Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening in the heat of debate I made certain remarks which likened the hon. the Minister of Defence to a maggot. In the interests of this House, I withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday I reacted to this speech by the hon. member, and because I respect the dignity of this House as much as you do, Sir, I should also like to withdraw the words “maggots” and “worms”.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget debate which came to an end last Friday afternoon was probaby one of the most remarkable debates of its kind I have ever experienced in my career as a parliamentarian. We were supposed to have held a Budget debate here which would deal with financial matters, but very little was said about financial affairs.

Whose fault was that?

For one day a few of the eight wise gentlemen of the Opposition, who had to bring a charge against the Government, aired their opinions of the Budget. For five long days we had to sit here, and for five long days I had to sit here waiting to hear, on one day only, a few feeble remarks from the Opposition on the Budget. It is true that during the last few days there were a few members, such as the hon. members for Green Point and Jeppes, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and others, who rose to make certain comments of a financial nature, but these were of an ephemeral nature, and contributed little to clarifying the debate. And this, Sir, after we had for months already been hearing, both inside and outside this House, about the tremendous importance of this Budget of last month, and after we had heard in the Press and hear in Parliament that this Budget had been one of the most important Budgets ever introduced in South Africa, and at least one of the most important Budgets of the past twenty years. This Budget, it was said, was a particularly critical Budget, one upon which the future of South Africa would depend, and one which would determine whether the National Party Government would or would not survive. What did we have, Sir? For five long days we sat here and during those five long days we heard, virtually for one day only, tepid and insignificant, apathetic criticism from the hon. members of the Opposition.

That the Opposition was in trouble we noticed the first day already when the hon. member for Parktown rose to speak here. The hon. member for Parktown also rose to speak immediately after I had made my Budget speech, and I have never before seen him so frustrated and so disappointed. The hon. member is a member who has a great deal of confidence in himself; that is as I have come to know him, but I have seldom before seen him at such a loss as he was on that Wednesday afternoon. The hon. member is a fairly eloquent speaker; sometimes he has a quite poetic turn of phrase; sometimes he has quite a Shakespearian turn of phrase, but when the hon. member had to rise to speak that Wednesday afternoon of the 29th March he really did not know what to say or how he should say it. The hon. member had brought along with him a sheaf of notes, which he had apparently made before he heard the Budget, and which he then had to use in respect of a Budget which turned out quite differently to what he had expected. Therefore, to use the English words, one could see that the hon. member was “flustered”: he floundered in every way. The same thing became apparent when the hon. member rose on Monday to go further into this Budget. There was dead silence while he was speaking. There was no reaction from that side of the House. The only jollity, hilarity and reaction the hon. member elicited was when he referred in an uncalled for way to my friend, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, and mentioned what a newspaper had supposedly written the week before, i.e. that a previous Minister of Economic Affairs would have to be called back to the Cabinet.

Do you agree with that?

Sir, those hon. members must not be so quick to speak; they must not be so quick to rejoice over matters which can bring them no joy. Have they forgotten that their own Press has stated, not once but several times, that if the United Party should ever come into power they will include people from the private sector in their Cabinet, and that they have on numerous occasions already said that they will include people, particularly from commerce and industry, in their Cabinet? In other words, the Press of those hon. members has proved that they do not have confidence in those hon. members and in the wise hon. stars sitting there. They want to ask people from outside, from commerce and industry, to serve in that Cabinet. The hon. member for Parktown should be very careful about what he says, for only recently their newspapers were writing that the future Minister of Finance should be Dr. Frans Cronje. Sir, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Sir, why is it that after twelve days of rest, quiet and calm after the Budget had been delivered, the Opposition put up such a poor show, twelve days in which they did, after all, have time to ponder the Budget and to consult one another? Why could they not do any better? In the first place, the reason for that is to be found in the fact that this Budget was received by the general public, by all sectors of the public, in a much better way than hon. members on that side ever feared or expected. I do not have the time now to go into all the criticisms and into all the ways in which this Budget was received, but if hon. members will consult the Press, they will find that this Budget was received by other bodies and other persons, that know something about this matter, in a way a Budget has seldom if ever been received before. Sir, if you will allow me, I just want to quote a few of the scores of extracts from the Press. I do not want to talk about the newspapers themselves, but about the various bodies: but let me just mention a few newspapers here first which are not kindlv-disposed towards me. I take the Rand Daily Mail first : “Given the limitations within which he had to work. Dr. Diederichs has done a creditable job with his sixth Budget”. The following newspaper I want to quote is The Star : “Diederichs has set the scene for a big boost to the economy”. The Cape Times: “A shrewd udget all round”. The Rand Daily Mail: “Industry, commerce: two cheers”.

Two cheers!

Yes, one from commerce and one from industry. Here is a summary of the opinions of all the various bodies—

It is then mentioned here how Mr. Back, the president of the Chamber of Industries, praises this Budget; then reference is made here to Mr. Sher, the president of Assocom, who praised the Budget; the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the trade unions and the bankers were mentioned here. This Budget was praised throughout by all the major bodies as a Budget which in all respects achieved its objects. The Stock Exchange is also mentioned here—

We then come to the farmers’ associations—

We find that the banks, in the words of Mr. Oxford, welcomed the improvement of credit facilities. We find that the National Board of Executors accepted this Budget with praise. We find that various professors, who according to the United Party are always opposed to us, welcomed this Budget. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why hon. members on that side were not capable of criticizing this Budget, which was in general accepted by the public and various bodies. Of course there was criticism as well; of course there were people who did not agree entirely with this Budget. Of course there were people who found fault with certain parts of this Budget, for it is after all impossible to prepare a Budget which will satisfy everyone, and with which everyone will agree. I think that even if you could persuade the Angel Gabriel to prepare a Budget, there would still be criticism. Even if you were to get all the eight wise stars on that side of the House together to prepare a Budget jointly, you would still have criticism. But there is another reason why hon. members on that side do not want to accept this Budget, and why their criticism was so extremely poor. This second reason for the weakness of their criticism lies therein that they have absolutely no logical policy or standpoint in regard to the economy of our country and because they do not know what a Budget at this particular juncture in South Africa should look like. Hon. members on that side did not succeed in analysing, what they regard as the sickness, the weakness in our economy, correctly, and they succeeded even less in indicating methods according to which the so-called weaknesses in our economy could be eliminated. We on this side have frequently been accused of not having a policy, but if I must judge from the contributions made by hon. members on that side last week, then I must say that I have never heard such lack of policy, such lack of direction, in the financial sphere as I did last week in this House. Not only did they differ one from the other, but the same speaker frequently differed with himself in the same speech. Not only did they contradict one another, but the same speaker frequently contradicted himself, as I shall indicate in a moment. The only solution they bring to our problems and difficulties is as always the same old cry of making greater use of Black labour in our country. Of course they discussed the problems of the low growth rate, the increasing prices, and the balance of payments deficit. These are things with which all of us are acquainted. These are problems which not only we are experiencing; these are problems which are being experienced in all parts of the world. But hon. members on the opposite side were not able to indicate to us any course to take. If we analyse the contributions made by hon. members on that side, we find that particularly the hon. member for Gardens, probably the most pessimistic member who has ever sat in this House, could not find words strong enough to condemn this Budget.

Ooh-hoo!

Order! That hon. member must behave himself.

The one question to which we all had to find a reply, and to which the hon. member had to furnish a reply, is this: What is the true nature and character of our economic and financial problems? The question confronting us is whether the economy is too hot or too cold. Was the total demand for goods and services during the past year, in proportion to the available supply, too high, or was it too low? Was our problem during the past year a problem of labour shortages, of bottlenecks and of a pressure on our limited resources, or was our problem in the economy a problem of under-utilization, of unemployment and of surplus capacity? Those were the problems confronting us, and we expected hon. members on that side to give us guidance and indicate a course to take, in their criticism. Some speakers on that side said that we were confronted by a problem of demand inflation and that we should stimulate our growth rate as rapidly as possible. Others, on the other hand, said that we were on the verge of a recession, and that we should stave off this recession. The hon. member for Parktown did not know which way to go. He only knew that he must go against the Government. On the one hand we received, in the speech made by the hon. member, complaints concerning a high rate of inflation, the deficit on the current balance of payments account, a so-called deficit on the Budget, and we received from him complaints about the amount of money which is being injected into the economy. He complained about the use of the Stabilization Fund, and discussed the use of funds for the Revenue Account which were intended for the Loan Account. If we consider all these complaints made by the hon. member as a whole, we must deduce from them that his problem in regard to the economy is that the economy is over-heated and that we are dealing with a problem of demand inflation, that it is a threatening danger and that we should have adopted measures against this demand inflation and against this excess money. That is one aspect of the picture he painted. On the other hand the hon. member painted a picture the reverse of this one. He said that the economic measures of the Government were the fundamental cause of the downturn in the economy. He said the Budget had not stimulated growth sufficiently. He said credit control had not been relaxed to a sufficient degree; in other words, we must afford people more and more opportunities for incurring debt. He said the relaxation of the hire purchase restrictions on motor-cars was insufficient; in other words, we must allow people to purchase more motor-cars. He said the sales duty had not been reduced sufficiently; in other words, we must increase the buying power of those people in that way as well. This is the opposite image he depicted to us. On the one hand he actually warns against inflation; on the other hand he paints us a different picture of a recessionistic economy. I think the hon. member for Parktown must decide now whether the economy is too hot or whether it is too cold. Must we, according to him, inject more money into the economy, or must we inject less money into the economy? Must we curb spending to check inflation, or must we stimulate spending to promote growth? The hon. member is like a person who wants to drive to the left, but at the same time wants to move right.

But there is something else which worried the hon. member tremendously. What worried him was that there was such a small deficit on last year’s Revenue Account. The hon. member prepared himself to come to this debate and be able to attack the Government on the tremendous deficit on the Revenue Account of last year’s Budget, but how disappointed he was when he came here to find that our deficit on the Budget of last year was only slightly more than R4 million. Then the hon. member began to look for methods with which to prove —and I see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks so, too, because he is laughing about this.

No, I am laughing at you.

He began to look for methods to prove that this deficit was far greater than the indicated R4,3 million. What did he do then? We began with an initial balance of R72.5 million. Virtually every Budget begins with an initial balance. This is the transfer from the previous year to the next on Revenue Account. This is customary in the economy. We began with an initial balance of R72,5 million. Last year we budgeted for an initial balance this year, for a surplus of R39,7 million, and found that this year it was R72,5 million. In addition to that we have R39,l million which we voted last year from the Revenue Account to the Loan Account, and we found that the Loan Account no longer needed this amount, and we then returned it to the Revenue Account, where it belongs. Now the hon. member said that if we had not done these things, there would have been a deficit. Surely that is quite right. Surely that is budgeting practice. It is what happens every day and in every country, i.e. that one begins with a surplus from the previous year which you transfer to the next year. It is quite in order that we should return to the Revenue Account, where it belongs, money from the Revenue Account which we intended for the Loan Account, but then found the Loan Account did not need. However, my hon. friend states that if the hon. the Minister had not done this and if the hon. the Minister had not done that, he would have had a deficit of R130 million. But we are not discussing “ifs” here. We have nothing to do with “ifs”. The hon. member could just as well have said that if my revenue had decreased by R100 million and my expenditure had increased by R100 million I would have had a deficit of R200 million. However, this did not happen. These things did not happen either, and the hon. member was unnecessarily startled at what should not have been.

The hon. member said the following, inter alia, about the Budget—

Again my hon. friend was wrong in his calculations. My income is less than I expected, but not as a result of economic circumstances. My income is less as a result of diminished import duties—R20 million—because during the last quarter of this financial year fewer commodities were imported.

Why?

Because there was import control.

Why?

My income is lower as a result of a diminished excise duty yield on liquor of approximately R37 million, owing to resistance on the part of the public, and as a result of a decrease of R8 million in excise duty yield on motor vehicles because the public bought fewer vehicles as a result of stricter hire purchase conditions.

And this has nothing to do with the economy?

What does this have to do with the economy? The true indication is the internal revenue. The internal revenue which is the true and a better barometer of the economy, appears to be R21 million more than we originally budgeted for.

That is a very serious matter in regard to which I have to take the hon. member to task. I refer to an announcement made on the morning of the day on which I delivered my Budget speech, by the President of the Reserve Bank, to the effect that the limit on loans for discounting would be increased by 5 per cent and that the limit or the ceiling on investments by monetary banks would be raised by 10 per cent. Together this would result in an amount of R140 million, which would in that way flow into the economy of the country. What did my hon. friend say about that?—

I wonder whether the hon. member knows what a serious accusation he was making there, a serious accusation that the monetary banks would in the month of March alone exceed their limit by R140 million. Does the hon. member not realize what a serious charge he was in that way making against the integrity of the banks? [Interjections.] What is more, why did he say the following? He said— “I am told”. Therefore, he heard this somewhere. Is that the way in which we should conduct debates in this House? Is that the way in which we should argue about the serious problems in the country—with stories picked up in the street, in the club or somewhere else? “I am told”.

He heard it from Wiley.

That is what the hon. member came forward with and attacked the banks in the country. I think these are random allegations, which are not befitting the hon. member. The hon. member for Constantia, to whom I shall come in a moment, did something similar. The hon. member also said, and I do not want to go into this—

I think I shall tell the hon. member to go back and read my Budget speech where it deals with this. Another point which the hon. member also feels very badly about is that my department, with the assistance of my colleagues on this side, has succeeded in curbing the expenditure for the coming year to such an extent that it is only 5,9 per cent more than in the previous year. I have already referred to the fact that this is a major achievement which could only take place owing to the loyal co-operation of my colleague. Now the hon. member claims for himself and that side of the House the credit for that, for, he says, it is they who said this, it is they who demanded this. He said that he just wanted to tell me that if I was able to do this now, I could have done it previously as well. Then he said that I had supposedly said, previously, that it was not possible, but that I had in fact proved now that it was in fact possible. While I am not denying that there could have been curbs in regard to the Budget of previous years, I do want to tell the hon. member that if we had not, in the previous years, incurred major expenditure, it would not have been possible to introduce these major curbs now. Much of the expenditure incurred during the previous year was expenditure in respect of our infrastructure, something which is vitally necessary for continued growth in this country. If this had not been done at that stage, it would have had to have been done in this year’s Budget.

