otherwise than at a meeting convened by an association recognized by the Minister under section 26—that is, a teachers’ association—publicly criticize the administration of any department, office or institution of the State. One would think that it would be fair to refer instead here to a department of education. For this means that a Coloured teacher, for example, if he feels aggrieved as a person at a specific apartheid measure, may not air his criticism because he would then in that way be criticizing an office, an institution or a department of the Government. I think that in the circumstances pertaining in South-West Africa, where we know that every Bill is closely scrutinized, it is highly undesirable, and probably unfair as well to introduce such a provision. Take for example section 22 (r) which provides that a Coloured teacher may not perform an act “likely to encourage feelings of hostility among the different population groups of the territory”.

Is that not a good thing?

What does “likely to” mean? What does it mean that he is “likely to” encourage hostility? Who is the person who must judge? How is that hostility to be defined? Sir, I think it is unsatisfactory to use the word “likely”. It means that no clear norm is being laid down here. But what, on the other hand, are the privileges which the White teacher has? Look at the ordinance as it reads for the White teacher. Section 40 of the same ordinance provides that subject to the provisions of this section, a White teacher “may become a member of any political party, including any management body thereof, and he may make himself available for election as a member of Parliament cf the Republic or of the Legislative Assembly …”. In other words, a White teacher is free to enter politics; he may even stand for Parliament and the Legislative Assembly, and in his political activities it is more than likely that he may encourage feelings of hostility among people, and he is free to do so. But the poor Coloured teacher is being placed in the position here that he cannot really put forward a plea for the improvement of his lot as a Coloured without being charged with having performed an act which is likely to encourage feelings of hostility among the different population groups. I think that this Bill goes in a completely different direction as far as the Coloured teacher, as opposed to the White teacher, is concerned, with the strictest measures being applicable to the Coloured teacher compared to those which are applicable to the White teacher. This is looking for trouble, particularly since we know that when we are dealing with South-West Africa affairs in the outside world, every piece of legislation is studied and closely scrutinized and the situation between Whites and Coloureds is thoroughly examined. I think that this approach is unrealistic in the light of the future of South-West Africa. I think that in the interests of us all the Government will have to cease weakening local control in South-West Africa and seeking uniformity with everything (in the Republic. Why? It serves no purpose. It would be much better to strengthen, expand and keep local control detached from the situation in the Republic. But this is not what is being done here now. There are other objections to this Bill as well, which may perhaps be dealt with best during the Committee Stage, but I want to say that in general it is not sensible to apply such a Bill as this, which applies to situations in the Republic, there and create an entire series of new differentiations and discriminations between the White teacher and the Coloured teacher. That is why we oppose this Bill, and support the amendment.

One finds it regrettable that the two hon. members opposite, who spoke about the Bill, gave the appearance that there was again discrimination between the population groups of South-West Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg about one thing she said, i.e. that she knows nothing about South-West Africa. There I agree with her. After her conduct here, I think I can perhaps say that we shall not miss her there either. After her conduct here, I think I can perhaps say that we shall not miss her there either. Many questions were asked here to which I think the Minister will reply, but a number of the answers are, as far as I know, embodied in one answer. In the early sixties the South African Government appointed a long-term commission about South-West Africa, i.e. the Odendaal Commission, and these are some of its recommendations which were accepted by the Government. The report of the Odendaal Commission was accepted by the Government and also by the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa in all its aspects. A White Paper was issued on that aspect, and these actions of the Minister are not in contradiction of those decisions that were taken and approved.

But we do nevertheless have the final say here.

Yes, that is so, but why accept a long-term report, a brilliant report such as the Odendaal Commission’s report, and then not implement it? For what reason? We of South-West Africa at least have enough confidence in the Government of South Africa to know that there will be no discrimination and that these people’s interests are safe, as are those of the people in the Republic, and that their educational interests will also be safe in the hands of this Government under this Minister. It is a fact that Bantu education has also passed into the hands of the Minister of Bantu Administration. He handles it, and I can see no earthly reason why this education must continue to fall under the South-West Africa Administration. I just want to say again that this was agreed on; it was recommended by a commission and approved by the House of Assembly and also by the Legislative Assembly, and I think already it is the answer to many of the questions.

As an old inhabitant of South-West I do not think I can pass up this opportunity of paying tribute to the South-West Administration for the pioneer work they did there over very many years and under very difficult circumstances. They did good pioneer work on a large scale and under difficult circumstances, for which I think they deserve full mention. There are even a few names one should perhaps mention in this connection, people like Dr. Vettder, a person who, in his day, was in the Senate, specifically because of his knowledge of these people, a person who did brilliant pioneer work. There is Dr. Fry, who was also in the Senate, and who did brilliant work. If one goes further into history one sees how much progress has been made since 1921. Then only 8 per cent of the Coloured and Baster children were at school. In 1960 80 per cent of them were at school and in 1972, 90 per cent. The figures in respect of the other indigenous groups, which do not have a bearing on this legislation, have likewise increased. Therefore I think it is no more than right that we should appreciatively express our thanks to the South-West Administration. We on this side of the House have the utmost confidence in the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Minister of that department, in the knowledge that these people’s interests will be safe, as they were in the past. I do not want to go into the particulars of the legislation. We agree wholeheartedly that the education of those groups of people should be transferred to the Minister of Coloured Affairs and we support the legislation.