I want to concede one thing to the hon. member. The hon. member is correct when he says that I used up the full R161,5 million in my Stabilization Fund. The hon. member was tremendously shocked at the fact that the R161,5 million which was left over in the Stabilization Fund has been used to balance the Revenue Budget and to deposit an amount in the Loan Budget. He was shocked to such an extent that he almost cried out, like Hamlet—

That means he is bewailing the fact that our coffers are almost empty. Hon. members will recall what happened two or three years ago when I proposed the introduction and the building up of this Stabilization Fund. Hon. members will still recall what the reaction was from the hon. members on that side of the House, and specifically the hon. member for Parktown. Does he still remember how he criticized me over the fact that we had supposedly withdrawn money unnecessarily from the public sector and put it in safe-keeping there so that it did not have to be used in the Budget of our State? Now that the money is being used, he is the one who is tremendously concerned about the fact that our coffers are virtually empty now. If the hon. members had been in power there would have been no coffers in which the money could be found.

I come now to the hon. member for Von Brandis. He fell into the same difficulties as the hon. member for Parktown. He contradicted himself to such an extent that he did not know where he was. He could not understand this; he could not comprehend that; and the hon. member must tell us now whether we are in a situation of over-heating or whether we are in a situation of recession. The hon. member said that our major problem in this country was the problem of too little growth. If that is his standpoint, then it is quite correct, but then he went further and stated—

In other words, what the hon. member is suggesting is that we have problems of inflation and problems with our balance of payments because we in South Africa are allegedly growing slowly. In other words, if you want to extricate the country from inflation and want to rectify the balance of payments, only one possibility remains open to you, and that is to open all the sluice-gates and to grow for all you are worth; you must grow with might and main and at all costs in order to overcome inflation and make the balance of payments sound. Surely the hon. member knows that is not so. Surely he knows that, as far as a young country like South Africa is concerned, the faster it grows, and especially if it grows beyond its limits, the more pressure there will be on the balance of payments and the more inflation there will be. The hon. member is putting matters in completely the wrong order. If he were correct, we would be able to bring about a surplus on our balance of payments and to eliminate inflation. If we want to reduce taxation and abolish credit control, we will have to set to work very expansionistically in the monetary and fiscal spheres. The hon. member knows that it is an absolutely false argument, which will not hold water.

The hon. member furthermore accused the Government of having caused the difficulties in the country because we had tried to suppress growth in recent years. Mr. Speaker, this Government has not tried to suppress real growth. Our movements and attempts in recent years have been aimed at halting inflation, at suppressing the demand for goods and services, which had become too great. We applied fiscal and monetary methods in order to bring this about. I want to know from the hon. member what South Africa’s position would have been today if we had not used fiscal and monetary methods over the past six years. What would our position not have been as far as inflation is concerned? The Government remains in favour of growth, but it believes that growth can be based only on stability. Therefore we are seeking in the first place to infuse stability into the economy in order to base our growth on that. The hon. member for Von Brandis was guilty of even more contradictions. He said that all direct measures of control, such as price control, import control and interest rate control, were the result of restrictive monetary and fiscal measures of the Government. The hon. member is completely off the mark. If the liberal policy he advocates were followed, it would be much more necessary to introduce these restrictive measures.

The hon. member for Constantia also made certain observations here. He finds himself in a very dualistic position. A moment ago I referred to members who cannot decide in which direction the economy is moving. I mentioned examples from the courses of action adopted by two members. The finest example of this was the course of action adopted by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member spoke about “the factor of deficit budgeting”. He said—

Yes.

Did I hear someone say “yes”? That is the standpoint the hon. member adopted. He gave us a whole paragraph full of proofs of how, as a result of the method of budgeting, “the position has become highly inflationary”. Only two minutes later the hon. member said, “To me the whole Budget conveyed the impression of being a damping-down Budget.” I see the hon. member is even shaking his head. How can one understand that anyone can in the same speech label the Budget as “highly inflationary” and then a few minutes later as a “damping-down” Budget? These are the contradictions we get in the actions of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Constantia not only differs with his colleagues, but with himself as well. Together with the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member sinned very badly. He also referred to the R140 million extra which is now going to be given to monetary banks and with which they may increase their credit. Just as the hon. member for Parktown said, i.e. that he had heard, “I have been told”, that this merely maintained the established position, the hon. member for Constantia also said, “It is really little more than making honest men of the bankers; in other words, legalizing an existing de facto position.” What was the hon. member insinuating by that? Was the hon. member insinuating by that that in the past month the bankers of South Africa had acted dishonourably, that they had exceeded their credit ceilings by R140 million in a dishourable way? The hon. member must have been insinuating that. The hon. member is of the opinion that in one month, in March, the banks in this country exceeded their credit ceiling by R140 million. This is a tremendous reflection on the banks. Did the hon. member obtain his information from the same source as the hon. member for Parktown did? Would they perhaps give us the source of their information? Neither the hon. member for Constantia, nor the hon. member for Parktown nor the informant who told them this could have known anything about what they have alleged. The Treasury does not know it, nor does the Reserve Bank. The only available figures are those at the end of February. The figures at the end of February show that banks were approximately R7 million or R8 million above their credit limit. However, hon. members say that the banks were R140 million above their credit limit. I have simply made decent people of them now.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens apparently realized that his colleagues were making no impression with their arguments, and then decided to try to make an impression by the harshness of his language. We have heard many Jeremiahs in this House, but I have never heard a bigger Jeremiah than the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. The hon. member for Parktown can also act like a Jeremiah sometimes, but possesses the exceptional gift of singing the Lamentations of Jeremiah to the tune of the Song of Solomon. However, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is a worse Jeremiah than Jeremiah himself. Just listen to his words, and this was the crux of his argument: “The economy reduced to an almost all-time low; the man in the street suffering; the harsh implementation of tax policies; the high and almost uncontrollable cost-of-living; the economy in its disastrous state; chaos and crisis.” This is the language that was used by the hon. member. It was no analysis, but an attempt at gathering together the most unbridled and wild language one can use in order to abuse this Budget. Apparently the hon. member knew that he had no arguments to use in the Budget debate. For this reason he resorted to the use of harsh, sharp and unbridled language. I want to say to him too what Horatio said to Hamlet : “Wild and whirling words.” However, the hon. member did touch upon one point of which one should perhaps take note. The hon. member charged me with having made certain statements about motor-cars at five minutes past three in my Budget speech, while the Stock Exchange closed only at 3.30 p.m. He spoke of a “severe error of judgment”. It was therefore a tremendous mistake I had made by announcing something about motor-cars at 3.05, while the Stock Exchange closed only at 3.30. Does the hon. member not know that the purpose of keeping a Budget secret is that unauthorized persons should not obtain information before others so as to derive benefit from it for themselves? In this case the Budget was broadcast. It was broadcast in both English and Afrikaans throughout the length and breadth of the country, so that the same information was made available to everyone in the country simultaneously. Nobody was given any undue advantage by it. I think the only way of satisfying the hon. member would have been to close the Stock Exchange on that day. I must say I have never heard of any necessity that the Stock Exchange should close on the day the Budget is presented.

I now come to my hon. friend, the member for Pinetown. He did not provide much clarity either. On the contrary; as always, the hon. member asked the usual questions. The first question he asked was in regard to participation bonds. He said:

I can inform the hon. member that in 1971 participation bonds increased by an amount of R173 million to a total of R686 million. The periods of these bonds vary, but in most cases the period is three years, with the possibility of an extention.

In this regard I also want to provide some clarity about questions put by the hon. member for Green Point, and I want to do so by just emphasizing the following facts. The maximum rate of 8½ per cent which was announced does not include the service fee of the managing company. In other words, the company may charge a service fee of more than 8½ per cent. The maximum of 8½ per cent applies only to new bonds. If a participant claims his money in an existing participation bond and his share is transferred to another person, the maximum is not applicable.

In the third place, hon. members know that deposits at banks are sometimes subject to withdrawal within a particular period after notice has been given by the depositor. Such notice may be given at any time. For the purpose of interest rate control it is deemed that in all such cases notice was given on 29th March, 1972, so that the deposit contract is terminated after the expiration of the notice period. Therefore, if the deposits are retained at the bank concerned after this date, i.e. after the expiration of the period of notice, the maximum rates of interest are applicable. Participation bonds, however, are dealt with differently. Investments in such bonds are usually for a period of three years, after which the investor may give notice for the purpose of claiming his money. But in this case it is not deemed that notice was given on 29th March. As long as the participation bond is maintained, the interest rate may be maintained.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am coming to the hon. member’s problems now. The hon. member for Green Point said the following (Hansard, 14th April, 1972, page C2)—

My reply to the hon. member is as I read out a moment ago; the existing rate of interest rate is maintained as long as the bond is maintained. The hon. member also expressed his concern about another aspect. He said (Hansard, 14th April, 1972, page C2 (a))—

In my opinion—and I think the hon. member will agree with me—tackling a project of this nature, such as a township, before the necessary capital is available to complete it is a very unhealthy way of financing. The Registrar of Financial Institutions has repeatedly warned against this practice. I want to say, however, that with the present more relaxed tendency in respect of interest rates, especially as we expect the position will be in future, it is not at all out of the question that it will be possible to obtain the necessary funds on the public market at 8½ per cent. In order to reassure the hon. member, I also want to say this: The Registrar of Financial Institutions is at present conducting discussions with the various trust companies and all interested parties about this type of bond. All the problems which have arisen in that regard will be examined thoroughly now. We shall see to it that this scheme runs as smoothly as possible and with the least trouble.

There is one further point which the hon. the Minister has not dealt with. Will a bond agreed to on 29th March but not yet registered be permitted to go through without the 8½ per cent restriction, or is this a matter which will be dealt with in the discussions that will take place?

This is one of the matters which will be discussed now by the trust companies and the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

A great deal has been said about the grey market and the black market. We are all inclined to speak in very condemnatory terms of the grey market and the black market, but I think we should realize that the grey market also has a purpose in the country, and that we cannot condemn it completely. The grey market is the borrowing of money between company and company, between individual and individual or between individual and company. Often those loans serve a very good purpose. It is only when the grey market assumes proportions that render the monetary control of the authorities powerless that it becomes dangerous. Hon. members will know that a grey market of that nature exists mainly where banks lend themselves to providing a guarantee in respect of loans between lender and borrower. We are investigating the matter, at the momnet so as, if need be perhaps to introduce legislation before the end of the session in order to prohibit that guarantee by a bank.

The hon. member for Green Point also asked a question in regard to transfer duties. He asked whether I should not reduce transfer duties in respect of houses under R15 000. The hon. member has repeatedly put this question in different forms in the past. I can give him the assurance that we have often investigated these problems and that we have looked at them very sympathetically, but I regret to say that I have not yet been able to find a way of meeting that, because of the large amounts I would have to sacrifice as a result of it. If the economy develops as we hope it will in the coming years, it will perhaps become easier to do something like this.

I come now to Land Bank debentures. Hon. members will know that in the third report of the commission of inquiry on fiscal and monetary policy the opinion was expressed that for the purposes of the Bank Act the definition of liquid assets should be narrowed down. This matter is at present enjoying the attention of the Technical Committee on Banks and Building Societies. It has come to my attention that the resultant uncertainty is having a very unfavourable effect on the marketability of short-term debentures issued by the Land Bank and which at present qualify as liquid assets. On this occasion I want to make it very clear that the Government has not yet decided about this matter and that, no matter what is decided eventually, existing obligations issued by the Land Bank as well as any later obligations issued by the Land Bank will continue to qualify as liquid assets until the expiry date, until it has been decided what will be done.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked me about foreign investments in South Africa.

†I just want to tell the hon. member that foreign investment in South Africa will be as welcome as ever. The hon. member will recall that in my Budget speech I mentioned that last year we had a considerable inflow of foreign capital, more than R700 million. By far the greater part of those investments has been in respect of private, permanent capital. This Government has always welcomed the investment of foreign moneys in this country, not only because we need those investments for quicker growth, but because of the knowhow which usually accompanies these funds, and because of the contacts which such foreign investments bring to South Africa. I think it was the hon. member for Gardens who said that “nothing that has been done is likely to create overseas investment in this country on a long-term basis”. The statement I have just made, and which I also made last year, namely that in one of the most difficult years of our history in the financial sphere we attracted a large amount of foreign capital, shows that the hon. member is completely wrong in what he says.

*The hon. member for Pinetown also raised a very interesting matter, i.e. in connection with international relations. The hon. member asked me whether I expected that there would be clarity and stability in the international sphere. This was his question (Hansard manuscript, 10th April, 1972, p. JJ3)—

I am sorry to have to say to the hon. member that in my opinion no lasting solution has yet been found in respect of the international monetary problems. In spite of the “realignment of currencies”, the Smithsonian Agreement made in Washington last December, it is clear to me that no calm and peace has yet been achieved in the monetary sphere. I will not say that there will be a crisis in the monetary sphere this year. This year the most important event in the international sphere is apparently the election of the American President. Before the election of the American President, America, at any rate, will do everything in its power to avert a monetary crisis. What is going to happen early next year nobody can predict, but as far as I am concerned, I find that the monetary future is not very clear. The most important problems in this sphere are the problems of what should take the place of the dollar, the problem of the convertibility of the dollar, the problem of the position of gold in the international monetary system, and the problem of the short-term commitments of 50-60 million dollars which America has towards the rest of the world. No solution has yet been found to these problems. Hon. members have probably noticed that only recently there was talk that SDRs should take the place of the dollar, because the dollar would no longer be accepted in future as the actual means of payment as it was in the past, and that something should be found in place of the dollar. Many experts think that SDRs—paper gold—should take the place of the dollar. But there are also many who rightly believe that SDRs are still an unproved means, that they have not yet withstood the test of time, that they have not yet inspired confidence and that it would be wrong to put SDRs in the place of the dollar at this stage. There is the problem of the future of gold. Hon. members have probably noticed that recently the message came from official circles in America that America may consider putting its $10 billion in gold on the open market, as a result of which the price of gold on the free market would be completely upset. My personal opinion in this regard is that we need not be afraid of this. After all, the American Government is a responsible one and I cannot believe for one moment that it would commit such an irresponsible act. If, for monetary reasons, the American Government thought it no longer needed that $10 billion of gold, I think it would find in future that it in fact needed that gold for military and stategic reasons. I do not think the American Government would consider selling its gold, because it must take into account the views of other countries, the countries of Western Europe, and I cannot imagine the countries of Western Europe tolerating something like that. There are still many problems in the international sphere. The hon. member asked me whether a conference such as the Bretton Woods one would be held again. I do not think another one like that will be held soon. Big conferences, at which 120 countries are represented, never solve problems. Problems of this nature are solved only by smaller groups, and big conferences are than requested to endorse these solutions. The hon. member probably knows too that there are moves afoot in this sphere; that there are moves to establish a new body larger than the Group of Ten, but smaller than the one America in particular is striving to establish. The hon. member knows that the Group of Ten is composed of the 10 richest countries in the world, mostly European countries and including Japan, America and Canada. In recent years this Group of Ten has played a tremendous part in international monetary politics, but apparently America is not completely satisfied with the actions and influence of these Ten and is seeking to have a group of, say 20 people formed, who would probably be governors of the International Monetary Fund, in order to do the preparatory work for an international monetary structure. I do not think a solution has been found for the world’s monetary problems, but nor do I think that a crisis will come this year.

I conclude, Sir, by saying that the Budget I introduced two weeks ago should be seen against the background of the past year. The past year was one of the most difficult years we have experienced in South Africa in recent times, a difficult time not only nationally, but also internationally. Every country in the world experienced those difficulties in the monetary and financial pheres. At present we have a different climate, a climate of new confidence, both domestically and abroad. A new spirit is discernible in the economy of South Africa. The fact that we have such wonderful surpluses on our balance of payments account week a ter week and that our reserves are steadily increasing every day, has brought new life and a new optimism into the South African economy. We are entering the year ahead with great optimism. But I want to warn that, while we believe that we are approaching a year of prosperity, we should not be too greedy, that we should not want to demand all the prosperity immediately, that we should not hasten the harvest, but that we should build carefully on firm ground and build solidly at the prosperity of the future. The position is such that there are signs of much better times. We on this side have confidence in the future of our economy, and we hope that side will help us to strengthen that confidence among our people.

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, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 to 3 :

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity briefly to draw attention to a matter which I think should be considered by the Government. We have considerably enlarged and renovated our Parliamentary Buildings in recent years. I am thinking of the enlargement of the Assembly Building and particularly of the offices of members, which now provides us with reasonably comfortable accommodation and enables us to do our work under favourable circumstances. In recent years a considerable amount has also been spent …

Order! Does the hon. member want to talk about a building?

Yes, in so far as it concerns the State President.

It is not relevant under this Vote. The hon. member may discuss it under the Vote “Public Works”.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) cannot derive sufficient benefit from the instruction normally provided in the ordinary course of education; or
2. (b) requires special education in order to facilitate his adaptation to the community; or
3. (c) should not attend an ordinary class in an ordinary school, because such attendance may be harmful to himself or to the other pupils in such class; (ii)

and in lines 28 and 34, page 5, respectively, to omit “deviate” and to substitute “handicapped”.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister indicated as a result of my appeal to him that he would look into the provision which deals with deviate children and if necessary, that the word “deviate” would be substituted by the word “handicapped”. In view of the fact that the term “handicapped” has been accepted in the Coloured Persons Education Act, and also in the Indian Education Act, and because it has a better connotation than the term “deviate”, I would like to urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. I do so because I believe that the word “deviate” can be defined as “turning aside from the right way”. It could have a meaning not intended in so far as children who may be mentally or physically handicapped are concerned. I trust that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment in that spirit.

Mr. Chairman., I rise just to indicate that I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 :

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move—

I made this point in my Second Reading speech and I made it advisedly because the definition of “schools”, as I pointed out on Friday, in terms of Act 47 of 1963, which deals with Coloured pupils in the Republic, specifically incorporates agricultural schools. As the hon. the Minister knows there is already an experimental farm in the Rehoboth Gebied for pupils who want to be instructed in agriculture. To omit it from this clause is a great pity, particularly in view of the fact that South-West Africa as a territory is perhaps more suitable for this type of school than almost any other area that I can think of. On those grounds I move these amendments.

Order! I am sorry I am unable to accept this amendment as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling completely, but the hon. the Minister was kind enough to say, in reply to the Second Reading, that he would give this matter his consideration in due course, and I would like to think that he will do that.

Sir, as the clause reads here it states “The Minister may … establish, erect and maintain training colleges, training schools, high schools, secondary schools, primary schools, vocational schools, special schools and homes”. Personally, I think that if one takes, for instance the matter of technical schools, I think that if there is a dire need among the Coloured community, it is for technical education and for technical schools. My experience of the Coloured people has taught me that above all else, if I can give them technical schools throughout the country, it will mean a tremendous amount to them. So, I take the view that I do have the power to introduce courses for any kind of schooling under clause 27, as you will see. I take the view that I can introduce courses for agricultural training and also for technical training at any school in South-West Africa. That is the reason why I feel that in view especially of the ruling of the hon. Chairman, we can leave this matter as it is for the time being.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have this assurance from the hon. the Minister. But I wonder whether he would not go a little further and take this Committee into his confidence. This matter of agricultural schools, and even technical schools, as he himself points out, is something which is most important. Surely, Sir, the whole object of the education of these people in South-West Africa is to educate them in some field which they can use, in some sphere in which they can make a living and be useful to their own people and to their country, and of course to their own territory of South-West Africa. Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister is quite right. In terms of clause 27 he does have the power to institute any “course” in any Government school. But surely, Sir, when it comes to technical and to agricultural schools, these are specialized institutions. These are institutions which require special facilities which cannot be instituted merely as a “course” in an established school. Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister did, in the course of his reply to the Second Reading debate, indicate that he would give his consideration to this matter. As I said, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would take us into his confidence this afternoon and give us some indication of whether he will at least consider this and if necessary move an amendment in the Other Place. Because I feel, Sir, that what we need and what we are asking for here is something more than just a course at a school. We are asking for a school with the proper facilities for carrying out this agricultural training.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the ruling on the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg in connection with this particular amendment. But does that not mean, however, that if the amendment of the hon. member broadens the scope of the Bill, that the Minister does not have the power that we hope he does have, and which he claims to have under the clause as it stands. If he does not have that power, does it not make it more necessary than ever that he should, in the Other Place, give consideration to seeking an instruction whereby he can extend the scope of the Bill to give him that particular power?

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

If this amendment is accepted it will mean that the Minister may at any time, after consultation with the school boards or school committees, close or disestablish any State school or any hostel, teachers’ quarters, school clinic or other accessories used in connection with a State school. I believe that this amendment is a very reasonable one and that it will go a long way in cultivating good relations between the local Coloured communities in South-West Africa and the hon. the Minister and his department. South-West Africa is a very long way from Pretoria and Cape Town. I know for a fact that thousands of people in Pretoria and Cape Town have never even had the opportunity of visiting South-West Africa. According to what we have accepted already, the hon. the Minister will have all the control. When it comes to such an important matter to a local community as a decision to close a school, I think there must at all times be consultation with the local people. We know that in terms of clause 34 there will be the school boards and school committees which will have certain powers and duties. But if we accept clause 3 as it stands, we will then, of course, deprive these people of having any real power. The degree of success of cultivating a feeling of involvement of the local community in the affairs of their schools, will never be achieved if this subsection is not amended.

*I believe that it is, after all, the ultimate object for the local community, or peoples, to manage their own education. If we were to provide here that such a school may simply be closed without prior consultation with the school board or the school committee, we would be looking for trouble. In this clause it is laid down that the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may establish certain schools. I accept that as far as the establishment of schools is concerned, the Minister will naturally receive certain representations from the local community beforehand and that, when he proceeds to establish a school, contact will, in fact, be made with the various local communities. However, when it comes to the closing of a school, the hon. the Minister must admit that these people may feel that their feelings have not been taken into consideration. All of us would like to see that when the provisions of this measure are implemented in practice, there should or may never be any reason for people to feel that they have been overlooked in the process. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. In the normal course of events one could have asked the Minister to consult the Coloured Advisory Council on education, but in the whole of this legislation there is no reference whatsoever to the advisory council on education, although reference is made to school boards and school committees. I also have to remind hon. members that as far as White education is concerned, particularly in the provinces where we have school boards, the department will, after all, never close a school without consulting the local inhabitants on the matter. The hon. the Minister may now argue that he is not in a position to contact these people every time this happens. However, he will appreciate that, in terms of this legislation, he is not expected to do everything himself. All the powers contained in clause 3 are powers the Minister may delegate. This is indicated under other clauses. At this stage I should like to hear from the Minister how he feels about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, there are very few schools in South-West Africa as it is—why then would I close schools left, right and centre? I should much prefer to have more schools there. If one wants to convert-State-aided schools into State schools, adequate provision is being made in the Bill as it reads at present for all the people concerned to be duly consulted and to come to an agreement with them. I now want to say that I am not bent on closing schools. Must one have advisory committees for everything one wants to do? After all, we will consult the school committee. In any case, there is no provision in the Act for school boards, as the amendment of the hon. member reads at present. The hon. member talks about regional councils or something of that nature. We can go into the matter but it really amounts to the function a school board fulfils. However, the Act does not mention “school boards”. Neither are we going to introduce this as such. It is not our intention to introduce this at this stage, although provision has been made for some kind of overall council apart from the school committee to enable the parents and the communities to play their part in the education of their own people. But I want to say that there may be reasons in future for my wanting to close a school. I may just mention that the parents of that national group need not be afraid at all that we are now going to close some of the schools.

The argument hon. members repeatedly advanced, i.e. that Pretoria was supposed to be such a long way from South-West Africa, simply does not apply. Apparently hon. members have been unaware of the fact that Pretoria has been such a long way from South-West Africa for the last three years. This they discovered for the first time on Friday. It is not our intention now to start undermining the education system in South-West Africa. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, because situations may arise in which something of this nature might be necessary. However, I have no desire to close schools left, right and centre. If a school is closed in South-West Africa, it will be closed for very sound reasons, and the school committee will be consulted. There is not doubt about that. But why should I write this into the Act? As a matter of fact, I had another look at the Bill. I do not know whether this can do any harm. I may just as well accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg and write “agriclutural schools” into the Bill here. But I just want to say that this is not going to become a real issue. When opposing this measure the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members wanted to know why there were three Bills? At that time it was opposed on account of the fact that there was only a handful of children in respect of whom this mass of legislation was necessary. I told hon. members why. Now hon. members want to go further. I say that we are going to offer these people a choice of subjects. This we are trying to do at one or two places. This is the need there is in South-West Africa. I will accept it, but it will not be necessary for a long time, just as there are other unnecessary provisions on the Statute Book.

But you cannot accept it; it is out of order.

Oh, I beg your pardon. In other words, it is my intention to introduce subjects which are of value to those people, subjects such as agricultural training and certain technical subjects, which will be of enormous value to them. This we will introduce as and when high schools are established for those people there. But hon. members know there is only one high school for this national group in the whole of South-West Africa. In other words, one has to be realistic and practical. The agricultural schools have been dropped, and I accept it as such. As far as the other amendment is concerned, I want to give the assurance that, when we want to close a school, we shall consult the committee. Furthermore, we are not bent on closing schools. I am afraid this is my point of view, and hon. members are free to argue about it further if they want to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I must say we appreciate the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. Even if it is out of order, I am sure that he—since he accepts the principle of it—will make the necessary arrangements in the Other Place. However, there is one other point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister said that he was not going to close schools in South-West Africa left, right and centre. We accept that the hon. the Minister is not going to do this; as a matter of fact, he is going to establish a great number of schools but we must remember that this legislation does not exist only for the present time; it is going to be in existence for a long time and during that time many schools will probably be closed while others will be established. What we have in mind, is therefore not only those schools which exist in South-West Africa at the moment; other schools are going to be established. We believe that this legislation is going to apply for a long time, and during that time it may happen that schools, which are going to be established, will be disestablished.

It may even be decided at this stage to remove a school from one community to another because it may not have the best possible situation. We feel that those people have a real interest in this; they have an “established interest” in the schools which have already been established. This is not so in the case of a school which has not been established yet, but once a school is established, it becomes an amenity which such a community has. For that reason such a school is of far greater importance once it has been established. For that reason we feel that this amendment should be written into the Bill because these powers are not powers the Minister is necessarily going to give effect to himself. These are powers he is going to delegate. The hon. the Minister gives us the assurance that such a community will, in fact, be consulted, but it is possible in future, when this legislation is still in force, that there may be other people to whom these powers have been delegated, people who are not going to consult such a community, because in terms of the legislation these people are not compelled to consult those communities. For that reason we prefer that this amendment be placed on the Statute Book so that this consultation must take place with the body established in terms of clause 34 (1) before a school may be closed.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand the objections raised by those hon. members. The department which is going to be responsible for this education will, after all, establish schools for the benefit and well-being of these people; they are not bent on closing schools. Apparently those hon. members are afraid that our Minister, or Ministers which may come in future, will act in an irresponsible manner, but who should be able to bear greater responsibility in our political set-up than, in fact, the Minister? In my long career in education I know of not one single case where an education department or a Minister has acted in such an irresponsible manner as to close a school without consulting the community concerned. There are even small farm schools, the existence of which can no longer be justified, but which continued to exist until it became impossible to keep them going, simply because the communities concerned did not want to close those schools. There has always been consultation with those communities. I do not doubt that when something of this nature has to be done, this department will consult the communities concerned. I must say I do not believe that this will happen unless there are very sound reasons. As was said by that hon. member opposite a moment ago, it may be necessary for a school to be removed. Large sums of money are spent on the construction of a school and to establish its facilities, and a decision to remove such school will not be taken very lightly. As was said by the hon. member, the whole of the department would be involved. In other words, the Minister acts on advice he receives from his department in this respect. Sir, I cannot believe that the hon. members opposite are serious when they raise this objection. Neither do I see any danger in the hon. the Minister’s having the power to close schools.