I wonder whether hon. members opposite sometimes ask themselves why we deal with certain legislation in this House. In this instance it is very clear to me that we are only giving effect on paper to the policy of the Government; in other words, we are here engaged in what I think is, in reality, paper apartheid, because it is virtually being done only so that the consciences of the other side may be assuaged. Dealing as we are with a Bill on education for Coloured persons, and knowing that legislation is to follow, dealing with the education of the Basters in the Rehoboth area, as well as that of the Nama in South-West Africa, we realize that here we are dealing with nothing more than paper apartheid. I could still understand the object of this if the argument was based on the fact that we are dealing here with full-fledged peoples. I do not believe that this legislation for the Coloured persons is in any way a Magna Charta for the education which the Coloured persons of South-West Africa are seeking. I want to say frankly that I believe that everything that can be achieved in the future will be possible if the present position is maintained, i.e. if this is under the control and direction of the provincial administration. This could have been done if the hon. the Minister and the Government had realized their responsibility in that respect and are prepared to do their duty. But I wonder where this paper apartheid is going to end. In the name of apartheid we already have, in South Africa, four different Ministers of Education, one for Whites, one for Coloured persons, one for Bantu and one for Indians. This in itself is already a strange phenomenon. In an ordinary country one usually finds only one power or authority in the sphere of education, but here we have four. Now it is, of course, inevitable that if one has four Ministers of Education, each basically engaged in the same task one would, of necessity, obtain divergent opinions and attitudes about education. At a later stage I shall indicate that according to the Minister’s Second Reading speech there is clear proof that he recognizes views different to those of the hon. the Minister of National Education. However, first I want to make a request to those hon. members opposite who are possibly the thinkers and philosophers in the Government. I do just want to tell them that they must not take too seriously the recent publication in which it was announced that there are certain White groups in South Africa that have 7 per cent non-White blood in their veins. If they take it too seriously, with a view to their multinational concept, or as it is stated here, ethno-cultural characteristics, they are going to argue that if there are certain people with an average of 7 per cent of non-White blood in their veins, there might be certain parties with 14 per cent and others who are completely pure-blooded. Then I fear that in the future we are going to have a Bill on education for the purified Whites, one for the Whites with 7 per cent non-White blood and one for the Whites with 14 per cent non-White blood. In the same way we are engaged here in making an ethnological distinction between the Basters of Rehoboth, the Coloured persons of South-West Africa and the Nama.

Since we already have confusion, in the light of the fact that we already have four Ministers of Education, one is of necessity going to have divergent attitudes in respect of education. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, for example, the following statement …

Are there differences in principle among the various Ministers?

The hon. member asks me whether there are differences in principle. I am now going to deal with a difference of principle. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he told us why it is essential that there should be three different Bills. He said that there are circumstances in South-West Africa that preclude the possibility of a uniform education system. But what have we thus far always heard from Ministers of National Education? No matter what one’s arguments may be, and even if one tries to tell them that there are certain geographic areas in South Africa that have certain historic opinions about education it has always been said: “No, look, it simply must be uniform”. That is why we in South Africa find that the various Provinces are all being forced in one specific direction. But here we obtain the acknowledgment of the hon. the Minister that there can be circumstances in a country which preclude uniformity. I must tell the hon. the Minister that I agree with him in that connection. With a view to the South-West African set-up it would have been much more important for the Administration of South-West Africa those who are closest to those people, to have been entrusted with the development of education in that area, instead of the Basters of Rehoboth and the Coloured persons of South-West Africa being linked up with the Coloureds of the Cape for example. I believe that they have much less in common than do the people of the South-West Africa area, whether they be Whites or non-Whites.

I want to continue by saying that even if I had no objections in principle to this Bill, it would still have been very difficult for me to support the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister had a wonderful opportunity to present this House with a model education Bill. He could have drawn richly uDon the experience of the various other Ministers and their departments, and even his own department. He could also have drawn on the experience of the various other provincial education ordinances. However, what do we have before us? Before us we have a Bill which, in its main characteristics, retains virtually all the undesirable characteristics of the existing Education Acts in the country, and then a few have even been added here and there. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very sorry about that, particularly if we view the Bill against the background of the Coloured teacher in South Africa. We already know that he is weighed down by the disadvantages of a salary gap with respect to the salaries of Whites and non-Whites. What the hon. the Minister could have done, since we are dealing with paper apartheid, was at least to have given the Coloured teachers something on paper which is equal to that in the White education departments. It was, as I have said, possible for the hon. the Minister to present us with a better Bill.

Let us look at certain of these clauses. There is, for example, clause 15 dealing with the requirements for appointment. There we find, that the unmarried Coloured woman cannot obtain a permanent appointment. There is, of course, a proviso to the effect that if the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the interests of education, she can obtain a permanent appointment. On the other hand it is provided in clause 21 that as soon as a female teacher marries she can no longer occupy her post on a permanent basis. I wonder why the hon. the Minister did not consult the Natal Provincial Administration, because they would have told him that for years now it has been standing practice that there is no legitimate cause to discriminate between the married and unmarried woman. This principle is implemented in practice in that province. Perhaps the hon. the Minister accepts the idea that the best, the most dedicated female teacher is specifically the one who is going to remain a spinster for the rest of her life?