The hon. the Minister said that I had referred to school boards. I just want to remind him that it is clearly laid down in clause 34 that “the Minister may in the manner prescribed by regulation establish for any such school or schools a board, committee or other body”. Sir, what is at issue here, is not only the closing of schools. I want to draw his attention to the fact that it also deals with the equipment and school clinics. We are grateful to learn from the hon. the Minister that he will personally see to it that, when a school has to be closed, consultation will take place first, because he admits that consultation is desirable. I therefore cannot see why he is not prepared to have it written into this legislation. After all, no school or hostel or clinic will be closed without consultation first taking place. The hon. member for Karas also said that he could not imagine that a school would be closed without consultation first taking place. If it is desirable that there should be consultation, it is all the more reason why it should be laid down in the Bill that consultation has to take place. Then these boards or bodies will know that they will, in fact, be consulted. It is no use one’s doing the correct thing 99 times out of 100 by having voluntary consultation if, in the hundredth case because one is not compelled to consult, one overlooks the local people and does not consult them. Because of that one act all the good faith that has been built up over the years is destroyed completely. It is specifically for this reason that I say that it should be clearly laid down in the Act that whatever the hon. the Minister, by implication, has regarded as desirable, will be done at all times.

In which Ordinance or Act is it laid down?

The present Ordinance, unless it was amended after 1962, lays down in the section dealing with the closing of schools that the Administrator may close any of the abovementioned schools if he is satisfied that the school is no longer necessary, “provided that, before closing a school, the school committee has to be consulted”. To me this does not seem to be unreasonable. I do not think any Minister will summarily close a school; this goes without saying, but it may be that a misunderstanding arises between the people who have the power and, perhaps, the good intentions, and the local people. The local people may have certain information in regard to local circumstances which the Administrator or, in this case, the Minister, or his officials overlooks. It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request that specific provision should be made for consultation before a school is closed. It does not mean that there should necessarily be agreement.

The standpoint I adopted was based on the fact that it is, after all, obvious that a Minister, who is in charge of a department, will not close a school until he has examined all the reasons pertaining to it. If any school at any place in South Africa is to be closed, there will be reasons why this must be done, and usually these are not reasons which have arisen overnight; it is usually reasons which have arisen over a number of years. The whole question is discussed and debated. By that time the inspector of schools would most probably often have mentioned the matter to his departmental chief in the reports he submitted to him because it affects both the children and the staff. As far as hostels and clinics, and so forth, are concerned, it affects a wider field when a school is ultimately closed. When a school is closed the whole procedure of consultation, negotiations, reports, investigations and reinvestigations has been gone through and it is done for obvious reasons. For that reason I was of the opinion—and I am still of the opinion—that it is superfluous to write into the Act what is being proposed in the amendment. I should not like not to include in this Bill something which, in the case of the Ordinance, probably was some kind of protection or whatever it was, and in view of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted from the Ordinance a moment ago, I give the assurance that I shall go into the Ordinance as far as this point is concerned and to investigate the matter further. The hon. member will not know whether I am really going to do this, but I shall seriously consider introducing such an amendment in the Other Place. I do not know whether this will satisfy the hon. member, because he has no assurance that I am in fact going to do this, but in view of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted here, I shall consider this matter favourably. However, I should like to go into this matter first to see what the provisions of the Ordinance are.

Sir, in view of this, I should like to submit a further aspect for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. We are dealing here with Coloured schools, and we know from experience that one often finds that improper political pressure, or let me rather say, political pressure, if not always improper, is being brought to bear by a White community for the removal or closing of a Coloured school in its vicinity. In view of this I think it would be a good thing if we could have a provision in the Act to compel the White authority to consult those people who are affected. It would not be the Minister who is to be blamed for this, but there may be local pressure on the part of the White people, and under these circumstances I feel that such a provision should rather be written into the Act.

I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to the hon. the Minister for his assurance that he will possibly introduce an amendment in this respect in the Other Place and to go into this matter further, but I nevertheless feel that the amendment should not be withdrawn at this stage.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for some clarification with regard to clause 3 (1) (c). In the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the wording of (1) (c), which says—

I indicated to the hon. the Minister that I was of the opinion that possibly school grounds and sports fields might fall within the ambit of the term “other accessories”, and the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate said that he would find out, but that he did not think it referred to outside amenities such as school grounds and sports fields. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has been able to ascertain the position and also if there is provision anywhere in the Bill for this particular aspect of sports fields and school grounds.

Yes, I can tell the hon. member that the amenities we usually associate with a school are included in this; it is so, and it is possible to include it.

In regard to the request of the hon. member for Durban Central, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I am not very sure about the school boards, but I can give the hon. member the undertaking now that I will move an amendment in the Other Place framed in terms of the wording of his amendment. I am not sure whether his wording will be quite correct, if we accept it as it stands now.

The hon. member for Durban Central has spoken three times already but in view of the assurance given by the hon. the Minister I am authorized to withdraw the amendment on his behalf.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 :

This clause deals with the transfer of management and control of State-aided schools to the department. I just want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for clearly having learned from the mistakes of his predecessor. We find here, for example, that the Minister may take over such a school “in consultation with the Minister of Finance and after negotiation and agreement with the governing body of a State-aided school, by notice in the Gazette”. The fact remains that the words “in consultation with the Minister of Finance and after negotiation and agreement with the governing body of a State-aided school” have been inserted in this clause, and this is something which his predecessor, the present Minister of Defence, refused to accept in 1963. All I want to say is that I am grateful that it has now been included in the legislation. I want to tell the Minister again that since he is apparently applying our wisdom in practice in this respect, the transfer of such schools will go off smoothly.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9 :

In clause 9 I once again wish to draw attention to the fact that this is a case where the Minister has decided that he may, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, establish a post which is included in the establishment of a State school or State-aided school. Once again it is something for which we are grateful, that he has had this written into the clause of his own free will, since his predecessor stubbornly refused to bring in the Public Service Commission here.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12 :

I should like to move an amendment to this clause.

†This clause deals with the transfer of persons employed in State-aided schools to the service of the department in the event of the transfer of such schools. I wish to move the following amendment—

* I take it that the hon. the Minister is going to draw my attention to the fact that in terms of clause 5 there is going to be negotiation and agreement with the governing body of such schools before the transfer takes place. Therefore he will say that those governing bodies would most certainly have paid attention to the matter and would most certainly not allow their teachers to be sacrificed in the process. I accept that argument, but I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of the fact that it is not quite unheard of for a teacher to be sacrificed by a governing body. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the only guarantee the teacher has must be what is contained here in clause 12. If he has been done an injustice there must be something to which he can have recourse. He cannot have recourse to his previous governing body. He must be able to turn to the Bill for protection. I say this particularly in view of the fact that although further clauses, such as clause 13, for example specifically refer to the conditions of service of persons who are transferred, the only guarantee is in respect of vacational and medical allowances. This clause provides that the Minister will have to decide at which notch on the salary scale such a person shall be remunerated. It is with this in view that I refer to the person’s emoluments and argue that it should be likewise guaranteed and should not be reduced without his consent.

I know that the hon. the Minister will reply that this was done three years ago and ask what the use of such an amendment would be. If a person was wronged three years ago and we now afford the Minister the opportunity to right that wrong by invoking the provisions of this amendment, I think we shall have achieved something worthwhile.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is necessary to accept that amendment. This clause covers the case of a person going from a State-aided school to a State school. The persons in the establishment of such a school are then transferred to the establishment of the department and in terms of the provisions of the Bill they are deemed to have been appointed on the date on which the State-aided school changed into a State school. I notice that clause 19 provides, inter alia, as follows—

Then it goes on to provide that the transfer shall not be made without the person’s consent, and so on. I want to point out that the hon. member did not make any of these amendments available to me beforehand; I have only now received them across the floor of the House. I notice that this amendment includes the following proviso—

But it is provided in clause 19 (2) that no such transfer shall be made without the consent of the person concerned. I have not had the opportunity to ascertain whether such a transfer may be covered by the provisions of clause 19 (2), but I can go into the matter. If it is the intention that clause 19 (2) should also cover that kind of transfer, namely transfers from the establishment of a State-aided school to a State school, the amendment is not necessary. If clause 19 (2) only refers to transfer from other activities, this can be the case, but it seems to me that clause 19 (2) refers to teachers serving in Baster schools and then transferred to Coloured schools, where their services are needed most, and vice versa. It is also possible that clause 19 (2) may only refer to transfer from State-aided schools to State schools. I should like to go into these aspects. For the rest it seems to me, on the face of it that there can be no harm in the amendment. However, the position is that one does not want to write a lot of unnecessary provisos into a Bill. If it is necessary we shall insert it.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I want to say that I shall withdraw my amendment as I understand the difficulties it presents for the Minister. I do think, however, that this matter should be looked into, particularly clause 19 and clause 13.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say something, but I was under the impression that the amendment still stood. It has now been withdrawn, however, and consequently I have nothing to say at this stage

Mr. Chairman, we deal here with a clause which provides that any person who is in the employ of a school on the dates the hon. the Minister and his department take over the control of that school, “shall be transferred to the service of the Department and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been appointed in terms of the provisions of the said Act to such post on that date”. This is all very well. We have had a discussion on the question of whether these conditions of service will be the same or otherwise. The hon. the Minister has given the undertaking to the effect that he will look into this matter and if it is not covered by the other clauses he will move such an amendment in the Other Place. However, one aspect of this has not been taken care of. That is, what about the attitude of the person concerned? The person about whom we are talking now is a teacher or an administrative officer in the school. As far as I can see, mo provision has been made in this Bill for the will or the wish of the person concerned to be considered. At the moment he is in the employ of the Administration of South-West Africa and here, by a stroke of a pen, we are being asked to transfer him or to give the Minister the power simply by taking over the administration of the school, to transfer him, whether or not he wishes it, to the employ of another department. Surely the wishes and the feelings of the official or the teacher concerned should be taken into consideration.

That is utter nonsense.

The hon. member for Carletonville says that it is utter nonsense.

I am not the only one who says so; other hon. members say so too.

Well, I will not tie this only to the hon. member for Carletonville, because he says that other hon. members too say that it is utter nonsense. I want to remind them of a debate which took place in this House last year. There we debated the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill. We debated this very question; whether a person can be transferred from one department to another without his consent, at great length. For the benefit of the hon. member for Carletonville, and the other members who say this is nonsense, I want to say that the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in his wisdom, finally acceded to our wish and that that amendment was included in the Bill. Today it stands in the Act and I would like to remind him by reading the wording of the Act as it reads today. I quote section 10 (1) of the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, Act No. 45 of 1971—

That is the important thing—they may only be seconded with their consent. We have a parallel, Sir, in legislation which we debated last year, the Public Service Amendment Act, where provision was made for the transfer of officers to the service of Bantu authorities. Again, Sir, this was done with the consent of the officer concerned. Why should it be any different here? Why should we not take the feelings of the official concerned into consideration? I feel that it is only fair that we should do this. I maintain that it is in the interests of the hon. the Minister and his department that we should take the feelings of the officer concerned into consideration. Of what use is it his having in his department a number of press-ganged officials, officials who have been press-ganged into working for him, who have not been given the opportunity of saying “yea” or “nay”; that they wish, or do not wish, to work for his department? Sir, in all seriousness, I think the hon. the Minister must consider the following amendment, which I now move—

Sir, I feel that this is only reasonable: I have given two precedents of what was accepted during the Committee Stage last year, and I urge the hon. the Minister …

If he does not give his consent, what is going to happen to him then?

If he does not consent. The same question …

Then he is taken over.

Right, Sir, I accept that. The same question was asked last year. In the event of the official not consenting, the Administration of South-West Africa must keep him in its employ; they must find another school for him. He is covered by the terms of his employment in terms of his contract with the Administration of South-West Africa. He is covered in that way and he remains an employee of the Administration not an employee of the department of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it seems as if the hon. member, and other hon. members opposite, now want to create difficulties for the administration of this legislation, or actually, in my opinion, to make it impossible. You can imagine a similar position if one should work for a public company, say, in Johannesburg or Pietermaritzburg, and that company is taken over and then becomes a subsidiary company of another company. One’s position and one’s activities, however, remain unchanged. What really takes place here is a change of the overhead control.

† An overhead change has taken place. It does not affect the individual or his work, he is still a teacher in a department. Why the hon. member requires him to give his consent, I cannot understand. No company holding a position of overall authority over other companies will go and ask the consent of the employee of that same company as to whether or not that take-over should take place, or whether or not they would like to continue their duties with the company. I think the whole idea is just silly.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member understands the position correctly; I do not think so. We are dealing here with State-aided schools. They are the schools which were started in South-West Africa by the missionary societies. The missionary societies are controlling and running those schools. They appoint and discharge the teachers. But we pay the salaries of those teachers as well as of all the teachers in the State schools.

Now, this Act makes provision—and we have been praised for this by the hon. member for Durban Central—that the takeover of these State-aided schools can be effected after negotiation and agreement. This clause simply states that after these negotiations have taken place and an agreement has been reached, a State-aided school, call it a mission school, now becomes a State school. The teachers are transferred and they are then deemed, under this clause, to have been appointed to the establishment of my department. That is all there is in this provision. I think the hon. member is proposing a completely unnecessary amendment. What is more, he is not doing those teachers a service, and he is arguing on a false basis. Those teachers are not changing over from the South-West Africa Administration to my department. They are coming over from what we can perhaps call “private schools” to my department. This will only happen after consultation and with their agreement. This will happen in most cases, if not in all, where those societies, churches, or call them what you will, find themselves, owing to financial circumstances, unable to continue running a certain school. They then come to us and after an agreement has been reached, we take over and such a school becomes a State school. Everybody then comes over to the department. If they do not want to come over, they are at liberty not to do so. This amendment of the hon. member is therefore superfluous.

Are you talking about the teachers now?

Yes.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 13 :

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. The Minister will remember that during the Second Reading debate I raised the point that we may find ourselves in a situation in which it will be desirable to bring about parity in the salaries of the various population groups and their teachers in South-West. For that reason we felt that it was better to keep the arrangement as it was. I am not dropping the argument, but I want to ask the Minister whether I am reading this clause correctly when I say that it is nevertheless in his power to make a separate arrangement, in this case for the Coloured people in South-West Africa, if he should wish to do so.

I do not quite follow you now.

As the clause now stands, it is within the power of the Minister to make a different arrangement in South-West, as far as salaries are concerned, from that which is applicable to Coloured teachers in the Republic? Does he have that power to make a different arrangement for South-West, as far as salaries of teachers are concerned, if circumstances should require it? Or is the Minister tied down to the arrangement that what happens here in the Republic must also happen there, and vice versa? My own impression, and I should like to have it confirmed, is that the Minister does have the power to make a different arrangement in South-West if he so wishes, but I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would go into this and reply to my question. If I am reading clause 13 (1) correctly, the Minister determines the salaries of teachers in South-West “in consultation with the Minister of Finance and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission”. My question is just whether it is in his power then, if it should be necessary, to make a different arrangement there from the one which applies here in respect of salaries.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question and I suppose it is important that I should not give a wrong answer now, or one of which I am not sure. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly said, the salaries for these Coloured teachers are determined on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and in consultation with the Minister of Finance. It is therefore more reasonable to assume that the Public Service Commission will recommend the same salary scales for both the Republic and South-West Africa. It is also possible, however, that in view of the history of teaching in South-West and the position of White teachers there, the Public Service Commission may recommend different salary scales and/or privileges for these schools, provided that the Minister of Finance is then willing to introduce them into the Budget. I am sorry, but I do not want to be more specific than that.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister be so good as to give us a reply during the Third Reading debate?

With the greatest of pleasure.

He will remember that my point was that we might find ourselves in a situation where for political, international reasons a general arrangement affecting all population groups might be made which would affect South-West. I just want to know whether he does have the power to do this, should the situation arise.

I shall discuss that at the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, when we study clause 13, the position in clause 12 is much clarified. This clause deals with conditions of service of persons employed at State schools and State-aided schools. In terms of subsection (2)—

are guaranteed. This is the position in subsection (2). Subsections (3) and (4) refer to the persons who are transferred in terms of clause 12, namely those from State-aided schools. Subsection (4) provides that sick and accumulative vacational leave are guaranteed, but not the salary itself and the salary scale. In terms of subsection 13) the person will be left in the hands of the hon. the Minister as regards the salary and the salary scale. Is other words, as far as that person is concerned, there is no guarantee. I am just mentioning this to the hon. the Minister. He has promised to reconsider clause 12 at a later stage. The real reasons for this are we find in the provisions in clause 13. In other words, clause 13 does not sufficiently guarantee the position of the persons affected by clause 12. Guarantees are given to other categories. I do not want to oppose this clause at all, but I just want the hon. the Minister to consider clause 12 in the light of this. In other words, clause 13 is really the key one has to use to see exactly in what way the person in clause 12 is affected.

Subsection (3) controls the salary after transfer. I shall go into this subsection very thoroughly. Subsection (4) controls the other conditions. I do not think a person will in any way be placed in a worse position than the one he occupies at his present school, where in any case we are paying his salary at the moment. We are paying their salaries at the State-aided schools as well, as the Administration used to do, although they are not under our control. Now we shall go on paying their salaries and they will be placed under our control. If a person is not on a suitable salary scale, we transfer him and adjust the salary scale to his experience, qualifications and whatever according to the salary scale which has to be determined by someone, after all, in this case by the Minister. But it is important for those people, and therefore we shall go into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to inquire whether the problem cannot be solved by reading clause 13 (2) as a whole. The person’s circumstances and conditions remain the same in all cases, unless the Minister decides differently, which he can only do with the consent of the person concerned. That is the provision which safeguards him completely.

Yes, but that does not refer to clause 12.

It refers to subsections (1) and (3), where a possible change may take place.

In any case, I shall go into the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the following amendment—

This is an amendment which I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will seriously consider. I believe that we have come to a stage where we can no longer discriminate in our labour force against married women.

*It is very important for us at this stage, I think that the married woman, in every colour group, should be fully absorbed into the labour market. In the teaching profession in particular we know from experience that the married woman is the mainstay of this profession, not only as far as White education is concerned, but in that of the other colour groups as well. I think we have now come to the stage where we can no longer deny the married woman the advantages of permanent employment, as is being done here. In Natal married women have been employed in a permanent capacity for quite some time. This was also done in the Transvaal a few years ago. The system in the Transvaal and Natal is working very well. It has resulted in many married women, some of them of a more advanced age at which they cannot have children any more, returning to the teaching profession. They have done very valuable work and have been able in this way to earn an additional income for their families at the stage at which they need it most, especially when they are married. There may even be grandchildren. This is the ideal type of work which a married woman can do without neglecting her children. Therefore I think we should not discriminate against the married woman here, but give her all the advantages of permanent employment. Consequently I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister would accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this question of the permanent appointment of married women teachers has been the subject of debate in this country for many, many years. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Florida mention that in Natal and in the Transvaal they have become sufficiently sophisticated to give them permanent appointment. Even in the Cape Province we have come to the stage, slow as it is, where married women, at any rate as far as Europeans are concerned, can now be guaranteed a three year appointment instead of being asked automatically to resign when they marry. Not everybody will necessarily agree with me, but I take the view that this decision should not in the first place rest with the authorities at all. It should rest with the woman concerned. If she gets married and still wants to go on working, it is her own business and nobody else’s. If she has been a competent teacher, the decision to resign or stay on should in the last resort be left to her. I hope the day will come when we go even further than the talking stage and that this decision will be left with the person concerned, and that the woman herself can make this decision. Women, after all, if they are competent to teach, are competent also to make that kind of decision. The figures, both in the case of Coloured education and as far as European education is concerned, prove, over a long period of years here in the Republic, that without the assistance of married women teachers, our entire education system would have collapsed, and I defy anybody to tell me that that is not correct. It seems to me that it is quite ridiculous at this stage to repeat this provision in this law. These people, who tend on the whole to be very dedicated people, as well as very experienced people, deserve some security of tenure. The male teachers have all the security of tenure they want. Hon. members know very well—the hon. the Minister should know this, and I am sure the officials of his department will know—that the teaching profession is becoming a profession increasingly manned by women, if I may use the expression. The fact is that fewer and fewer men are going into the teaching profession. I would say that, married or unmarried, because they bear the major burden in the educational field, whether it is for Whites. Coloureds or anybody else, women should be absolutely guaranteed their security of tenure. I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Florida, and say that it is time this principle of married women being appointed on a permanent basis, and what is more, making the decision themselves, was made applicable throughout the Republic, as well as in South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. members for Florida and Wynberg whether their problem is not solved by the provisions of subsection (2) (b), which reads as follows:

be appointed in a permanent capacity. So provision is in fact made for this.

It does not guarantee it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to lend support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Florida, and I also want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that during the Second Reading debate, the question was raised of people who had taught for years at some of these mission schools, which were now possibly State-aided schools. They could find themselves in a position where they were discriminated against because, although they had been in South-West Africa for a number of years and had rendered sterling service, they were not South African citizens, and clause 15 (1) (e) stipulated that South African citizenship was a necessary condition for a teacher to be assured of permanent employment. In this regard the Minister said :

Then he went further:

I wonder whether the Minister has been able to consider this matter, and whether he could indicate that there will be no victimization or that these people will not be penalized in any way, should they subsequently wish to transfer from a mission school to a State-aided school, or subsequently, to a State school.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

With this amendment we shall in my opinion overcome the problem mentioned here by the hon. member for Berea. If there are teachers at these schools who are doing good work there and who have been doing it for a long time, but who are not South African citizens, it will enable us to retain their services. As regards married women, hon. members must remember that we are dealing here with schools for Coloured persons in South-West Africa. There are not many married Coloured women employed at those schools. Therefore the married women who teach at these schools is not really a factor. The married women who teach there may be White women, and I feel that it would be wrong to write into the Act that they are to be either permanently appointed or not appointed at all. After all, we know the position in regard to White women who assist at Coloured schools everywhere. They are doing it on a scale which is very much appreciated. I do not think the amendment moved by hon. members on that side will really improve our position. I am now taking the power here to appoint married women on a permanent basis in deserving cases, and also to retain persons who are not South African citizens in the establishments of the schools.

Sir, married women in the Coloured schools may be a small factor, as the hon. the Minister said, and I accept that they are a small factor, but the fact is that this matter is in fact mentioned in the Bill and therefore we should not only look at it from the practical point of view, but also from the point of view of the principle concerned. This clause, as it now reads, provides that the Minister may approve that any person other than an officer or employee—

be appointed in a permanent capacity. Our premise and principle is that it is in the interest of the teaching profession that any married female should be appointed permanently if she wants to teach. In other words, the one clause which prohibits it and the other which allows it are not necessary. Neither of the two should appear here, and it is from this view-point of principle that I put the matter to the hon. the Minister again for reconsideration.

I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister that I accept, in the first place, that there are extremely few Coloured women in the teaching profession in South-West Africa at the moment, and if we were to accept this Bill as it now reads, the people who would derive the greatest benefit from it would be the White women who are teaching there.

Do you want to appoint them in a permanent capacity at Coloured schools?

The position is that White women enjoy this privilege in the White departments at the moment. The hon. the Minister realizes, after all, that in terms of his own policy this presence of White teachers in the department is of a temporary nature, and what we are now doing here is to pilot through a Bill which must provide for the future. In respect of the Coloured people in particular we accept that certain socio-economic conditions prevail today as far as they are concerned, and that is why I believe that it is very really necessary for the Coloured women to be appointed in a permanent capacity in this case. If it is essential to have working mothers among the Whites in the times in which we are living today, I believe that it is also essential to have working mothers among the Coloured people. I really believe that the Minister can decide in this respect that since the Whites are dealt with on this basis, justice must also be done to the Coloured woman in her own department.

I must say how pleased I am to hear this amendment of the hon. the Minister and that he is now taking the power to allow the appointment, as a permanent employee, of a non-South African citizen, of a foreigner who perhaps has been working for many years in these schools. I did feel that it was a little bit rough of the Minister to exclude willy-nilly all non-South Africans from appointments to the permanent staff of these institutions. But I am afraid I cannot say the same about the hon. the Minister’s rejection of the amendment of the hon. member for Florida, dealing with married female teachers. The hon. the Minister has indicated that in terms of subsection (2) (b) he is prepared to appoint certain women teachers, but why should South African women teachers be put in the same category as foreign teachers, that they have first to get the approval of the hon. the Minister before they can be appointed permanently? I think that this is a little unreasonable. I believe that in this enlightened year of 1972 where we have talk of women’s emancipation in all respects, and where it has already been accepted by the education departments of at least three of the provinces, the Minister should reconsider this matter and accept the amendment of the hon. member; because we are going to have the situation where women teachers will again say that they are only second-grade teachers, that they can never hope to retain full status as teachers in this country, because immediately they become married they become second-grade teachers and will not be allowed to continue as full-time teachers. So I urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. I accept it as far as non-South African citizens are concerned. That we all accept; we are very glad to have that amendment, but with regard to married women I do believe that there should be no discrimination and no question of the Minister having to exercise any prerogative or discretion as to whether a particular woman teacher should be a temporary employee or a permanent employee. I believe that if they are good enough to be teachers they are good enough to be permanently appointed.

Question put: That paragraph (d) of subsection (1) stand part of the Clause:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen. P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. J. J. M. Stephens negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided :

Tellers : W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17 :

Mr. Chairman, during my Second Reading speech I specifically referred to this clause. I wonder whether at this stage the hon. the Minister can give us more information about its actual purport. We are dealing here with appointments deemed to be transfers. We consequently have here a whole series of persons involved in this, for example persons employed by the South African Railways and Harbours, the State diggings, the Provincial Education Department, universities or a Department of State. These persons can be transferred. In lines 14 to 17 the following is stated—

I find again that there is no mention at all of the whole matter and question of that person’s salary scale and notch. I particularly want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what does happen, and to how it happens that persons from these departments can be transferred. In the case of someone working in the South African Railways and Harbours, for example, who is not qualified as a teacher but who, by studying further, has qualified himself as a teacher and goes over, without a break in service, from the Railways and Harbours, where he was a clerk, to the Minister’s department as a teacher, we find that all other matters are guaranteed to him by this clause. However, there is no guarantee in respect of the notch or the salary at which he can be engaged. If this has no bearing on such persons, the Minister must tell me as much. If it has no bearing on persons who are now going to become teachers, I can understand this. If it is only going to have a bearing on persons who, for example, were clerks in any of those departments, but who are being transferred as clerks into his department, I can also understand it. I know that there are numerous persons who are weighed down by these circumstances under the White education system. The various education departments have, for example, worked out scales and the adjustments that are made in similar cases. For example, they tell the person that if he was in a non-teaching post in the Department of Labour, for example, and he now begins as a qualified teacher, they are prepared to recognize six months of every year of his service as signifying service on the salary scale of a teacher. In other words, this means that the person, who has perhaps worked for ten years in the other department. begins on the fifth notch as a teacher. He therefore does not begin at the very bottom. I already mentioned this in my Second Reading speech. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can clarify this aspect for us.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the clause it does not concern transfers, but appointments, for example if a person is appointed to the department to teach because he applies for a post. Up to and including the date of appointment to the new post of teacher, he occupies a post in another Department of State. Supposing he had obtained a B.Comm. degree and he was employed by one of these said bodies. If there is a very great need at a certain school for a bookkeeping teacher and there is someone who is interested and applies, the question of salaries is not relevant, because he knows the salary relevant to the post for which he is applying. My department cannot take any person from another Department of State and allow him to serve at one of the schools falling under my department. But if he applies for a post, he applies for a post involving a specific salary. His pension and so on are regulated by other Acts we do not have to worry about. The matters that are not regulated by this are such a person’s leave, subsistence allowance, transfer costs and transport facilities. For these purposes it is deemed to be a transfer. Compensation is then payable to such a person according to the scales laid down.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation, but I just want to tell him that his department will in fact have to do something about this matter, because if there are 10 persons with B.Comm. degrees working in other departments, and this clause remains as it now stands, it will be found that there will in fact be one or two of those people who will voluntarily apply to be transferred to the hon. the Minister’s department, but his department will not draw the overall majority of them. The other education departments will get them, because the other education departments specifically make provision for these circumstances. It will be in the hon. the Minister’s interests to institute investigations and then ensure by way of regulations that his department offers the same as other departments. I accept the fact that these persons cannot be compelled to work for this department, but the position must, after all be made attractive for them. I believe that the education departments do in fact now make it attractive for these people. This is not only in the case of persons working in other departments; there is also the case of people in private industry. In their case we cannot say that we shall accept them and pay their subsistence and transfer costs. This cannot actually fall under this heading. However, the hon. the Minister will also have to give attention to how certain education departments in South Africa—I am thinking here, for example, of the Natal Education Department—have bridged the problem of a shortage of teachers. For example, people with a B.Sc. degree working for Lever Brothers, say, were told that they should qualify themselves as teachers and then come to the education department. Those people were told that they would not need to start at the bottom, but that five of the 10 years they worked for Lever Brothers, for example, would be recognized as five years in education. In other words, they need not start on the bottom notch, but in actual fact on a higher notch. I am just giving this as a hint to the hon. the Minister.