When we come to clause 17, for example, which has to do with the transfer on a full-time basis of teachers from certain Departments of State, we find that certain guarantees are given in respect of leave, subsistence allowances, transfer costs and transport facilities. However, what is missing here? No guarantee is given in respect of the salary scale in terms of which such a person will be paid when he is transferred. In the Educational Services Act, No. 41 of 1967, there are also provisions with respect to the appointment of certain persons, in the employment of certain schools, to posts in the Public Service. In other words, those provisions concern the transfer of a teacher from a school to a post in the Public Service. In such a case there are specific provisions in connection with the salary scale that must be applicable. It is also provided that there should be no decrease in salary. However, this Bill does not contain similar provisions.

What type of person is transferred from another Department of State to education? I am now specifically speaking about teachers. According to experience gained with White teachers, these are persons who were perhaps in the Public Service but who had a desire to engage in the teaching profession and consequently qualified themselves as teachers. As a result they applied for and obtained appointments in the Education Department. In the provincial administrations such a person is already successfully transferred and his previous service wholly or partly recognized, with the result that he does not begin on the lowest notch of the salary scale, but on a higher one. I am very sorry there is not a similar provision in this Bill.

Reference has already been made to clause 18, in which it is provided that a teacher may not do any other work. We know that there is also a similar provision in respect of White teachers. Here we are therefore dealing with the same kind of restriction. I wonder when we shall realize that overseas there is a well-known system in operation by which a teacher, or anyone else, can do two jobs. That system is known as “moonlighting”. The person who has the enterprise, the initiative and the perseverance to do so must not be penalized. I know that the hon. the Minister and his department, and other education departments in South Africa, are worried about the matter, because they are of the opinion that such a person will neglect his work, but if he neglects his work there are a whole series of other clauses and provisions in terms of which action can be taken against him as a result of negligence, etc. When we come to the promotion of teachers in State schools, under clause 20, we also find that the hon. the Minister is retaining something in his legislation which causes a great deal of trouble in the teaching profession. In terms of subsection (4) of clause 20, it is possible for a person to be appointed to a high-grade post, but the mere fact that he occupies that position does not give him any claim to a higher salary. I realize fully that something of this nature is essential, because it sometimes happens that one wants to promote somebody, but that at the moment there is no equivalent post into which he can be promoted, and that one has to keep him in the same post temporarily. However, experience has taught us that departments conveniently forget about people in those posts. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it will be a sad day if it ever happens that any Coloured teacher in his department is exploited according to the provisions of this subsection (4).

As far as misconduct is concerned, as defined in clause 22, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already mentioned the fact that a teacher cannot criticize the administration of a department, officer or institution of the State. But I want to draw attention to the fact that he may not do so in public, alhough the provision is followed by the words “otherwise than at a meeting convened by an association recognized by the Minister under section 26”. However, we must realize that this type of clause and this type of provision continually expose the teacher, and in this case the Coloured teacher, to technical offences. In clause 23 it is provided that a charge of misconduct can be submitted in writing by anyone, and it must be in writing, and a copy of it must go to the person himself, but anyone can do this. I want to mention one case. Perhaps it is an hypothetical case, but it is an actual possibility. The teacher enters a post office. It is an office of another Government Department, and he is dissatisfied with his treatment. He makes a remark and passes criticism. He perhaps does so to two of his friends, but he has done so in public. He perhaps did so on the pavement or on the steps outside. This is a situation to which. I feel, this provision can lead. It would be much better if this were eliminated completely. It is going to be no use for the hon. the Minister to say that there are certain education departments that also apply this. I do not agree with that either.

Clause 25 deals with the making available of a person in the service of the department. I accept, of course, that in this case there will be certain Whites that would like to stand for parliamentary or provincial council election. But this also affects the Coloured persons. We see that in terms of this Bill, it is possible for them to make themselves available. According to the provisions of subsection (4) of clause 25, they are regarded as having left the service of the department the moment they are nominated. This places them in a very unenviable position. The moment one leaves the service of any department, and one has not yet reached retirement age, one loses one’s pension benefits, one’s promotion and one’s status. What would the case be of such a person seeking election and finding that he is not elected? Then such a person returns without the promotion he previously had. It may be a question of only two or three months. I really think that when we come to the Committee Stage we should make a suggestion which states, more or less, that from the moment a person is nominated for an election that person should be regarded as being on unpaid leave. The moment he is elected such a person should then automatically be regarded as no longer being employed. I really think this is something that must be considered.

I am very glad to note that in section 29 mention is made of compulsory school attendance. However, nowhere is mention made of free education in this respect. Any State or Government in any country that goes so far as to make education compulsory for certain age groups, must realize that in doing so the responsibility rests with that State or Government to ensure that if education is made compulsory, whether it be up to Std. 6 or Std. 4, up to 12 or 14 years of age, that that education as such shall be free. I now know that hon. members opposite will ask me why I do not read the contents of clause 13. There it is provided that in connection with boarding fees and class fees application can be made for partial or total exemption. However, I am sure that this is not good enough. In every country in the world where education is made compulsory, provision is also made for free education, which includes the supply of free books, etc. I think this is something that must be stated here in black and white.