The whole matter is of an administrative nature.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 18 :

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

I mentioned this matter during the course of the Second Reading debate. The amendment refers to the fact that any remuneration, as it is put in clause 18, received from any source by any teacher other than his salary shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and if such a teacher fails to do so, the Minister can resort to legal action and various other provisions. I know the hon. the Minister said that this is the usual procedure. That may be so, but that does not mean to say that because it has been so for the last umpteen years, we have to carry on with it. The hon. the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech to a teacher not being allowed to receive extra remuneration for doing some job other than his teaching job. We agree with that entirely. Quite clearly, no teacher who is doing his job properly, can hold down some other type of employment at the same time. But supposing an individual inherits private funds or makes money from investments which he or she is entitled to do, supposing he or she earns rent from the lease of privately owned property, surely the payment of income of that kind into the Consolidated Revenue Fund should not be mandatory. Surely the circumstances in each individual case should be given consideration by the Minister. I do think that the Minister should be free to exercise his discretion in these matters, because there could be certain circumstances in which people do not play the game. I also think, however, that the teacher should have some degree of freedom in this matter of their own finances. To make it mandatory, as the clause stands at present, seems to us to be very arbitrary indeed. On those grounds we move this amendment, namely that it will not be mandatory, but that each case will be considered on its merits.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment. I can only reiterate that the position we have in this clause is similar to the position in South-West Africa at present. The hon. member also mentioned that it also applied in the Civil Service. This has nothing to do with income such as a legacy or inheritance. The clause specifically states that a person shall not “perform or bind himself to perform” to do other remunerative work and that he shall not accept remuneration in respect of “any duty or work performed by him by the order of a competent authority”. The whole object of this provision is to get the teacher as far as is practicable to place the whole of his time, as is stated in clause 18 (1) (a) “at the disposal of the school at which he is employed”. I know of teachers who write for various periodicals and I feel those people could get an exemption from the Minister. It is not work they are doing while they are in the full-time employ of the State. This is a generally-accepted principle. No employer would like his employees not to give their whole attention to their work for which they get paid. It is the same with these schools. I can therefore not accept this amendment. In any case, if we change the word “shall” to “may” we would destroy the whole meaning of the clause. We might then just as well scrap the whole clause and leave it to the conscience of every individual teacher. I think this is a principle embodied in just about all education ordinances and the Civil Service. I cannot see anything wrong with it and if there is a deserving case, any teacher of any Coloured school in South-West Africa can contact me. In any event, I will not prevent any man from doing something in his spare time, and after all a teacher is entitled to his spare time as much as I am entitled to mine, for which he receives remuneration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that he feels that under certain circumstances if it were the case of a legacy, or something of that nature, he would be prepared to grant some form of exemption. Could the hon. the Minister indicate to me under what clause and in what manner would he have the power to grant that exemption?

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister not going to reply to the hon. member for Berea.

He has replied already.

This is the whole crux of the matter. The hon. the Minister concedes that a teacher in his spare time, as he puts it, might write articles to a magazine for instance. If he concedes that a teacher in his spare time might be entitled to keep the fees that he would get for writing such articles for a magazine, short stories or something of that nature. But in terms of this clause the Minister has no discretion. No discretion is granted to the Minister or to anybody else to allow such a teacher to do that. If he must do it and gets a cheque he is compelled to pay into the General Revenue Account. There is not even provision whereby the Minister of Finance can say thanks very much, but I am prepared to refund it to you. I agree that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg does not quite answer the question, but I also believe that this clause is very badly framed. It appears that the Minister and we on this side of the House are ad idem in this whole question. We believe that if a teacher should earn such fees which will come under the classification of remuneration, he should be entitled to keep them. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he has another look at this clause and that he asks his legal advisers to see if they cannot draft something …

Oh, no.

It is all very well hon. members on the other side saying “Ag no, it is a waste of time”, and all that sort of thing, but we are busy with a responsible debate here, and they are not taking part in it at all. This is something which is important to many teachers. As the hon. the Minister knows there are many teachers in this country who do just this very thing he is talking about and during their spare time do earn extra money to augment their salaries. We must have provision for this and this is what I am asking the Minister to do. Can he not in a responsible way consider with his legal advisers some way of giving the Minister this very loophole which he is asking for? Let us not make it so tight as it is now. At the moment it is absolutely tight, and the hon. the Minister himself is handcuffed. He dare and may not allow one teacher to keep one cent of other money that he earns. Does the hon. the Minister not accept that?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why I am having this trouble with the hon. members. After all, there is a principal who knows what his staff members are doing. And then there are school inspectors as well. If a person is doing his work, and you know that from ten to twelve at night he writes short stories for Rooi Rose, then surely you would leave him alone. Similarly, if, for example, a person has a brother who has a little café, and he helps his brother every night with his bookkeeping and if his brother then gives him a packet of cigarettes for doing so then surely one is not going to take action against him. I am not going to concern myself with petty matters. Where abuses take place, they will be reported in the normal way by the inspectorate or whoever. The department will then take action in terms of this clause. We are, however, not trying to look for trouble. I therefore do not think that it is necessary for us to worry any further about this clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why clause 18 (1) (c) does not have the provision “without the permission of the Minister” which appears in paragraph (b)? Why is there this difference? Why is he not allowed to do the work under (c) if the Minister gives him permission? I also want to ask what the legal position in this connection is. Does this mean that a language teacher, for example, is not allowed to write articles, receive money for them and then show it in his income tax return? Would he be contravening the Act if he did that?

Let us wait and see.

But surely such a person should know, because he might land himself in trouble for hiding this kind of thing.

But they have known it all these years.

The Minister looks far too happy to me about such an unhealthy position. Is this the instruction the teachers are given, i.e. that they are not allowed to write articles?

Clause 18 (1) (b) explicitly provides that a person must obtain the permission of the Minister. Paragraph (c) deals with the position of a competent authority. A person may, for example, receive a commission from a society or some government body or other. After all, it is common knowledge that public servants who are remunerated for their work for the Government or who, for example, receive directors’ fees, pay it back into the Treasury. This is more or less what is meant with paragraph (c).

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. Clause 19 :

This clause deals with the transfer and secondment of certain persons employed by the department. We find, in respect of the transfer of persons, that assurances are being given that there will not be a reduction in their pensionable emoluments for the purposes of any law without their consent. But we also know that the secondment of a person, for which provision is being made in subsection (4), is sometimes in practice regarded by departments as a transfer. How many times does one not hear, for example, that a person has been seconded, and, that he simply remains for a very long time in the post to which he has been seconded. One perhaps finds that it is possibly a higher grade post, in actual fact, than the one he previously occupied. However, there is no assurance that when he goes to a lower grade post there will be a reduction in his pensionable emoluments. For that reason I consequently want to move the following amendments—

I know that in such a case, under normal circumstances, it is sometimes unavoidable as far as the administration of a department is concerned. The amendment consequently also aims at our obtaining the consent of the person in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I have just received these two amendments. I do not know what the hon. member’s difficulty is. The position is that we can now have three Acts that deal with the schools for Coloured persons, for the Basters and the Nama. We may now think it necessary, in the interests of the Coloured persons, to transfer staff from one post to another within the same school or to another school. Notwithstanding the provisions of the other two Bills, which we still hope to pass in this House, we shall be able to transfer them from the one post to the other on the establishment of our department, on condition that this does not embody any prejudicing of that official’s position. I am not prepared to go any further than that. The fact of the matter is that we are not going to act dictatorially in that respect, and neither must that impression be created, but where it is in the interests of the work we must do in South-West, we would like to have the power. Let us therefore keep the clause as it is. There is already the provision that if a person is placed into a lower grade post he retains his full salary. As soon as there is a post vacant for him he must be transferred back, and he is appointed in his previous grade. I think it could considerably complicate cur position if it is laid down as a requirement that the person must grant his permission. In many instances a person will agree to be transferred, but if he knows he has the right to say “No” then he says “No”. I think that we should simply keep the clause as it is. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

I am sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment. The whole matter concerns the fact that secondment sometimes inevitably becomes permanent, and though the Minister is prepared to provide that a person shall not be transferred permanently without his permission, I am sorry to find that he is not prepared to grant the same protection in the case of a person being seconded.

†I want to move the following further amendment—

This clause will then read as follows—

*One can find my reasons for moving this amendment in sub-clause (4) (b). There we find that a person can be seconded, with his own consent, to the service of the government of any other country or of any person. In other words, if we want to send a person to another country, the hon. the Minister must first obtain his consent. If we want to transfer a person to the service of one of the non-White states, his consent must first be obtained, but when we want to second a teacher, in the service of the State, to the service of the State in another capacity as a teacher, we do not need to obtain his consent. Take the case of one’s wanting to second a teacher to another Department of State, where he will be serving in a capacity other than that of a teacher. He can, for example, be seconded to work in a clerical capacity. In that case the hon. the Minister is not prepared to provide that that person’s permission be obtained. We must in no way create the impression here that any exploitation will take place, and the amendment I am moving is based on the experience that a person is sometimes transferred permanently under the cloak of secondment.

I am really sorry the hon. the Minister is not prepared to consider the acceptance of this amendment. The hon. the Minister has already accepted the principle that where a person is transferred his permission must be obtained if the transfer can possibly be to his detriment. What is the difference between the transfer and the secondment of a person under those circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that such a secondment can be for a long period of time or on a permanent basis. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why this distinction is being made.

Sir, one must assume that we shall treat our people there as well as possible. One cannot assume that we shall penalize people if we have the slightest chance to do so. After all, we do want to retain their services, and we want to treat them as well as possible. Hon. members must remember that the salaries in Coloured schools and Baster schools in South-West Africa are not the same as the salaries in Nama schools. That is perhaps one of the reasons why some of the provisions of the Bill read as they do at present. If one transfers a Coloured teacher to a Nama school, he retains his salary as a Coloured teacher. If one transfers a Nama teacher to a Coloured school, he does not obtain the higher salary of a Coloured teacher; he obtains the salary of a Nama teacher, and as soon as possible one returns him to a Nama school. The length of time for which a teacher is transferred from one school to another will depend on circumstances. My attention is drawn to the fact that under all circumstances we still always have to obtain the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Hon. members may consequently accept the fact that transfers will not take place at random. They cannot take place to the permanent detriment of the relevant official. They can only be made in the interests of education there. If the person is not happy in his new post we shall transfer him back as soon as possible, or place him where he would like to be. We know what it is like with officials in the Republic. I am not speaking about teachers now, but I have already had many cases in my constituency of a man being transferred from one post office exchange to another, from one police station to another or from one railway station to another. When that happens he and his wife or his parents come to me. We are requesting here the authority to transfer or second teachers to other schools in the interests of education in South-West Africa. This is not something we are going to do at random. I should like to have the authority, because under certain circumstances I may need it. It must be accepted that it is not our point of departure to cause trouble in the ranks of our teachers, but on the contrary to keep them as satisfied as possible, with a view to promoting the education of these groups as much as possible.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20 :

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it quite clear from the start that we oppose the whole principle involved in this clause, the principle of promotion on probation. It is the most daft thing that I have heard of in any piece of legislation to do with education and, what is more, we said so during the Second Reading debate. The whole clause suggests that in the first instance the authorities themselves are incompetent to assess the qualifications of any person who is due for promotion. If, in fact, their powers of assessment are so poor that they can only promote people on probation, then I would say that the reflection lies not on the person who is being promoted, but on the authorities themselves and their incompetence to assess the qualifications of the teacher concerned. After all let us face the fact that if a person is qualified and has earned promotion, either he has earned it and he deserves it or he does not. You cannot muck about and have it both ways. There can be no justification whatsoever for a period of probation. It is something that is quite unheard of in legislation dealing with education anywhere in the world. I would like to ask the Minister the same question I asked him in the Second Reading. What is the object of this promotion on probation? Is the implication here that teachers who will be promoted, on the Minister’s assessment, or of whosoever he delegates his power to—is the implication that these teachers are to be a bunch of stooges or that they will create trouble? What is the reason? What is the point? We do not like it at all. It is a complete innovation. It does not appear in Act 47 of 1963, dealing with Coloured people in the Republic. We object in the strongest terms to the whole idea of promotion on probation. Promotion is promotion, finished and “klaar”, and if the person proves incompetent, the Minister has the power to discharge him or to transfer him or to do anything else, but to talk about promotion on probation is just poppycock.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

In regard to the point which the hon. member for Wynberg has just mentioned, I have no desire to be difficult or to delete something that does not exist. The hon. member says it does not exist anywhere in the world. I do not know. I have not examined the position all over the world in that manner, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. member referred to this matter on Friday afternoon. I was away for the whole week-end, although I did not go all over the world. [Interjection.] No, there was no need for me to go to Oudtshoorn. I said on Friday that I would check that information. I am going to retain this clause here, but I want to tell the hon. member now that I have been informed—but I shall consult the Education Department of the Cape Province—by an inspector of White Education himself that his appointment as an inspector of education was made on probation. That was my information. I could not go into it. But if a student has completed his studies at university and has obtained his B.A. degree and his S.E.D. or his H.P.D., and one appoints him as a teacher, he is appointed on probation even if he has already qualified and has obtained his degrees. But one appoints him on probation. Now one appoints a person as a principal on promotion. One cannot guarantee in advance that he will be a success. The voters may elect those members to be members of the Opposition, and just see how hopelessly they will be defeated at the polls! One cannot guarantee in advance that a person in a certain position is going to be a success, and, after all is said and done, what could be so terribly wrong with a person being returned to his previous post by the higher authorities—for there are always higher authorities over us, no matter where we go in life—if he was not a success in his new post? I shall go into the matter and I shall give some more thought to it, but at this stage I want to insist on this, as I have said, except that I am willing to omit subsection (4).

In reply to the hon. the Minister, I accept his bona fides particularly when he says that he has received information from the Cape Education Department. But the Minister is continuing to do this afternoon precisely what he did on Friday. He accuses me of suggesting that we disapprove of appointments on probation, but that is not what I said. Appointment on probation is an entirely different thing from promotion on probation. I hope the Minister gets the message. The Minister cited for instance student teachers who start with degrees. That is right. In the first place they are new teachers and neither the department nor the Minister knows whether they will be a success, and it is perfectly natural and right that anyone who is appointed, particularly in the junior grades, should be appointed on probation. Nobody has any objection to that, but this clause makes no distinction. It does not say it is for junior grades; it does not say it is for newly-appointed people. It is a blanket measure and the Minister can deal with a senior member of the staff or a vice-principal who is promoted to a post as principal or anyone else in the whole hierarchy of training colleges. The Minister has in no sense really answered my point. I really think that he has failed completely to deal with my argument.

What is the argument?

I have already stated it three times but I will do so again.

If a man is good enough for promotion he is good enough to be appointed permanently.

It is entirely acceptable to us that if a person is appointed he should be appointed on a period of probation if the authorities think it wise. That goes for somebody who comes straight from the university. But that is not what this clause says. This clause talks of promotion without any reference to any grade and by implication it means that a vice-principal can be promoted to the position of a principal, but only on probation, and I think it is a vote of no-confidence in the teaching staff of the Territory itself that this should be the case. I am not talking about appointments on probation, but about promotion on probation. There is no security of tenure, particularly for senior people if they are granted promotion and they know that promotion is only on a probationary basis. If people get to the higher grades of teaching, either they are competent or not, and if the department cannot assess it adequately and make the appointment permanent, it is the department which is incompetent and not the teacher.

I am afraid I must support the hon. member for Wynberg in this and I would like to draw pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister the fact that he is dealing now with people who are already in the employ of the department. The hon. member for Wynberg, with respect, submitted that this is a vote of no-confidence in his staff, but I would suggest that this is a vote of no-confidence, or an expression of lack of confidence, in the Minister himself and an expression of lack of confidence in the senior members of his department who deal with these people who are promoted. Because what the Minister is in effect saying is: I am going to promote a person to this job, but I am not sure that I have chosen the right person; so I want him to go there on probation for a while until I make up my mind whether he is in fact the right person for the job or not. That is what he is doing. He has no confidence in himself or in his senior officials. Where is the parallel? There is only one parallel that we have in the Republic, where promotion is on probation.

That is to the Cabinet.

No, that is only a temporary appointment. That is only a temporary appointment and not an appointment on probation. Anyone who is appointed in the Cabinet … [Interjections.] Perhaps he may like us to be appointed on probation and we can consider that. As I have said, there is only one parallel in the Republic that I know of and that is in the Railways Administration. There it is done through the Staff Association, and this point we have agreed upon. However, I do not believe that the procedure is the same as the procedure which is going to be employed by this hon. Minister.

The procedure there is that a post is advertised throughout the Republic and applications are invited from those who are qualified to hold down that post. An appointment is finally made and the reason why it is made on probation is so that the other applicants will have the opportunity of objecting if they feel aggrieved with the appointment. Is that the intention of the hon. Minister in this case? Is it his intention to make these appointments on probation so that other officials and teachers can make their objections to the appointment? Before the hon. the Minister tells me that he is not talking about officials, I want to point out that I am well aware of the fact that this deals with persons other than an officer or an employee. If one looks at the definition of an “officer”, and of an “employee” we find that they are civil servants. In other words, the people with whom we are dealing here are not civil servants in terms of the Public Service Act.

Why should their position be any different from that of civil servants? They are also employees in the department; they have also been employed for some time. When they were first appointed they were on probation and having served their probationary period they obviously must have satisfied the department that they were the right type of people and that they had the right qualifications, otherwise they would not have been appointed. Having been appointed, when he wants to promote them, he wants to put them on probation or, as he has put it: “Hulle gaan op proef,” on trial. I am afraid that I cannot accept this at all. This to my mind is a complete vote of no-confidence not only in the staff but in the Minister himself. The Minister’s amendment to delete subsection (4) does remove my greatest objection to this clause because this was the clause which provided for the appointment of somebody acting unpaid, something which has really annoyed employees of the State over many years and I am very glad to hear that the Minister has withdrawn that subsection.

If it woud console hon. members somewhat, I just want to refer to the existing Education Ordinance of South-West Africa. The Afrikaans version of section 31 (3) of the existing Ordinance of 1962, under which these people have now been working for a long time, reads as follows—

The English text reads “a teacher who is promoted to a post”—

“Kan” or “Moet”?

Do not let us be tripped up now by the question of “kan” or “moet”! You said that it did not exist anywhere in the world.

I never said that.

Yes, it was said. I thought that we were a little too calm and that we should at least become a little more heated. After all, it is rather late in the evening already. I just want to read to the hon. members the provisions of the Ordinance again—

He may perhaps not be appointed because he did not make the grade, and therefore it may not be confirmed by the Director.

It is not in the Bill.

It is permissive, not mandatory.

The word “kan” is used.

†The English text reads—

The hon. members opposite have all said that they have never in their lives heard of promotion on probation. Now they hear about promotion on probation. I suppose they do believe it now. Here it says that the Director may, in a case like that, not confirm it if the man does not really prove his mettle. That is all there is to it. I am sorry but I am not prepared to change the clause.

Mr. Chairman, at a later stage I shall come back to the point which the hon. the Minister has just mentioned. In the first place, I want to say that I am glad he moved as an amendment that subsection (4) be omitted. If subsection (4) were agreed to, persons would have been placed in the position where they would have had to remain in a post for years, without their being entitled to the salaries attached to that post. I am glad the hon. the Minister moved that amendment voluntarily, and we support him in that respect.

To come back to the question of promotion on probation and of promotion having to take place specifically on probation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is definitely a fundamental difference between the Ordinance from which he quoted and what is stated here. In this case there is no provision for discretion which may be used. In other words, every promotion must simply be on probation. After all, from what he read out to us from the Ordinance of 1962, it is very clear that certain distinctions could in fact me made —in other words, there is some discretion. In the White Department of Education this is not the case; this is definitely not the case in Natal. Surely the hon. the Minister himself knows what the position in the Cape Province is. A person applies to the local school board. Subsequently that local school board accepts that person, and then he becomes principal at Calvinia, or wherever. We do not find the school board saying four or five months later that an error was made and that that person should be dismissed. That is the position. In my Second Reading speech I said, and I want to repeat it, that whereas the hon. the Minister now had such a wonderful opportunity for preparing model legislation on education, he should not let this opportunity slip through his fingers. I believe that, especially because it relates mainly to Coloureds, it would be an unfortunate day if we were to draw a distinction here. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister does not want to reconsider the matter.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Crywagen. P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the discharge of persons employed at State schools and State-aided schools. In the first place I am sorry that the word “discharge” is being used, i.e. that a person is discharged when, for example, he attains a pensionable age or is in poor health, etc. In the English text it reads “that he may be discharged by the Minister”. It would actually have been better if it were stated that a person’s service is terminated at that stage. When a married person, particularly a married woman, is told that she has been discharged, it looks as if she was perhaps guilty of some or other type of misconduct. The actual reason for my wanting to move an a mendment here lies in clause 21 (1) (e) in particular. This paragraph deals with the discharge of a person who will, in the opinion of the Minister, promote efficiency or economy in the school in question. My amendment is as follows—

The reason why the Public Service Commission is being introduced in this case is that all these reasons for discharge are very clear. If, for example, a person is discharged in terms of paragraph (c), i.e. on account of the abolition of his post or a reduction, reorganization or re-arrangement of the staff of the school in question, this takes place on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In other words, in terms of that paragraph a person is not discharged merely as a result of the judgment of one person. If we find that a person is guilty of misconduct, particularly in terms of clauses 22, 23, etc., we find that a specific procedure must be followed. However, in this paragraph it is merely provided that if the Minister is of the opinion that the discharge of a person will promote greater efficiency or economy at the school in question, that person can be discharged. I feel that in this case a person does not have sufficient protection. I feel it would be better if this takes place after the Public Service Commission has instituted an investigation. In this case I should also like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that when a similar amendment was discussed in 1963, his predecessor said the following in that connection: “The hon. member for Port Elizabeth South has impressed me with his arguments. I think that certain steps should be taken to ensure that there is some form of other investigation before a person is discharged for misconduct”. The Minister then also said that he would do something about the matter in the Other Place. Now, a number of years later, we find that in terms of this clause the necessary provision has not been made yet. The history of this amendment is that the person who moved it, withdrew it because he believed it would be put right in the Other Place. I therefore ask today that in such a case as this the Public Service Commission should first institute an investigation before the Minister decides that such a person’s discharge will promote efficiency or economy.

Mr. Chairman, in clause 21 (1) (g) we are again dealing with discrimination against a woman. It seems to me as if I am just tangled up with married women this afternoon, but unfortunately that cannot be helped because I believe that in principle this is a very important matter that we must, in fact, take a look at. From the nature of the case everything I have already said under clause 15 also applies in respect of the permanent employment of married women. I do not want to repeat this, but I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that the fact that he did not want to accept my amendment under clause 15 in no way prevents him from accepting this amendment, because the two are not absolutely related. I shall tell you why I say this.

Clause 15 provides that a woman shall not be appointed in a permanent capacity if she is married, and this clause makes provision for a woman who marries while she is on the fixed establishment of the department. Over and above my arguments under clause 15, we have this additional factor, i.e. that here we are dealing with a woman who already has a vested interest in her work as a result of the fact that she is permanently employed. Therefore it is perhaps even more essential that she is not discriminated against.

This reminds me of the general legal principle we find in Roman-Dutch law i.e. about the sanctity of marriage. I am thinking of the Law of Persons which, for example, makes provision for the case where someone draws up a will according to which an heir can possibly be discriminated against or which can make it unprofitable for an heir to marry. A person states, for example: “I leave my farm to my daughter, provided she does not marry”. Such a provision is invalid according to common law.

†It discourages marriage, and does not protect the sanctity of marriage. That is why in our common law this is a principle which has been held high, since Roman times, not to discriminate against a woman or a man if he or she is married or is to be married. Marriage, after all, is the basis upon which our society rests.

*If something similar to this clause of the Bill were to appear in a will, for example, i.e. that a woman would lose certain benefits when she married, it would be invalid. I do not think we should contradict that principle. I think it is a good principle, one that has existed for a long time in our legal history. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider abolishing the present provision in this particular case, where a woman marries while she already has a permanent appointment, and allowing her to remain on in a permanent capacity. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments the hon. member for Durban Central expressed here when he said that the word “discharge” does seem a little strong. The other day I myself was surprised to see, when a very senior and valued public servant retired from the Service on reaching retirement age, that the wording used was that he was “discharged”. But of course there is, at least, such a thing as honourable discharge. Perhaps one must regard the discharge in that light.

As far as the hon. member for Florida is concerned, the position in South-West Africa today is as stated here. That is what the present-day position there is. I do not feel that it is desirable to insert that provision, in respect of Coloured teachers, into an Act which is specifically intended for South-West Africa. I take it that if I accepted the proposal the hon. member would repeat the proposal in the case of the Nama and the Basters. Since this provision does not exist in the Act, as far as White teachers in South-West Africa are concerned, I do not feel it is desirable to have it in the case of Coloured teachers.

Although there may be merit in the hon. member’s arguments, I do not think it desirable at this stage, and therefore I am not willing to accept his amendment, and I shall therefore content myself with the provisions of the previous clause, which has already been dealt with, under which I have a discretionary power either to retain such a woman in service on a temporary basis or to appoint her permanently in a case where she is, for example, the only breadwinner because her husband has become very sickly, is an invalid, or because he has died.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke here particularly about paragraph (e). If a person must be discharged in order to promote efficiency, or to effect economy at a school, it would in my opinion be wrong if the official who is involved there should be on the losing side. In other words, one must accommodate that person elsewhere or in another way. There are apparently certain points of view which it is not possible for me simply to take into account as I stand there. Therefore in this case I am not prepared to go further than to say that I shall go into the provisions of the Public Service Act and that I shall give further attention to this matter in the Other Place, because I actually agree with the idea which the hon. members expressed here about paragraph (e).

Since the hon. the Minister states that he too is not happy about the use of the word “discharge” (ontslag), I just want to tell him that I think a better term in that case would be “termination of service” (beëindiging van diens) as a result of reaching the age limit, or something of that nature. I think attention could perhaps be given to this in the future. I am also glad to learn that the hon. the Minister is prepared to go into this matter. He will find that there is definite justification for an inquiry before deciding upon a reduction in staff.

I am glad to hear that the hon. the Minister thinks there is possible merit in my proposal. I therefore want to ask him to consider investigating this matter further. If the hon. the Minister agrees that there is merit in my proposal, we now have the opportunity of inserting the best possible provisions into this Bill. If the Whites in South-West Africa do not have this privilege then we can, if the amendment is accepted, also give them this privilege at a later stage. If there is merit in this amendment, let us embody it in this Bill while we now have the Bill before us. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the matter in that line

May I just reply in a single sentence to the hon. member for Durban Central. According to a note, which was sent to me a moment ago, the words used here are virtually the same as those in the Public Service Act. I shall go into that.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 22 :

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Firstly I want to say that I am very glad that the hon. the Minister moved the deletion of paragraph (f). It will therefore not be necessary for me to speak about that, because it means that persons can now be members of political parties. This clause contains a definition of misconduct. It is a clause covering approximately a page and a half; it concerns many matters.