I want to continue and mention a final aspect, i.e. that since there is now going to be an automatic change-over and transfer of paysheets from the South-West Administration to the department, great care must be taken. In this connection, I just want to make one request to the hon. the Minister, i.e. to make sure that as soon as such a transfer takes place, the teachers will be receiving their salaries on time the following term. I mention this particularly as a result of the experience in Natal when Coloured education was linked up to the Department of Coloured Affairs At the time there were several cases of persons who had to wait for their salaries as a result of administrative problems. I am aware of the fact that it even happens in White departments that teachers only receive their first salary cheque two months after they have been appointed. Since the hon. the Minister is now going to be working with the change-over to a new system, something the Minister has perhaps set his heart on making a success of. it is much more important for him to retain the good faith of his own people. This is one way in which he will lose it, i.e. if the change-over does not take place smoothly and, as far as teachers are concerned, if it cannot run smoothly in respect of the payment of their salaries.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I last heard members of the Opposition struggling so much to dish up arguments with which to oppose legislation. The hon. member for Durban Central said that this legislation was another example of paper apartheid. In the first place I want to say that in my opinion that is not only an unfounded, but also a nonsensical statement to make. In the years I have been sitting in this Parliament, the legislation on education which has been passed in respect of the various population groups has, judging from the results, been very successful. We have pointed this out repeatedly in debates to hon. members on the opposite side. We realize, however, that the Opposition will of course never want to admit the success which has already resulted from that legislation. The hon. member for Durban Central also said that the present position should really be retained under the provincial administrations, for, he said, there have during the past years already been four Ministers to whom Coloured affairs have been entrusted.

Not Coloured Affairs; education.

Yes, the educational aspect. He also alleged that different Ministers held different views. I asked him whether those “different views” were in fact differences in principle. The hon. member then tried to furnish me with a reply, but it was a noncommittal reply, which proves that there are no differences in principle. The differences which do in fact exist are probably in this sense that they will result in improvements in education, as such, for the specific group.

The hon. member for Wynberg expressed her fear that the level of education will not be equal to the level of education for White education. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?

No, not to the level of education for Coloured education existing in the Republic.

Well then, not equal to the level of Coloured education here in the Cape. We know that it is a fear complex which the United Party displays whenever educational legislation in respect of other population groups is introduced in this House. This was the case in respect of Coloured education, and the same thing happened in respect of Bantu education, and in respect of Indian education and the results, up to now, prove that their fears were completely misplaced.

Then, too, the hon. member for Wynber said that she feared for a witch-hunt in respect of the staff in the service of education there. She referred to various clauses. The other two hon. speakers also referred to those specific clauses. These are, namely clauses 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, if I understand him well, raised the objection that the regulations and the conditions of service which will apply in respect of those Coloured teachers in South-West Africa, are cast in the mould of regulations and measures which apply to Coloured teachers here in the Republic. I hope I understood him correctly and that I am not misinterpreting his words. If this is true, I would have thought that he would have welcomed it, because here we already have a well-organized department which can in many respects set examples in regard to the control of education. After all, it provides a very good guideline for the development of Coloured education in South-West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also complained about discrimination against teachers. In fact, this also emerged to a certain extent in a speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred in particular to the fact that they will not enjoy certain rights or privileges. The legislation in respect of Coloured education and the regulations which apply to Coloured teachers, just as is the case with the legislation in respect of Indian education and the regulations which apply to Indian teachers, seeks very strongly to prevent the persons concerned from becoming members of a party political organization or any other organization. In other words, restrictions are being imposed on those persons. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants even more rights for Coloured teachers in South-West Africa than Coloured teachers and teachers of other ethnic groups have in the Republic.

By means of this Bill facilities are being created to meet the educational requirements of the Coloureds in South-West Africa. The National Party is a party which bases its arguments in respect of education on sound educational principles. The National Party believes that education should be orientated to the child. In other words, the focal point of education should be the child, regardless of what ethnic group that child may belong to. In addition, the child is a member of a specific ethnic group. He must be educated, or receive a schooling in that ethnic milieu, for he must subsequently serve that specific ethnic community; in other words, we believe—and this is educationally quite correct—that education should be ethnically orientated. The general policy of the National Party is to provide every ethnic group with its own schools. The education of the children of a people can only come into its own when it is offered or developed within the scope of a distinctive system of education. This legislation proposes the machinery whereby this may be applied. The machinery is set out in the various clauses. I think that we and the hon. members on that side will be afforded a reasonable opportunity of discussing the various clauses during the Committee Stage. I want to associate myself with the hon. member who supports this legislation and say that we are convinced that this is very good legislation. I am convinced that the education for this specific population group in terms of this legislation will not be of a poorer standard than the education of other population groups in the Republic for which provision has been made by means of other legislation which has been passed here. I gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort is always critical of the attitude we adopt in regard to our concern over the divided departmental control of education. I believe that, if he were to make an in-depth study of the various sections or departments which handle the education of the various races and the amount of money that is allocated to these departments in relation to the number of students they are called upon to educate, he would realize that there are many discrepancies and many anomalies and perhaps, if he looked at it carefully, he would be led to change his views.

The hon. the Minister, in his second Reading speech, dealt with the history of the education of the Coloured people in South-West Africa and he stressed the exceptional contribution made by the mission schools. He also expressed gratitude to the church societies because, I understand, he felt that they had made considerable financial assistance available for the mission schools to function and to carry out a very useful purpose when, at the time, no other facilities were available. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s expressions of gratitude and I believe we on this side of the House associate ourselves with him in his remarks of appreciation to the mission schools.

It is interesting to observe—and I quote from the 1960 Year Book of South Africa, No. 30—that in 1960 there were 40 schools for Coloureds in South-West Africa and that they had a total enrolment of 3 700-odd pupils. Of those 40 schools, only four were Government-sponsored; the others were provided for by five different religious denominations. In 1966, six years later, the position was that the total number of schools had increased to 53 and the enrolment had increased almost 2½ times to 9 400-odd, but that the number of Government schools had increased only from four to five. Religious denominations were still bearing the main burden of the education of the Coloured people. There were one Anglican, five Methodist, 20 Rhenisch, 15 Roman Catholic, five Dutch Reformed and two undenominational schools, which had borne the burden of the education of the Coloured people in South-West Africa. While we are grateful to these people, it seems to me that it is unfortunate that in this very Bill, in terms of clause 15 (1) (e), none of these people, who may have made signal contributions to the education of the Coloureds in South-West Africa, will be able to be accepted as permanent members of the staff unless they are South African citizens. It seems to me a little unfair that some of these good people, who may have devoted the best years of their lives to this type of work in South-West Africa, may find themselves in the position that they will be regarded as merely temporary employees when this Bill is put into effect.

I have given these details because I feel they justify our objection. They also, I think, lend argument to the amendment. We feel that people such as these, who have laid the ground-work and have specialized experience and who have enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy, will gradually be taken over not by an organization within the bounds of South-West Africa, but by a department which could be in Cape Town or Johannesburg some thousands of miles away—education by remote control. The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said that the Bill provides the necessary machinery for the expansion, in due course, of all the facets of a full-fledged system of education. He went on to state that this implied from Sub-Std. A to Std. 10 and that the education provided would include vocational schools, special schools, nursery schools and also post-school training. He then referred to the question of adults and said that there would be educational opportunities for the self-development of adults by means of part-time classes.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will give some assurance with regard to these part-time classes. I hope he will be able to assure us that there will be no unnecessary difficulties encountered in establishing and maintaining these part-time classes, particularly in the initial stages. They are for adults and, by their very nature, it may be necessary to use halls and other facilities which may be situated in White areas or areas allocated to other groups. Many people who require part-time classes could be in domestic service. The only time they can get their education on a part-time basis, would be after normal hours. The only way in which they can receive that education would be for them to have these facilities easily accessible. I just hope that, in this respect, we will have a maximum of co-operation and a minimum of hindrance of other legislation which may have the same effect that has taken place in regard to the education of the urban Bantu, particularly domestic Bantu, who now, through various Acts passed by this Government, are virtually deprived of the ability to attend night schools, continuation classes and part-time classes. I hope that the hon. the Minister can give some assurance that he will take a sympathetic view, particularly when these classes are first initiated.

Then I want to raise the question of the part-time classes. They are specifically referred to in cluase 3 (1) (b) and yet they are not defined. I accept that part-time classes are not defined in the Coloured Persons Education Act, but they are defined in the Indians Education Act. It seems logical to me that there should be some definition which would indicate what the intention is in regard to the people who take part-time classes. Let me refer briefly to the definition in the Indians Education Act. It says—

The hon. the Minister referred to the teacher shortage. He said the shortage of teachers among the Coloured schools in the Coloured education system of South-West Africa was quite considerable. He referred specifically to the Nama and Baster ethnic groups and indicated that Coloured teachers were being used there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that there will be funds available when this Bill becomes law to provide some sort of crash programme in teachers’ training so that he will be satisfied that the need for teachers will be met. We on this side of the House have indicated already that we welcome the provision of compulsory school attendance, but we appreciate there that any form of implementation of compulsory education, no matter how limited in the initial stages, will be vitally dependent upon an adequate supply of suitable teachers. From experience in the Republic we can say that the Government has shown itself unable to eliminate critical teacher shortages, particularly among the non-White races.

Then the hon. the Minister referred to higher education, because he said that the needs of the different population groups will be provided according to their own needs. Then he made the profound statement, to which the hon. member for Wynberg has referred with a view to the cultural-anthropological features of each ethnic group. I find a little difficulty in getting clarity on this and I hope the hon. member for Wynberg and I will have clarity on this aspect after the Minister has replied to this debate. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what plans he has in mind for the ultimate university education of these people. I think he will accept and agree with me that it is impracticable to suggest that there will be separate ethnic universities for these groups; impracticable from the point of view of numbers and not feasible because of the terrific financial expenditure that would be involved. We only have to see the enormous expense which has been undertaken to provide three ethnic universities for some of the largest ethnic Bantu groups in South Africa who out-number in the actual number of pupils enrolled the number of Coloured pupils enrolled by 150 times. Hon. members see that these are minority groups, because according to the 1966 census estimate, the Coloureds represent under 3 per cent of the total population of South-West Africa, the Basters under 3 per cent and the Namas under 7 per cent of the total population.

My question to the Minister is as follows : Obviously the pupils from these three ethnic groups will ultimately reach university level. Where will they go? Will the Coloureds and the Basters be able to be accepted and assimilated in the University of the Western Cape? From the South-West Africa Survey I understand that they are mainly Afrikaans-speaking, but what about the Namas then? Will they be absorbed or integrated into some other Bantu ethnic university? What will be the facilities provided for them ultimately when they need university education? In the light of this Government’s policy these people must receive university education if they are ever to be in a position to implement the Government’s own policy of self-determination and separate development.

The Minister also mentioned that although in general the principles agree, there were differences. He said: “Circumstances inevitably exclude a uniform system of education”, and I join with the hon. member for Durban Central in asking what these circumstances could be. Are the differences to which he refers as great as the differences which exist between the Coloured pupils in the Cape Peninsula and the Coloured pupils in Natal, both of whom are at the present moment being educated under the same system and I take it under the same standards?

Then the Bill refers to the establishment of school committees. The Minister in his Second Reading speech referred to regional education councils which he said—and I can accept his logic for this—would not be instituted at an early stage. However, I believe that there is a glaring omission in this Bill, because as I have read the Bill and as I have understood it, there has been no provision for the establishment of an education advisory council. Surely an education advisory council is necessary, even if in the Minister’s own concept it need not be introduced at this early stage, the provision for its being brought into being as the need arises should be in the Bill, because on that basis it must help to provide the opportunities for development which is part of Government policy. Provision has been made for this education advisory council in the Coloured Persons Education Act, No. 47 of 1963. It is being provided in the Indians Education Act, No. 61 of 1965, but I see no reference to it in this Bill. If I am correct in my conclusion, I would like to urge this Minister to give serious consideration to moving an instruction either at some later stage in the debate in this House, or in the Other Place when it is being debated there, to make provision in this Bill for the establishment, when the occasion requires, of an education advisory council.

Then I want to come back to what the hon. member for Wynberg said in connection with the definition of “deviate child”. I think the choice of the word “deviate” was an unfortunate one. It may be, as the hon. member for Wynberg has suggested, that this Bill has been hurried along a little and that attention may not have been given to the wording in the English version. If one considers the dictionary definition of “deviate”, one finds that it says “to cause to swerve”, or “turning aside from the right way”. If we consider the term “handicapped”, we find that it refers to disability. Surely it is not the desire of the department to regard people who have been handicapped and who need special care as deviates, or to describe them as deviates. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether he cannot bring the term “deviate” into line with other legislation. In the Afrikaans the definition is “afwykende kind”, and that stands in the definition under the Coloured Persons Education Act and also under the Indian Education Act. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the wording of the definition is absolutely identical, so that we have “handicapped child” in those two Acts as opposed to “deviate child” in this Bill, which I think is unfortunate. This is the case, although the definitions are identical, word for word. I believe it is imperative, particularly with the interest which this Bill must enjoy in overseas circles, to eliminate a wrong impression and put the right connotation to this particular definition.

Then, in clause 3 (1) (c) we read, inter alia, that the Minister has the right to establish, to erect and to maintain hostels, etc., “and any other accessories in connection with State schools.” Will I be right in saying that the “other accessories” can possibly refer to sportsfields and school grounds? If so, I wish to address a further urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. Where I come from in Natal it is possible to tell the race of the school by the condition of its school-grounds. It is always possible to say that the Coloured schools have the worst grounds. Surely, Sir, sports grounds and the grounds of a school should be the school’s shop-window? I want to appeal to the Minister not only to see that funds will be provided under this Bill to make sure that the facilities are adequate and that they are facilities of which the pupils can be proud, but that he should also consider right away this aspect in so far as Coloured schools in the Republic are concerned.

Then, in conclusion, I want to refer briefly to clause 30, because although the clause appears in both the Indian Education Act and the Coloured Persons’ Education Act, in this particular Bill there is an addition, “a Coloured person who is a student of a university established by law”. This particular clause, as I understand it, refers mainly to the allocation of loans, bursaries and the granting of financial assistance, but I wondered what the specific reason was in the drafting of this Bill for the inclusion of this particular clause. Sir, I believe that we on this side of the House have expressed our point of view and I support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches made by hon. Ministers …

We are not Ministers yet.

… to the speeches of hon. members. I must say that I expected a somewhat smoother passage for this measure of mine through the House. I do not know whether I shall be able fully to answer all the arguments and points raised by hon. members, but I do want to assure the hon. member for Wynberg that the speech which I made when I introduced this measure was not made in unseemly haste. On the contrary, I prided myself, while I was standing here, that for a speech that was being read, it was being read very well, especially remembering that I was put off very much by the urgent conferences that were going on all the time between the Whips owing to a misunderstanding that had arisen here regarding the adjournment of the House on that Friday afternoon. In any case, I may also add that my speech was not considerably curtailed. I read the full speech which I had prepared and which, I may say, was considerably altered by myself.

In any case, the hon. member has asked me whether I have consulted with the people who are affected by this Bill and by the other two Bills that I propose bringing before this House. My reply to that is that I would like to give hon. members the history of these measures. I want to take hon. members back to the South-West Africa Affairs Act of 1969. The Schedule to that Act lists “matters in regard to which the administration of the affairs of the Territory shall be carried on by a Minister of the Republic.” Item 14 of the Schedule reads: “matters specially affecting Coloured persons (including Namas) and members of the Rehoboth Baster community, including education for the said Coloured persons and members, but excluding the entry into the Territory of Coloured persons.” The South-West Africa Affairs Act of 1969 thus actually transferred the administration of all Coloured education in South-West Africa to me. These Bills are not being brought before Parliament to bring those matters under my control. For nearly three years already the Minister of Coloured Affairs has been in full charge of the administration of education for the Coloureds of South-West Africa, the Basters of South-West Africa and the Namas of South-West Africa. I maintain, therefore, that absolutely nothing is being taken away from the Territory of South-West Africa. The Act of 1969, which was produced as a result of the report of the Odendaal Commission, was an agreed measure between this Government and the Administration of South-West Africa, and transferred the education of those three race groups to my department as far back as 1969. I think, in view of that, the amendment of the hon. member is a bit unfortunate, because it says that hon. members opposite are against this Bill because the Territory will be deprived of the control of its own educational affairs. But for three years already the Territory has not had this control; I have had this control.

But you have not been administering it.

Since 1969 already we have been administering the education of Namas, Coloureds and Basters in South-West Africa through the Secretary for Coloured Affairs and Rehoboth Affairs.

But there was no legislation on the Statute Book.

No, we administered Coloured education in South-West Africa under the South-West Africa Ordinance of 1962. We used that as the legal basis for the administration of Coloured education in South-West Africa. Hon. members on the other side will appreciate that it is a bit difficult to use an ordinance of 1962, good as it was and good as it still may be, as a legal instrument, and our only wish here is to put this matter on a proper basis. I felt, therefore —and I still feel—that although the Opposition may object, they should not object too strongly to this measure. We can in the Committee Stage go very thoroughly into the various points which they have raised here. It has been said that perhaps I am imposing something on people which they do not want. I think, Sir, that I am giving these people an education measure that is really worthwhile. There are a few features to which the Opposition has some real objection, but on the whole these are educational measures which can cater well for the education of any people.

The hon. member wants to know why I bring three separate Bills before the House. I was also asked what I mean by “cultural differences”—“kultureel-volkekundig”. I introduced this measure in Afrikaans and I used the word “kultureel-volkekundig”. I think all hon. members on both sides of the House know South-West Africa. We know that the Basters of South-West Africa are a completely separate group. They are people who came into being in the North-Western Cape through the inter-mixing of White men and Coloured women, and they formed a community—a “volk”—of their own. They trekked to South-West Africa and settled in the Rehoboth Gebiet. They have a citizenship of their own; they have their own “vaderlike wette” and they keep out of that community anybody who is not a Baster. They do not want to be known as Coloureds because they say that they are certainly not Coloured. Naturally they are not Namas, as hon. members all know. They say that they are “Basters”. They are a separate “volkekundige, kulturele groep”, and nobody can really deny that.

Then you have the Namas. They are an indigenous group in South-West Africa. They have their own Reserves and their own system of organization, and they have their own tribal system, which the Coloured people do not have. They have their own language. So the Namas are a separate group and the Coloureds, as we all know, are a separate group. So we have these three groups, and if you want to keep the anthropological part out of it, there are still cultural differences that exist among these three groups.

May I ask a question? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what these cultural or other differences have to do with education as such, because presumably education is the same whether you are White or Black or Pink or Blue.

am not basing my case on cultural differences only, but I have pointed out to the hon. member that, for instance, one of these groups has its own language, and surely language is a cultural matter. But I do not want to pursue the hon. member’s argument that you can have just one educational ordinance for Whites, Blacks, Bantu and Coloureds. I do not want to pursue that line of thought. There are cultural differences between these people, but I am not basing my case solely on that. Then these peoples also have certain constitutional institutions. They are only in their very initial stages, but on both sides of the House we take it for granted that these constitutional agencies will develop in time and there will come a time when we would like to hand over to them something of their own to administer and to control themselves, and then we will have an educational instrument for the Basters and say “Here is your educational Act, you can now carry on.” Then we need not give them something antiquated, something of 1962 which in any event does not deal specifically with their case, but we can give them something definite and tell them to carry on. The same applies to the Namas. This is more or less the explanation I give for bringing these matters before the House.

Now there have been certain arguments in connection with the measures and I would just like shortly to reply to some of them. Hon. members have said that we must not bring discrimination into the picture here. I can assure hon. members that I do not want to bring discrimination into the education of these people. In the Committee Stage we can look into this, and if hon. members can point out to me that I bring in new discriminatory measures, I will be prepared to look at that clause very thoroughly. It has been mentioned here that by one of these clauses we will now penalize people who have rendered very valuable service to education in South-West Africa, to the non-European people, people who may not be South African citizens. I will give the matter some thought. I will discuss it with my department. If there are today teachers who are performing a valuable service and who are not South African citizens, we can look at this matter when we come to the Committee Stage. But let me say that we do make provision for State schools and State-aided schools, and it is not my idea or that of my department—and we have not done so for the last few years—to take over all State-aided schools. We would like the educational set-up in South-West Africa to continue as we found it and as we have administered it now for more than two years. We have no intention in the least of changing it, but I will look into this matter, and if this stipulation here about South African citizenship will penalize some of those mission societies when they who continue with the good work they have been doing, I will look into it.

There are certain other matters, like remuneration for private work. As far as I know, that is a clause which you will find in all education ordinances and Acts. You will find in the Public Service Act that people are supposed to do the work the Government pays them for. If they want to perform outside work, they have to get the Minister’s permission. This is not something out of the ordinary. I have been asked whether I envisage ultimate university education for these people. Naturally I do, but for a small group of people like this it is something which you might say might happen in the future or might not. At present these people come to the Republic and attend teachers’ training centres in the Republic. I believe a few have attended the University of the Western Cape, and that will be the process we will continue with in future. Hon. members will see that we make provision for assisting those people with bursaries, especially as one hon. member has told the House that there is such a scarcity of these teachers in South-West Africa. The thing must be economic and you cannot put up colleges for a small group of people like that. But on the other hand I feel that provision should be made in the Act for this. The hon. member for Berea mentioned another thing which I cannot see here. He says it should have been in here even though it is not foreseeable for the near future. The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Durban Central also touched on many points and asked inter alia : What about agricultural education? Under the Act as it stands I can in effect cater for an agricultural school, because the Act gives me the power to lay down the curriculum, and the subjects that must be taught in any school. So, in effect, I can create any school and I can transform any school into an agricultural school if I want to.

In regard to part-time classes, I am very sympathetic, but the hon. member must realize that these things come slowly, it is also a matter of money. The hon. member also asked about the word “accessories”, whether this means facilities and amenities like playing-fields, etc. I cannot give the assurance that that word covers that. I will find out, but I do not think it refers to outside amenities. As the hon. members have told the House, most of these schools are State-aided schools and not State schools; we try to give subsidies and aid to those schools as far as possible, but we are also limited in our funds.

Then, with regard to standards, I would like to assure hon. members on both sides of the House that we are very keen to maintain standards. There is one thing I have found in my dealings with the Coloured people, namely that they are even more keen than we are to maintain educational standards. They do not want me or anybody else to do anything which will in the least detract from the high educational standards which they also want. If a Coloured youth comes out with his matric certificate, he wants to have all the confidence in the world to say that his certificate is at least as good as any other matric certificate. As hon. members perhaps know, my department, through its educational adviser, is a member of the Matriculation Board. The education we are dealing with here today is therefore, through my department, covered by the Matriculation Board. In that way, and through our system of inspectors, we will see to it that standards are indeed maintained. Then there is the question of appointment on probation. The hon. member could make enquiries and I would like her to do so before we come to the Committee Stage, but I can give her the assurance that all teachers in South Africa are appointed on probation, be they White, Coloured, Brown or Black.

It was never specified anywhere else that promotion should be on probation.

Not on probation.

I have referred to permanent appointments for the first time, which are done on probation. Now we come to promotions. I can give hon. members the assurance that even a European inspector of schools in South Africa is appointed on probation. He could be a complete failure and the department might want to put him back in his old grade. We could look into this. My information however is that this is not a completely strange provision. In any case, this is not the type of provision that would necessitate hon. members voting against the Bill.

Then we have participation in local affairs and political affairs. There are one or two things here which we can look into further. It is my wish that the Coloured teachers who are really the leaders of their people should participate in the organization of their own affairs, such as societies, committees, and so forth. It is indeed my wish although I do want to have some sort of check.

Then we have this matter of political participation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the point. I do not want to make any difference between a Coloured person teaching in South-West Africa and a European person teaching in South-West Africa. As much as the European teacher can become a member of a political party, an executive or chairman of the branch, so the Coloured person must have that same right, which in fact he has.

Will it be possible for such a person to become the chairman of a branch if one takes into consideration that he may not criticize a Government Department or office?

It will be quite possible for such a person to become chairman of a branch. There are such people in South-West Africa today. I think we can deal with the question of election. Hon. members will understand that as far as the House of Assembly and the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa are concerned, it can only relate to Whites who are teachers. We are not arguing about that. At the moment it is not under discussion, because the Coloured people of South-West Africa do not elect members to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The wording will possibly have to be changed when the Coloured Persons Council of South-West Africa is made an elected council. Provision will have to be made for that. I can assure hon. members that I also noticed the point made by them. It can involve a person in difficulties if he has to resign when he is nominated. He will then have to go back to his school if he does not make the grade. I do not want to promise that I shall definitely change this, but when I read through the Bill it occurred to me as well. I shall go into the matter. This is not a matter of real importance today. This clause does not enter into the matter at all because no Coloured person can seek election in terms of this section today. But when the Coloured Council of South-West Africa becomes an elected council this will enter into the matter, and in view of that I shall have to go into this point. The question is whether he has to resign on the day on which he is nominated or whether it must be the day on which he is elected.

Then there is the question of criticism. How far can a person go with criticism outside the association that has to do with his work? Since the members spoke English I have the English text here. The word “publicly” is used and in Afrikaans this is probably “in die openbaar”. It is a question of “publicly”. After all, one is not unreasonable. This type of clause is usually included with a view to the prevention of abuse. It remains a matter of discretion. It is said that might be a Minister or official who dislikes a person and who would then be stricter with him than with another person. I realize that it is a matter of discretion. The intention is not that it will apply if someone should say that he is dissatisfied with the service in a Post Office or should express some criticism against an increase in the price of petrol or whatever, or if someone is a chairman of a branch and talks with his people and deals with these matters.

What will the position be if such a person is the chairman of a branch and canvasses from door to door?

As far as I am concerned, it will be permissible.

†The hon. member asked me about the regional education council. This Bill makes provision for the establishment of school committees, as the hon. member knows. It also makes provision for the establishment of a sort of regional educational council, which will not be instituted immediately, but perhaps later on. This will actually be more like a school board. It is not my intention—I am referring to the speech of the hon. member for Berea—to establish some kind of educational advisory council at this stage. My department is represented on the education council in the Republic and I think that representation is sufficient for the moment. I shall look into the provision which deals with deviate children and if it is necessary the word can be substituted.

*That is about all I have to say about this Bill and I conclude by saying that I think it will be a good thing if these three Bills are put through Parliament and I request Parliament to pass them.

Question put : That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that this has been an exciting week, I think hon. members will need some time to return to calmness, and therefore I move—

Agreed to.