Paragraph (i) provides that a person may not make excessive use of intoxicants or stupefying drugs. In other words, it appears to me as if a teacher can nevertheless make use of intoxicants or stupefying drugs and still be retained as a teacher; he must just not make excessive use of them. This is a matter about which teachers could argue for days at a stretch.

But, Sir, I want to confine myself to paragraph (e), which provides that a person employed by the department shall be guilty of misconduct if he publicly criticizes the administration of any department, office or institution of the State.

†I would like to move as an amendment—

This paragraph will then read—

*In other words, the only restriction imposed upon him is that such a person may not criticize the administration of the department for which he works, but would be free to criticize other Government departments. The hon. the Minister said that he was going to allow a teacher to be a member of certain organizations, and in his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister mentioned that a teacher can be a member of a political party and that he can even become chairman of a branch. But as long as this paragraph remains in its present form a staff member who is interested in politics will technically be guilty of misconduct each time he takes part in politics. I asked the hon. the Minister by way of an interjection whether such a person could, for example, do recruiting work from door to door. As the clause now reads he will not be able to do so, because if he does recruiting work from door to door it could perhaps be proved that he publicly criticized the administration of some or other Department of State—perhaps the Department of Planning, which has nothing to do with him. He could then be charged as a result of misconduct.

I should like to move the following amendment to this clause—

This is a very similar amendment to the one that has just been moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. It refers to a teacher who might be considered guilty of misconduct if he does or causes to be done or connives at anything which is prejudicial to the administration, discipline or efficiency of any department, office or institution or a State-aided school. The definition of “department” in clause 1 refers of course to the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs, and no other department as far as we are concerned should be involved in this. After all, if the teacher as an individual has any kind of dispute over his income or tax with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or of Agriculture or any other department, surely he should not in any circumstances be subject to an indictment of misconduct under this Bill. It seems to me quite extraordinary that any department or any office or institution of the State should be involved here. We are quite happy about a State-aided school or an educational institution but to include any office or institution of the State and to say that if he has any conflict with them he is liable to a charge of misconduct, is wrong. We think he should not be subject to an indictment like that under a Bill which deals in the first place with education and nothing else.

I want to give South-West Africa a good Bill under any circumstances, and I am therefore going to take it upon myself to say that I am going to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, but I do so under a very express condition. I want to retain for myself the right to come back to this House, whenever I may find it necessary, and to refer to the concession I am making here today and say that I again ask for the return of the power I am relinquishing today. The intention, as already mentioned— and I want to state this very clearly for the record, which is also read by other people —was not that people should not be able to use their democratic right of criticism freely. But there is a difference between making use of a right and deciding to abuse it. It is very difficult to say where the dividing line is, and now one has to give the Minister an arbitrary power. Seen with a view to our wanting to give the people of South-West Africa a reasonable and fine dispensation, as far as their education is concerned, inserting nothing that detracts from their rights, I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central. In addition I want to say that at this stage I do not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg. From the nature of the case I must now also rewrite (s), and I shall do so properly so that it fits in with the rest of the clause. I shall do that in the Other Place.

Amendments proposed by Mr. P. A. Pyper and the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. C. D. Taylor put and negatived ("Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 23 :

Mr. Chairman, in clause 23 we find the procedure to be followed if a person is accused of misconduct under the provisions of the previous clause. This clause coincides with the other legislation in this regard and it is a fair system. It gives any person charged with misconduct a fair chance to put his case. Therefore I have no quarrel with that. I want to quote subsection (4). It reads—

If an accusation has been brought in against a person, but he has not yet been charged, according to this clause he may be suspended. In other words, the mere fact that a person is accused of misconduct may have serious consequences, which may last for quite some time. I know that he may be given reparation after he has been found not guilty, but during a certain period the consequences of just being accused can be very serious and very detrimental. Therefore we wish to make certain that whenever a person is accused of misconduct, he is accused by written affidavit. I am of the opinion that this is absolutely essential in order to ensure that a person is not accused willy-nilly, on improper evidence or on improper grounds. We also want to make sure that he is not accused maliciously, because just the fact that he has been accused can have very serious consequences for this person. It would be very sad is a person could be accused maliciously without it being by affidavit and eventually it is proved that the person who first made the accusation was malicious or completely untruthful. Then, I am afraid, as the Bill now reads, the accused person will have no redress against that person. If it is, however, made on an affidavit and he proves that the affidavit has been falsely made, he will be able to charge him with perjury. In order to ensure that such an accusation will not be made lightly and cannot be made lightly and that the person who makes the accusation has to be certain and that he in fact binds himself when he makes such an accusation, I therefore wish to move the following

When amended accordingly, clause 23 (1) will read—

Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time the provisions contained in this clause are being placed on the Statute Book. These are provisions which have been derived from other education legislation in South Africa. This long series of provisions is very complete and has stood the test of time. For that reason I feel that it is not desirable to effect any change to these provisions. I think they should rather remain as they are. I want to say that we do not proceed on the assumption that we want to smell out people, prejudice people and dismiss people from their jobs unnecessarily. I am prepared to go through with this entire clause. If there is any deficiency, we shall remove it, but the clause as it stands has already been put to the test in the other education departments of the Republic. For this reason I cannot, unfortunately, accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 25 :

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot give me some further information on clause 25. On Friday I gained the impression that he might move an amendment to this clause.

The clause deals with the procedure that is going to be followed when a person wants to seek election as a member of the provincial council or of a legislative body. The impression I gained from the hon. the Minister when he replied to this debate on Friday afternoon, was that he, too, realized that it was unfair to expect of a person to resign from the service of a department as soon as he had been nominated by a party. I believe it would be far better—and, what is more, there are other Government departments, such as the Railways, in which a person may get leave to seek election—if a person were to be deemed to have resigned as soon as he had been elected. I think it would be better in this case if it were to be provided that as from the date on which such a person was nominated by the party, he would be deemed to be on long leave, or on unpaid leave, and that he would not be deemed to have resigned from the service of the department just as soon as he had been nominated.

A person stands to lose a great many benefits when he accepts nomination and eventually finds that he is not elected. One stands to lose benefits such as pension benefits and other benefits, for example, possible promotion.

I do not have an amendment at the moment, but I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister whether we cannot possibly get an assurance that he will take another look at this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have looked into the matter and I have just spoken to my hon. colleagues behind me, and I find that this is the case throughout the Republic. If one is nominated, and one is a teacher, one has to resign. The hon. member for Germiston, for example, was a teacher and the day he was nominated as a candidate for the election he had to resign as a teacher. The position as far as White teachers in South-West Africa is concerned, is that if a White teacher seeks election as a member of the House of Assembly or of the Legislative Assembly, his service comes to an end upon nomination. I think the hon. member will concede that we cannot phrase this clause differently. In fact, it agrees with the provision contained in the existing Education Ordinance of 1962 of South-West Africa. If any teacher seeks election as a member of Parliament, or as a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is assumed that he will resign his appointment as teacher on the day on which he is nominated as a candidate. This is the position at present. The only matter that remains is the following : As yet we have not covered in this legislation the position which will obtain when the Coloured Council of South-West Africa becomes an elected body. But as yet it is not necessary today, and when it does become necessary. I shall introduce a short amendment in the House in order to regulate the matter.

Mr. Chairman. I am aware of the fact that that is the position in Natal. I myself had experience of it. The position is as stated by the hon. the Minister. But in view of the fact that in other clauses the hon. the Minister has introduced provisions which certain White education departments do not have, I feel that this is an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to set an example. I said earlier on that this was an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to establish a model for the rest of South Africa. Establish the model for the Coloured people and then other provinces can copy this model. This is the big opportunity the hon. the Minister has. It is in this spirit that I am asking the Minister to make of this Bill a very fine piece of education legislation.

The hon. member for Durban Central now wants us to give privileges to the Coloured teachers which others do not have. If we do so, it will be that very same hon. member who will tell our White teachers in the rural areas, “Just see what the National Party Government did. They gave the Coloured people privileges which you wretched White people do not have”. Mr. Chairman, the ideas of the hon. member are like a snake in the grass.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 27 :

Mr. Chairman, clause 27 deals with courses for the education or training of persons in State schools and State-aided schools. In terms of this clause the Minister may institute courses. The hon. the Minister mentioned it in particular when we spoke about agricultural schools. However, we also find that he may determine the nature and length of, and the conditions for admission to, any course.

†In terms of clause 27 (2) the Minister shall determine the nature and length of, and the conditions for admission to any course instituted in terms of subsection (1).

I move as an amendment—

*It is not my intention at all to conduct a lengthy debate on this matter. It is generally known that this side of the House believes that the parents should have the right to be able to decide in which language medium their children should be instructed. However, the attitude of the members on the opposite side of the House is that the child does not belong to the parents, but in fact to the State. So the Minister may lay down conditions here for the admission of a child. Now we feel that in the conditions he is going to lay down—and I know he has to lay down conditions— he will at least have to take into consideration the choice which the parents should have in respect of the medium of instruction of the child.

I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendment as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

I regret to have to accept your ruling, although I do, however, not question for a moment. I just regret that this is the position. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see when he comes to the Other Place whether he can make some arrangement whereby he can introduce such an amendment as has been suggested by my friend from Durban Central. I am not going to speak to the amendment at all. I would however like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could give us a little more detail regarding his intention in clause 27. This is the clause which gives him all the power to control every facet of the education of Coloured people in South-West Africa; he may institute the courses for the educational training of persons and, of course, he may abolish them. He shall determine the nature and length of and the conditions for admission to any course. What conditions does he intend applying to persons who wish to enter for courses or for education at these institutions? The Minister may cause examinations to be conducted, but on what standard is he going to base those examinations? Who will set these examinations? All these questions remain unanswered. The important question that also remains unanswered in this clause is what the language medium of instruction will be. Will the mother tongue principle apply here? Is it the Minister’s intention to have education in more than one language medium? If so, which media does he intend using? I am aware of the provisions of clause 36 (6), but these are questions to which I believe this Committee should have answers before we approve the powers which the hon. the Minister is asking us to give him in terms of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in actual fact the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, which was not accepted, was out of place here. When we deal with clause 36, the hon. member will see that subsection (6) settles the matter quite conclusively. Therefore, that is also my reply to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister, I asked him certain questions. What is his intention? In which way does he intend using these powers? What will be the media of instruction; will there be more than one medium of instruction? I feel that this Committee is entitled to answers to these questions from the hon. the Minister. Just to pass it off by saying that that is also a sufficient answer for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, is insufficient. Can the hon. the Minister tell us the answers to the questions that I have posed, or are these things which are still hanging in the future, which have not yet been decided? If that is so, he must tell this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, schools are already in operation at the moment, for example, for the Basters.

Do not deal with the Basters now; we are discussing the Coloured people.

I was just taking the example of languages in South-West Africa. The Coloured people in South-West Africa are all Afrikaans-speaking at this stage. The medium of instruction is Afrikaans. As far as the Nama schools are concerned, there are not really many teachers who are able to speak Nama. All the same, we do intend offering religious instruction in the Nama language, and one or two more subjects later on. We are making provision for children to be taught in the Nama language up to at least Std. 2—whether we shall succeed in this, we do not know. And this is in addition to the two official languages. Clause 36 provides explicitly that anything I may do and any regulation I may promulgate, shall not deprive any parent of the right of final decision regarding the medium of instruction of a child. Therefore this is laid down in clause 36 (6) in the legislation. The factual situation as far as the Coloured people are concerned, however, is that generally Afrikaans is their home language at present and that they are taught mainly in Afrikaans, although the other official language is also taught there, as in all other schools.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

1. (p) as to the appointment of attendance officers in the case of the application of section 29 (2).

The Minister’s powers in terms of these regulations are very clearly specified. He has the power to appoint the inspectors, to admit pupils to schools, to discharge them and to exercise control over them while they are there. All these powers are specified. Clause 29 (2) deals with the implementation of the principle of compulsory schooling, wherever that happens to be possible in terms of the buildings and the teachers available, etc. In many areas in a territory like South-West, the parents themselves may very well fall short of their duty and fail to see to it that their children attend school regularly. I would go so far as to say, since we are dealing with realities here, that some of these parents may well be illiterate and be quite unaware of the penalties that are involved in terms of the law, to the effect that they have to send their children to school. The penalties involved are very high. They are higher now in terms of this Bill than they were in Act 47 of 1963, which applies to the Coloured people of the Republic. On a first offence any parents who fail to send their children to school, where compulsory schooling has been introduced, are subject to a R50 fine or three months’ imprisonment. For a second offence the penalty is a R100 fine or six months’ imprisonment. Many of these, with due respect, may well be people who do not really understand the system; they do not really know what it is all about; they have not been accustomed to sending their children off regularly to school. I know, Sir, and you know, that the school principal in the last resort is responsible for seeing to it that the children do attend where there is compulsory schooling. But in an area such as South-West, which we are discussing now, where pupils may very well live quite a considerable distance from their school the principals will scarcely be able to rally all these pupils who may or may not turn up at school. In any event, the average school principal is so overburdened with work these days, including work of an administrative kind, that he is certainly not going to be able to see to this and deal with it adequately. I suggest that provision should specifically be made for an adequate staff of attendance officers to make compulsory schooling workable. My point is this: Who is going to enforce this law? The last thing that should be done is to involve the Police in this matter in any way. This is why we are thinking in terms of putting it into the Statute that the Government shall appoint attendance officers. It would be most unfortunate if the Police were involved, because it could lead to trouble and unnecessary unpleasantness if, failing anyone else, they have to see that the compulsory provisions are enforced. On those grounds we would like to see incorporated in the legislation some specific provision for attendance officers.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with regulations. If we appoint such officials, we shall do so in terms of the Public, Service Act; therefore it is not necessary in my opinion to make regulations as to their appointment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister referred me to clause 36 (6) when I moved an amendment a few minutes ago. Now I should just like to read clause 36 (6) to you. It reads—

In other words, it comes into operation only where any doubt exists as to the matter. The position is not, as I thought originally, that the choice is left to the parent to decide in which medium the child is to be instructed. In other words, I am sorry that we could not talk about the matter when the previous clause was under discussion. However, I do not think we have here the guarantee we seek.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed: