Sir, the Minister of Immigration in any growing country occupies an extremely important and responsible position. This Minister has a double responsibility because he is also responsible for all official information on the Republic of South Africa which is sent out into the whole world.

We are dealing with immigration.

The hon. member should listen and understand Afrikaans.

*For that reason the Minister’s international and national responsibility may be seen as being next to that of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore one would expect his conduct in a debate, as well as in public, to be such that it would reflect the outward-going hospitality, the seriousness and the responsibility of the Government. In this debate today I want to mention two incidents which took place within the past six weeks when the hon. the Minister, in my modest opinion, acted in a highly irresponsible way in relation to the Immigration Vote. I am mentioning the matters deliberately and intentionally in order to afford the Minister an opportunity of rectifying matters. As a South African patriot, I cannot allow false impressions to be created about my fatherland and simply to be left up in the air. The first incident took place during the unpleasant Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill when the hon. the Minister was speaking on 13th April and had a few words with my hon. friend, the member for Durban North. According to Hansard (col. 4821) the altercation went as follows:

Can I go elsewhere?

Yes, perhaps you can. I want to be honest towards the hon. member. All Afrikaners are good South Africans.

And what about me?

The hon. member for Durban North is probably—and I want to give him credit for this at once …

I agree with the hon. the Minister—

This sentence was interrupted by an interjection from the hon. member for Transkei. Later, on the same day, the hon. the Minister reacted by way of an interjection while my Leader was speaking, and said the following (Hansard, col. 4835)—

I regard these two remarks, coming from the Minister of Immigration, as highly irresponsible. If there are people in South Africa who qualify for citizenship and do not accept it, I concede that they are not South African and are unacceptable. But what must the numerous immigrants of British and Irish extraction, who do not qualify for citizenship yet, feel? They have now been lumped under one cloak together with the terrorists and the liberals.

Disgraceful!

Would they still feel at home and accept citizenship voluntarily by the time they did qualify to become citizens? I can tell the hon. the Minister that all these people have made big sacrifices in order to come here. It is not easy to uproot oneself from one’s home country in order to come to a foreign country. Therefore I feel the Government should not be surprised if these people were to be sensitive after such a slap in the face.

The second instance was a speech made by the hon. the Minister in Brakpan before the famous election there Under the heading “Government considering legislation: Bilingual settlers, State move”, he was reported as follows in the Sunday Express of 30th April, 1972—

The report continues—

Sir, if this is a correct report, then I say “what childish nonsense!” Surely it is not every one who is blessed with the gift of languages. How does the Minister expect immigrants from the European countries of origin—France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, etc.—ever to become citizens if they have to learn another two languages in addition to their mother tongue? Does he expect they would still want to come if this obligation were placed on them? Will he tell us what form this legislation is going to take and whether he intends granting citizenship only to those who have become bilingual? And, if so, is he prepared to take the consequences of such legislation to its logical conclusion, and withdraw the citizenship of every unilingual person who is a South African by birth, because that would be the just thing to do. If this were to befall immigrants, it should befall our own citizens too. Or will the Minister be man enough to say that this was not his intention; that it was merely a party political speech made in the tension and heat of a party political campaign? But whatever the reply of the Minister may be and whatever his reason was, this Minister did his office, himself and South Africa great damage with this statement. Why could he not have said, as I would have said, that we bring immigrants here for their knowledge and skill, regardless of whether they are able to speak one or the other or none of our languages; we welcome them as long as they are able to make a contribution to our economy and the growth of the Republic and as long as they are prepared to accept our citizenship. We should do everything in our power to encourage them to be bilingual, for example, by making the language laboratory, etc., freely available. Amongst these things I just want to mention this. I want to inform this House of the commendable work done by the hon. member for Port Natal, that hon. member who was described disparagingly at one stage as being a monoglot. During 1965 and 1966 he gave free lessons to immigrants with the assistance of a qualified Afrikaans teacher. In the period from 1965 to 1966 he gave Afrikaans lessons to no fewer than 60 immigrants, with the assistance of that teacher. [Interjections.] This is what is needed to make our immigrants bilingual, not legislation. Furthermore, we are interested in the children of our immigrants, the children who will be South African by birth and who will receive their education here in South Africa.

May I ask a question?

No. I am speaking of the children of immigrants who will be South African by birth and who will receive their education here in South Africa. I say that any sensible South African, especially a member of the Cabinet, who talks of legislation in this case, is moving a damning motion of no confidence in our education system as a whole. If our education system cannot make them bilingual, no legislation on earth could. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what we have had to witness up to now in this Committee, in this debate, really has been pathetic. Yesterday evening the so-called shadow Minister of Immigration spoke. He tried to deal with certain immigration figures, but he had not acquainted himself with the matter, for he did not know how many immigrants had entered the country last year. If he had done his homework, he would have found that in the course of this Session the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked how many immigrants had entered the country in the past three years. The reply was that up to the end of October, 1971, 29 400 had come. The hon. the shadow Minister of Immigration spoke of 20 000 to 25 000 immigrants having entered the country. How ridiculous! How ridiculous when the main speaker in the debate does not know the subject he is dealing with! This debate is falling into exactly the same pattern as the one we had the past few years. The arguments raised are exactly the same. The hon. member for Albany will get his replies in due course.

In the course of my speech, I also want to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Port Natal. I have said that the arguments raised here by them, have been exactly the same as in the past. The Government is consistently accused of bringing too few immigrants into the country. It is said that our policy is such that not enough immigrants are brought into the country. They see only one solution, and that is that we do not get enough immigrants from the United Kingdom. That is their solution, virtually the same solution as the one they have to the labour question. If one does not want to use Black labour, one should get immigrants from the United Kingdom. This is what they harp on from morning till night. The other thing they harp on, is that we should obtain immigrants from those countries where there is unemployment. My experience is that the man who is unemployed, is not always of the best. The employer first gets rid of those who are not good workers.

However, I want to come back to the member for Port Natal. He is the hon. member who told us last year how difficult it was for him as an immigrant to accept citizenship; how difficult it was for him to integrate and to adjust. I want to accept that it is most certainly difficult to accept citizenship in a foreign country. It is something one admires. Since it is so difficult for the hon. member, I want to ask him whether, after the remarks he has made in this country of ours, he expects that any potential immigrant will come to South Africa? I have my misgivings as to whether he has accepted this country as his fatherland. What did the hon. member for Port Natal say, he who wishes so much to teach others to become bilingual, but who has not vet taken the trouble to become bilingual himself? He is the person who likes criticizing us so much. With reference to the Timol matter, the hon. member said the following—

Is this what a citizen says of his own fatherland? Did he accept his fatherland in that spirit? He is a person who tries to create the image that South Africa is a police state. He creates the image to the outside world that we may exercise no political freedom in this country. I want to ask him now whether he has in fact accepted citizenship of this country. I have my doubts. I do not know whether he really accepted South Africa on the day when he had to take the oath and led his allegiance to South Africa. I doubt it very strongly.

I want to point out what that hon. member said in this debate last year. I quote as follows from his Hansard—

This is what he said, inter alia. He went on to say—

The he said—

He was referring to the Nats—

He went on to say—

This is what the hon. member for Albany, too, has said now—

I want to ask the hon. member whether these are the criteria which they want to apply for bringing immigrants into the country.

What

are yours?

If a man is an atheist, but a good electrician, may he enter the country? If the person shows communistic inclinations but is a good fitter and turner, may he enter the country? If the person is a demonstrator, a person such as Peter Hain, and he is a good engineer—perhaps he is a good engineer, but I do not think so because he is too stupid—may he enter the country?

What do you say?

I say no. If a man has poor moral values although he is a good architect, may he enter the country?

What do you say?

They want to bring the Peter Hains and the Homes into the country. Bring in that type, they say. They get upset when we say that Gen. Smuts said—

The hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Albany advocated exactly the same thing. They still stand by what was said in August, 1946, i.e., “bring in the good and the bad”, as long as he is able to hit on an anvil with a hammer. They advocate inferior selection standards.

I want to come back to the decrease in our immigration figures. The hon. member for Geduld referred to them and if one takes a quick look at the figures, there was in fact a decrease. The actual number of immigrants we had last year, was 35 845. only 5 670 fewer than in the previous year. As the hon. member for Geduld rightly said, although there was a decrease of 5 000 in the total number of immigrants, there was a drop of only 400 as far as the number of economically active immigrants is concerned. I say that this is a minimal decrease. In the first place, we bring those people into the country in order to place them in employment and in order to supplement the manpower shortage. There was a decrease of only 400 in respect of the previous year’s figures. Let us examine the reasons why there was such a shortfall, especially as regards immigrants from the United Kingdom.

If one makes an analysis, one finds that we received approximately 4 000 fewer immigrants from the United Kingdom. Now I just want to refresh hon. members’ memories a little. The hon. members will remember that in 1971 there were postal strikes in the United Kingdom which lasted virtually four months. In that period we received no mail from Great Britain. That is one of the major reasons why we received fewer immigrants from the United Kingdom. We received 1400 fewer immigrants from the African states. Surely it is obvious that we should expect that source to run dry at some time or other. We received approximately 1000 fewer immigrants from the rest of Europe. Now I want to say to hon. members that there is a reason for that as well. The hon. member for Geduld referred to it. In a country like Germany there are more than 3 million foreign workers. In France there are 2½ million and in Britain there is more than a million. Surely we cannot expect to receive the number we expected from those countries. Our aim still is to get between 35 000 and 40 000 immigrants. What is more, we have maintained this. We are maintaining it without abandoning standards.

I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that we should never in any way abandon our standards or lower them. If we did so, we would be-making a fatal mistake. In conclusion, I want to bring one request to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is a requirement that when an immigrant applies for citizenship, he should have a knowledge of at least one of the official languages. Today I want to make a serious plea, not in respect of the older immigrants, but in respect of the young immigrants, that when they apply for citizenship, they should have a knowledge of both official languages, especially when they are under a certain age. The older people may still fall under the old Act, but I want to advocate to the Minister that we should expect the younger immigrant applying for citizenship, to know both languages before he qualifies as a citizen of the country.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who has just sat down, I want to say that, if I was thinking of emigrating to South Africa after having heard his speech, I would certainly not set foot here. I want to deal with this hon. member as well as the hon. member for Boksburg, who made practically the same speech here, word for word, on Friday during the Police Vote. I shall read a translation extraction from his Hansard. The hon. member was referring to me in his speech on Friday. He said—

That is what the hon. member said on Friday. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said something similar today. I want to say to those two hon. members that I came to this country with my parents as an immigrant, and I served in the uniform of South Africa during the war. I do not know where the hon. members were, but I want to say to them that I saw people die in the uniform of South Africa and no one asked them what language they spoke before they died. I further want to say to those hon. members that I do not know where they served when South Africa needed their services, but I served South Africa despite the fact that I came to South Africa and was not born here. I want to tell them that there are hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa like myself, who are just sick and tired of utterances of the sort that we have heard this afternoon and on Friday. I do not know how one can answer such un-South African attacks upon another South African in this House. I challenge both of those two members to repeat what they have said outside the walls of this Chamber. They will not have the courage to do so.

I would like now to come back to the hon. the Minister of Immigration who, after all, is the gentleman in charge of this portfolio. I want to say to him that, if he does not get up in this House this afternoon and repudiate what those two hon. members have said today and on Friday, every prospective immigrant to South Africa will know exactly how sincere he is with regard to immigration to this country. I want to say to him, too, that it is no wonder that only 10 per cent of the White population of South Africa are South African nationalists. To my mind it would be no wonder if those people who are living in South Africa today, people who came out here as immigrants, refuse to take out South African nationality if that is the sort of thing that represents South African nationality in this country.

The voters will kick them out.

As my friend here says, at least the voters of South Africa will soon come to their senses and rid themselves of a Government that expresses an opinion of that nature. You see, Sir, we come from a stock—we immigrants can also talk of “stock”—that is not easily intimidated by a bunch of bullies on the other side.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. Minister’s speech has been quoted to him by my friend from Albany and also by the hon. member for Zululand. He quoted the speech of Prof. Swart in Port Elizabeth. I ask the hon. the Minister, if he is sincere, whether he is going to get up and apologize for the speech he made and referred to by the hon. member for Albany, and whether he is going to repudiate the speech made by this professor in Port Elizabeth. If he refuses to do so, I and thousands of others can take it for granted that while the Government talks that it needs immigration it is certainly not sincere in getting immigrants. The only type of immigrant it wants is one that will support the Nationalist Party. If he does not support the Nationalist Party he is not wanted here as an immigrant. I have personal experience of this and I want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I persuaded a friend of mine to come to South Africa. In our exchange of correspondence he told me that he had some doubts about coming to South Africa, because occasionally people here make anti-English comments. I then wrote back and told him that he had nothing to worry about and that those crackpots were fast disappearing from the political life of South Africa and that this was unlikely to happen. But after the hon. the Minister’s speech in this House wherein he said that some English-speaking people would not be good South Africans this same friend of mine phoned me and said “I thought you said that the crackpots were fast disappearing from the political life of South Africa”. He has now decided to return to the United Kingdom and it is this Minister who is responsible for the loss of this particular immigrant, and probably many others too.

I would also like to deal very briefly with another matter, namely the question that is asked of immigrants what religion they belong to. We have had the incident in Durban where an immigrant said he had no religion and was then refused permission to take up residence in South Africa because of it. It transpired that this immigrant was perfectly honest. He was not a churchgoing man and subsequently said that he had no religion. What I find particularly strange is that the Government acts against such an immigrant because he has no religion, while religious workers cannot immigrate to South Africa. They can only come here on temporary permits or visas. I find this particularly strange. In the one instance the Government acts because a man says that he has no religion, but when a religious worker wants to come here, he is not allowed to come or restrictions are put in his way to make it difficult.

He is just a migratory labourer.

Order!

I therefore want to say to the Minister in all seriousness that surely such an attitude towards religion is nothing more and nothing less than sheer hypocrisy. While a person is asked whether he is a religious person or a Christian I want to ask what person born in South Africa can say, in view of some of the things we do, that we are a religious people? I therefore say to the Minister that he would have to go a long way to try to convince me that he is sincere about this question of obtaining immigrants.

In conclusion I would again like to say to those two hon. members, particularly to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, than he and other members on that side have raised the question of what Gen. Smuts is supposed to have said, namely “Bring all, bring the good and the bad” in 1946.

You are preaching exactly the same.

I have on a previous occasion read out what Gen. Smuts said and he never said that at all. I do not wish to repeat it, because hon. members can see it in their Hansard. I think the matter came up two years ago. If I had the time I would read that speech out again, but that is certainly not true. Gen. Smuts never opened the flood-gates to all and sundry. I also want to say to that hon. member, before my time expires, that he must remember that he is a descendant of an immigrant himself. Everyone in this House is a descendant of an immigrant. I want to ask those hon. members whether their forefathers would be proud of some of the things their descendants say today. I am quite certain in my own mind that they would be ashamed of some of the things we have had from hon. members opposite. I want to say to all people who are thinking of emigrating to South Africa that they must take heart, because this Government is coming to the end of its tether, because every Government which behaves in such a manner should come to the end of its tether. The signs are there for all to see. Immigrants should come to South Africa, and those here should become South African citizens, because sanity will surely return to South Africa in the not too distent future.

The hon member for Port Natal who has just resumed his seat, made quite a remarkable speech in more than one respect, a speech which has struck one for various reasons. One of the first things that struck one was the over-sensitiveness he displayed on account of the references made by hon. friends for Boksburg and Vanderbijlpark to the spiritual kinship with Peter Hain. I have here in front of me a newspaper cutting, which reads as follows—

This is the hon. member for Port Natal—

The hon. member for Port Natal had the opportunity to deny that he had said this, but he preferred to speak about other matters and tried in a filthy manner to run down what my friends from Boksburg and Vanderbijlpark …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say “filthy manner”. He must withdraw those words.

It is in any case also quite a …

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member may now continue.

However, he did so in a very improper way. He referred to it, but he did not deny that he had said it. Now I put it to you, Sir, that a person who says things such as those I have here in front of me—and stands here in inverted commas—can only be a person who has a spiritual kinship with Peter Hain. What right does he have to raise a hue and cry here about his attitude as far as these matters are concerned and to say that he is a good South African when this is the language he uses? What incentive is this for prospective immigrants to come to South Africa!

What is more, the hon. member also referred to those immigrants who do not accept South African citizenship. I can understand now that the hon. member, particularly in the constituency he represents, is very concerned that they do not accept South African citizenship. Here is the answer. The newspaper which supports them, the Sunday Times, of 27th June, 1971, had a very prominent heading, which reads—Help us beat Nats; U.P. appeals to immigrants”. This is the key to the question he has asked as to why they do not accept citizenship. This is the reason why he is concerned about it. He has always regarded the immigrant as a potential ally to bring the National Party, and in that way Afrikanerdom, on its knees. But I now say straightaway that neither that hon. member nor any of the other members of the United Party will succeed in estranging from the National Party any of the immigrants who come to South Africa and become good citizens of South Africa.

He also denied that Gen. Smuts had said in 1946 that both the good and the bad should come in. If he denies this he is either quite stupid or he is deliberately trying to mislead the committee; because here I have the words of Gen. Smuts.

Order! The hon. member must-withdraw the words “deliberately mislead”.

Yes, I withdraw them, Sir,

It is the second time now.

Order! I shall keep the order here.

Here I have the words of General Smuts, and they were not published in an Afrikaans newspaper—it was published in the Argus of 14th August, 1946. This is stated here quite Clearly. It concerns a speech made by Gen. Smuts when he addressed the general committee of the United Party in the Transvaal. He was referring to the past and said—

And then he said the following words—

What inference can be drawn from this other than that both the good and the bad should come? To prove to you, Sir, that the bad did in fact come in, I have the evidence here. This has never been denied. Here it is in Hansard of 17th February, 1948: Criminals who had 37 convictions against them came into the country. The United Party, which were governing at that time, refused to lift a finger because, in the words of Gen. Smuts, the good and the bad were to come in. and South Africa simply had to digest them.

Where is that from?

The hon. member for Maitland asks me where this is from. But I told hon. members a moment ago. He can look this up in the Argus of 14th August, 1946. This has never been denied. [Interjections.] This was said to the general committee of the United Party. I appreciate that that hon. member did not serve on the general committee of the United Party at that time.

The hon. member for Port Natal raised a hue and cry about the references made here by the hon. members for Boksburg and Vanderbijlpark. But I now want to put another question to him: Further to the speech the hon. member for Boksburg made on Friday, he read out a translation of it to this committee. Why did he not read out to this House the exact words of the hon. member for Boksburg, the words he used in Afrikaans? Why did he read from a translation?

He cannot read Afrikaans.

Read his words in English.

Sir, we can carry on in this vein but I do not think this will bring us anywhere. I think that if we want to conduct a meaningful debate on immigration, it would be best if we nit the policy and standpoint of the United Party against that of the National Party as far as immigration is concerned. That idiom in which the United Party spoke when it was in power is the idiom in which members of the United Party are still speaking today. I think I have furnished adequate proof that this is so. Since last night we have found that the hon. member for Zululand has been complaining because not enough immigrants are entering the country at present. That has been replied to, but I just want to remind you, Sir, that we had 35 845 immigrants last year. Once again the inference one has to draw from this is that the United Party has ulterior motives. The United Party has always been outspoken on their standpoint as far as our labour problems are concerned. Their solution of our labour problems has always been that we should use non-Whites and not necessarily immigrants. They want the immigrants for a different purpose. I have evidence of that as well. When they complain that not enough immigrants are entering the country, there are other reasons for that. Major-General I. P. de Villiers, who was chairman of the immigration Board, said in East London in February, 1948, that South Africa at that time was the only dominion which had the full co-operation of the British Department of Labour as far as obtaining immigrants was concerned. He said the reasons for this was that South Africa’s White population had to be supplemented and that the Commonwealth should have a firm basis in South Africa. That was the reason. That was in 1948, when that side of the House was in power; at that time they could still try and do these things. When they complain here that not enough immigrants are entering the country, they do so because they have ulterior motives, viz., to try and bring the National Party on its knees and in that way try to bring Afrikanerdom to its knees. This is the idiom in which they were speaking. As far as the National Party is concerned the policy is quite clear, i.e. that what counts is quality, not numbers. I want to say today that I am convinced that I am speaking on behalf of every right-minded person in this country when I say that we are grateful to the hon. the Minister, his department and his officials, who see to it that quality is the primary consideration when it comes to bringing immigrants to this country and that numbers is of secondary concern.

I want to put another question to the United Party: What happened when they were in power? Let us look at the history of this matter. It was not only Whites they allowed into this country; they also allowed non-Whites as immigrants into the country. I want to ask today whether they would do this again if they were to come into power. In 1947 over 800 non-White immigrants from various countries entered the country.

What about the Indians?

I want to know and the country is entitled to know whether they will again allow non-White immigrants to enter the country if they were ever put in the position to say what should be done here. I want to say that this is altogether unacceptable to the White portion of the population in South Africa [Interjections.] I do not have the time now; we can debate that at a later stage. We will have another opportunity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very amused by the diatribe we have just had from the hon. member for Springs. It was a former Minister of Immigration, the late Mr. Trollip, a Nationalist Government Minister of Immigration at the time, who told this House some years before his death, that the immigration policy of the Nationalist Party was exactly the same, when it came to sifting people for immigration purposes, as it was in Smutss day, except, of course, for the difference that this Government pays their passage, whereas we did not pay their passages. In view of the things he has said, I should like to ask that hon. member under whose administration Mr. Tsafendas entered this country in order to assassinate the Prime Minister.

He was never an immigrant.

That hon. member made a very violent speech here today, and I should like to remind this House that Mr. Tsafendas, when he was in this country, working in this House as a messenger, was under a deportation order. So, just how safe can any of us feel under this administration?

I want to refer to the question of allowing people into this country or refusing them entry on the grounds of their religion. I want to refer specifically to the case of Mr. Eric Mller from Denmark who wrote “no religion” on his form. He was a constructional engineer, and before he was refused admission, he received a letter from the Secretary for Immigration which read as follows—

Leaving out “atheist” and “agnostic” in this instance, I may say that we know already, from the narrowness of the Government’s approach, that a “humanist” suggests to the Minister and his cronies, a kind of neo-communist, a universal slob, a potentially dangerous individual, whose real object is the preaching of the gospel of equality, and who very often has sinister and subversive ideological political motives. But what did the official who wrote to Mr. Moller mean when he asked him whether he was a humanist? What had this, in the first instance, to do with this man’s professional competence, and what is the Minister’s definition of a humanist? Has anyone in the department given this matter any serious thought at all, apart from the clich-ridden replies to which we are accustomed? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how competent the officials of his department are to judge these matters, or how competent the members of the board are, for that matter. Could any single one of them get up and define, if they were asked to, what they meant by a “humanist”, or do they decide according to popular political clichs alone? What qualifications, in the realms of theological, philosophical or metaphysical thought, have the six main members of the immigrants Selection Board to enable them to reject an immigrant who says firstly that, he does not have any specified religion, or secondly, that he might, for argument’s sake, be a humanist It seems to me most unlikely that they have any of these qualifications because four of the main members of the board are public servants. I am not speaking now of the long list of Government officials whose names the Minister gave me in reply to a question, who sift the applications in the first place. But there are six main members of the board, who are appointed, and four of those six are permanent civil servants. I have yet to hear that theology or philosophy is a qualification that is necessary for membership of the Public Service. One of them is a former officer of the Security Police and, oddly enough, one of them, the late Mr. Trollip, who, as the hon. the Minister knows, was for many years a Cabinet Minister, was a member of that board himself. But the interesting thine is that the late Mr. Trollip, when challenged in a debate in the Other Place by the Opposition. about keeping people out on religious grounds, said this in his capacity as Minister (Senate Hansard of 15th February, 1968, column 216/7)—

When he was questioned again by hon. Senators on the Opposition side, the hon. the Minister, from that side of the House, went on to say—

Well, Sir, that is very interesting. Since when has the policy of the Government changed in this matter?

That was before he became a member of the Broederbond.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister why his views on this matter have suddenly changed. You know. Sir, there are people in this world who have written books on the subject of humanists. I have a book here which was edited by Sir, Julian Huxley. He himself wrote the foreword, and it is called The Humanist Frame. He mentions the alarming problems facing the world and the stimulating challenges, and he says—

This is his definition of the problems and the dangers facing people. He mentions these as a humanist. But I am quite certain that in terms of this Government’s thinking, so little do they know about it. that a humanist to them means somebody who automatically has subversive views. Does the hon. the Minister not know—I am quite sure that the members of his board do not know—that all the early humanists were Christians anyway? Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister: Is it not possible that countless people in the modern world, who find the more rigid institutionalized patterns of the orthodox churches difficult to follow, may set themselves completely laudable ethical standards which are every bit as high as those of people who profess to adhere to any one of the orthodox religious denominations? In any event, Sir, who are we to judge in matters of this kind? If a potential immigrant from another country has a bad police record, or a history of political subversion, that is quite a different matter. But I think one’s ethic, one’s religion, is an intensely personal thing, and it is a gross violation of the individual’s privacy for any Government department or any representative of any Government department to intrude in matters of this kind. We take the greatest exception to the manner in which this subject has been handled.

Sir, in the time left to me I want to ask what criteria the Minister or his board uses when it comes to refusing certain Indians the right of entry to this country. I have the case of an old lady called Mrs. Osman. Both the sons and their families have been permanently domiciled in South Africa for years and years. She was a widow aged 68 years. She had been married to her husband here in South Africa in 1928. She became a South African citizen. He died in 1940, and in 1941 she went alone to India to see her relations, and she remained there until she came back to see her sons in 1971. She is crippled with arthritis. She hoped to be allowed, when she came here, to remain with her sons until she died. She owns property to the value of R40 000 in South Africa, so she would not have been a burden to the State. The medical evidence was that she was not fit to travel again. After continued representationsby me, by the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Gardens, who took the case over when I went overseas, permission for her to be allowed to remain here with her sons was summarily refused, and two letters were sent to her sons by the department, the first letter demanding to know the date of her departure and the flight number forthwith; and the second letter, a few days later, issued a further directive saying that the department would forthwith, within a matter of hours, utilize the R500 she had left here as a deposit as a visitor, unless they knew her flight number and the date of her departure, as though turning out a sick woman was really going to have all that effect upon the policy of this country. And this hon. Minister has the temerity to get up and say, as he did the other day in this House, with his hand on his heart, that South Africa is a religious country.

He said that in this House on 25th February. Sir, I would like to know just how religious we are in this country under these circumstances. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Wynberg has been in trouble on so many occasions during the past session. There were occasions when she was zipped. After having listened to the hon. member one asks oneself whether the hon. Chief Whip on the opposite side, would not have done this House a great favour if he had kept the hon. member for Wynberg permanently zipped, because she has spoken so much nonsense. In the course of my speech I shall come back to what was said by the hon. member. However, in the short time at my disposal I want, by way of introduction, to state briefly the positive standpoint of the National Party in regard to its immigration policy. I do this because I am aware of the fact that there are certain people in South Africa who are opposed to immigration. It is no secret that there are also Afrikaans-speaking people among our population in South Africa who, in the past, have been quite sceptical and even umsympathetic towards large-scale immigration. Even today there are still people who accept the Government’s immigration policy with some measure of hesitation. The question now arises whether this National Party Government should proceed with its immigration policy as it was, particularly over the past decade, or whether we have to stop it. To secure work opportunities and a decent standard of living for all the inhabitants of the Republic is no easy task for the Whites with their limited numbers. The only policy which will ensure adequate work opportunities and a decent standard of living is the development of secondary industries in South Africa. In order to develop secondary industries we naturally need people with technical and professional skills.Let me say straight away that we are doing everything in our power here in South Africa to train our people locally, here in our Fatherland, in order to supplement the existing shortages. and particularly viewed in the light of the fact that we have had phenomenal economic development in South Africa over the past ten years and in order to maintain a reasonable growth rate as we should like to have in South Africa, it is basically important that we must allow at least 10 000 economically active persons to come to South Africa by means of immigration. This means a figure of more than 30 000 men, women and children. The doors of South Africa are not being thrown open for every Dick, Tom and Harry to come to South Africa. This was referred to by hon. members on this side of the House who preceded me. They referred to the good and the bad and I do not want to deal with that. But in this particular case I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and his department on the high standards that are being set to draw immigrants to South Africa, because the approach of this National Party Government is to obtain only the best people to come to South Africa.

I actually want to deal with another matter and I want to come back to the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Port Natal. The hon. member for Zululand yesterday referred to a speech made by Prof. Marius Swart of the Port Elizabeth University. I want to tell the hon. member straightaway that where he challenged the hon. the Minister to say whether he agrees with that speech or not, I want to say in all honesty that I do not agree with Prof. Swart on what he said in that speech. Probably he is not aware of the facts and in the course of my speech I am going to refute some of the statements he made. I now want to ask hon. members this, and I am serious. I want to ask those hon. members why they were almost killing themselves with laughter when reference was made in this House yesterday to the Rapportryersvereniging in South Africa? I shall tell you, Sir, why they were laughing. It is because it is the aim of the Rapportryersvereniging of South Africa to promote the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaans culture.

And politics, too.

Now, I cannot but make this further statement, that those hon. members, when there are organizations in South Africa to promote the Afrikaans culture and language, merely regard it as a joke. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and I say this once more in all seriousness. If you want to ridicule those things which are dear to us, as Afrikaans-speaking people, those organizations which have been established to promote the Afrikaans language and cultural possessions. I agree with the hon. the Minister of Defence that there are many Boer-haters sitting on that side of the House. They are Boer-haters and want to ridicule every attempt that is made in this country to promote the Afrikaans language and culture.

The hon. professor made certain statements I want to deal with briefly. It is a pity that these statements have been made; they have probably been made because the professor was not aware of the real facts. In the speech he made he said, inter alia, that fewer than 5 per cent of all the immigrants coming to South Africa join the Afrikaans group. This is a doubtful statement. This is probably an inference drawn from a doubtful source. What are the facts? In 1971, 25,7 per cent of our immigrants came from the Dutch countries of origin, immigrants who should naturally be able to affiliate themselves with the Afrikaans group. If the statement made by the professor is true, it is but sad evidence of the absorbing ability of the Afrikaner as far as people from his countries of origin are concerned. The hon. gentleman made another statement towards the end of his speech (translation)—

Do you think so?

If this statement indicates that it would mean the end of the Afrikaner in 1984. merely 12 years hence, as far as his religion, denomination and language position as against other religions and languages in the country are concerned this—and I say this in all modestv—borders on irresponsibility. Therefore, the motive for this statement also has to be questioned. What are the facts? 49 per cent of the total White population belong to the three Afrikaans churches. A further 3 per cent of the population belong to the Apostolic Faith Mission which is also predominantly Afrikaans. The other Protestant churches, namely the Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Anglican churches represent a further 25 per cent of the population. The Roman Catholic Church, over the ten years, evidenced a growth of 58 per cent and grew from 6,2 per cent in 1960 to 8.2 per cent of the White population in 1970. Only a portion of this could be attributed to immigration, because in 1960, 6,2 per cent of the White population were Catholics and the natural increase must also be taken into account. However, it is not true that our immigration policy has contributed towards a drop in the number of Whites belonging to the D.R. Church. As a matter of fact, the D.R. Church evidenced a growth of 12,3 per cent over the ten years. In addition, the two other sister churches, viz. the Gereformeerde Kerk and the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk each evidenced a growth of 15,2 per cent and 15,7 per cent, respectively. This amounts to a total growth of 13 per cent.

Then I also want to say something in regard to the language. It is quite interesting to note that statistics over the past 35 years show that there has been no change in the ratio between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. I want to draw attention briefly to the statistics from 1960 to 1970. It was during the ten years when the National Party actually accelerated its immigration policy. The ratio between people was as follows: In 1960, 59 per cent Afrikaners as against 37,8 per cent English-speaking people and in 1970, 58.6 per cent as against 37 per cent. Also as far as this aspect is concerned, it proves quite clearly that the ratio between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people showed virtually no change in spite of our immigration policy.

My time is almost up but there is one final thought I want to express in regard to immigration. What I am going to say now, I say in all seriousness. We accept the fact that it is imperative that we in South Africa should draw certain immigrants from other countries to come and help us to develop our economy and to develop this wonderful country of ours … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the basic difficulty the Nationalist Party has in a debate of this kind, and it shines through as clearly as anything when you listen to the speeches made on that side, is that they are totally opposed to immigration of any kind. Let us face it. One only has to read the policy statements by the late hon. Senator Trollip made in the Senate in 1967 on the policy motion of immigration, to see that. He made a speech specifically designed to refute all the allegations we have had here this afternoon. The allegations did not come from us, but from the Nationalist Party. I was in the Senate at that time and it was very interesting to see that throughout the speech of Senator Trollip there was a chorus of “hear, hears”, which did not come from Government members, but from hon. Senators on the Opposition benches. Hon. members will see this in the Senate Hansard of that time. The hon. Senator Trollip was trying to defend himself and his policy against the verkrampte members of the National Party. The allegation has been made here this afternoon that it was the United Party’s immigration policy during the time that it was in power, to bring in largely English-speaking immigrants from the English language areas of the world, in order to plough the Afrikaner under and in order to displace the existing ratio between the two language groups in the country. Hon. members say that that was …

Ninety-two per cent of the immigrants that you brought in between 1946 and 1948 came from the United Kingdom.

The funny thing is …

Go and check it.

The hon. gentleman says that I must check it. This is one of the very allegations which the late Senator Trollip refuted in his speech in, the Senate in 1967. I hope the hon. member will listen for a moment because I am going to quote Senator Trollip on that very issue. He said the following in column 300:

This was said by a Nationalist Minister. I quote further:

He was warning against the very attitude that we have seen displayed here today. He went on to say:

What he was referring to was speeches and articles in the Press at the time, expressing the very sentiments we have had here this afternoon from hon. Government members.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have much time …

Could you tell me …

Order! The hon. member does not want to answer a question.

If I had time I would have answered it.

I hope the hon. member will listen to this, because this is the answer to the point he has just raised. I repeat what the Minister said—

Here is the point; he goes on to say:

He goes on to say that whereas in 1936 only 55,0 per cent of the people had Afrikaans as their mother tongue and 39,1 per cent had English as their mother tongue, the figures at the end of that period, including the United Party’s period of office, were that the Afrikaans-speaking percentage had increased by nearly 3 per cent to 58 per cent and the English-speaking section had decreased by 2 per cent to 37 per cent. There is the answer to the allegations that under the United Party regime only one section was brought in deliberately to change the language ratio in this country. Quite the reverse happened. The Afrikaans-speaking section was strengthened and the English-speaking section decreased. One could go on to read the whole of the hon. Senator Trollip’s speech on that occasion, because he set out deliberately to refute almost every argument we have heard here this afternoon.

I said yesterday that we should take a leaf out of the book of the United States because we have seen what immigration has done for the strength and the development of that country. I have no doubt that it was as a result of what I said yesterday that we have heard some of the sentiments expressed here this afternoon, viz. that large-scale immigration will change the character of your country. I do not believe that is so and I believe that the United States can show that to us. If you have a sound, basic, national character of your own in your country, you will absorb the immigrants. You can bring them in their tens of thousands and you will absorb them just as the basic national character of the United States has not altered despite the tens of millions of immigrants that have gone to that country They have added to the flavour of the United States’ character, but they have not altered the basic character of those people. I believe that here in South Africa we have a basic, national character which is sufficiently strong to absorb double the quantity of immigrants we are bringing in at the present time.

Finally, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Springs, who used both arguments: The one that we wish to open the flood-gates so far as the non-Europeans coming into the labour force was concerned, and that we wish to open the floodgates so far as bringing in immigrants is concerned. Both are false, of course. The United Party’s immigration policy, as the late Senator Trollip said in this House in answer to Mr. Tucker, who was then a member here, was exactly the same as the policy of this Government is, so far as selection is concerned. The only change, as the hon. member for Wynberg has said, is that now they are paid to come here whereas, in the days of the United Party, they had to pay their own fares. So far as the hon. member for Springs is concerned, I would refer him to a speech by this hon. Minister in 1971, last year, in column 5450 of Hansard. I must summarize what the hon. the Minister said, because I have no time left. He said that in many respects he prefers to bring the non-European into certain categories of work rather than use the immigrant, because the non-European is someone we know whereas the immigrant is not always assimilable. Therefore do not let us have that sort of accusation from the hon. member either.

I come then to the hon. member who referred to an extract I had quoted of Prof. Swart’s speech. It is interesting that in his reply he refers only to the more factual allegations or misstatements that Prof. Swart made, whilst saying that he disagrees with that speech. The trouble is that we are reaching the stage in this House that any criticism which is levied by this side of the House against what anybody in public life in South Africa says, and against what a prominent Nationalist, in particular, says, meets with the invariable reaction these days that one is criticizing him not because of what he says or does, but because he happens to be an Afrikaansspeaking South African. It is a tragedy when we reach this state of affairs. This is precisely the impression he gave so far as one’s criticisms of Prof. Swart are concerned.

He did not refer to Prof. Swart; he referred to a movement.

Very well. The only reason why one refers to Prof. Swart at all is that he is the national president of that movement.

The Rapportryers.

Neither I nor anybody else has critized the Rapportryers movement. However, if Prof. Swart in his office as national president, says the things he did say, then I shall criticize him and I do not mind what his home language happens to be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased the hon. member for Wynberg is present at the moment, because I should like to say how I see the full story of immigration. In actual fact it is the story of a courtship which ends in marriage. So it is a good thing that a lady also participated in the debate. The courting which leads to this marriage is, of course, the work done by the Department of Immigration in recruiting immigrants abroad. This is also done by local industries and others. When the immigrant comes to this country and the process of assimilation starts, one can call it the engagement period. It is the engagement period of this young lady which eventually ends in marriage when that immigrant obtains citizenship by means of naturalization. Just as the girl intends changing her name, so the immigrant intends changing his fatherland. In this process of assimilation or engagement, overtures are made from both sides. This is never a one-sided affair. The mother-in-law of this bride regards this beauty with suspicion. She fears her son will be taken away from her and she fears that the bride will estrange him and that the things she taught him as a mother will be forgotten by him. She fears that the bride-to-be wants to marry her son for material gain.

Why?

On the other hand, the bride-to-be regards her prospective in-laws with as much jealousy and suspicion. Just as any other bride, she has financial security in mind. Therefore the process of assimilation should be a two-way process. The one party cannot do all the courting. From our side we must, firstly, render all assistance to the bride-to-be and assist her to come to love her new home. That is to say, we should help her to be loyal to South Africa and to love South Africa.

†As we know, approximately 43 per cent of the total number of immigrants who have arrived in South Africa over the past ten years, originated from Great Britain or from one of the other English-speaking countries. I therefore think I have the right to make an urgent appeal to my fellow English-speaking South Africans to do their share in ensuring that the thousands of brides-to-be are given a chance to love and cherish their new adopted home. I do this with respect—and I would like the hon. member for Wynberg to listen now—because over the last few years I have not heard on one occasion, except over the radio, our National Anthem being sung in the official translated form, namely the Call of South Africa. As an Afrikaansspeaking South African I proudly sing Die Stem, on State, cultural and even on political occasions, but not once have I heard the Call of South Africa being sung at any function where a large number of English-speaking South Africans and immigrants who are not yet naturalized, were present. I therefore make this appeal to my English-speaking colleagues to help to create a feeling of love and loyalty for our country amongst the thousands of English-speaking brides-to-be. I would therefore like to refer to a few phrases of our translated National Anthem. I quote—

While I am busy on the subject of wedding bells and wedding ceremonies, allow me to add these last lines—

*I make bold to say that unfortunately hardly any or none of my hon. English-speaking colleagues in this House has ever sung this National Anthem in their own English language. Furthermore, I want to make bold …

We sing it in Afrikaans.

I ask them to sing it in their own language for the sake of our English-speaking immigrants. I can imagine that there are many of them who have not yet even read this translated National Anthem. I make this appeal in the hope that after years there will be no need for us again to ask our new citizens to affirm their loyalty to South Africa. Likewise, I make an appeal to everyone of us who has contact with immigrants, to go out of our way to inform them of our mores, our customs and our racial relations, and especially of the laws of our country.

I request the hon. the Minister, who is also in charge of the portfolio of Social Welfare and Pensions, to make it a set rule that the permanent or temporary residential permit of any immigrant who commits an offence under, for example, the Drugs Act, be withdrawn forthwith by the Department of the Interior.

†I am accepting the statement by the hon. member for Zululand that America has become a very strong and mighty state because of immigration; but my plea is that South Africa be made strong through quality and loyalty, and not necessarily through quantity.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of this debate I think it is necessary for us to take a look at various matters that have been raised here and then, finally, perhaps to take a general look at immigration as a whole and at what we are envisaging with our immigrants in South Africa.

In the first place the hon. member for Zululand yesterday afternoon began by criticizing my department and myself because there was no annual report which he could use. The fact of the matter is that, when this Vote was discussed in 1970, the hon. member for Zululand had a great deal of praise for the first report of the department, which covered the period from 1st April, 1961, to 30th June, 1968, more than seven years. After that report it was decided to draw up biennial reports, because our report consists mainly of statistics. These we get from the Department of Census and Statistics. It is not so easy to have the immigration figure available early enough to make a report available now which includes last year’s figures. In fact, we only received them a few weeks ago. All the details one needs for such a report simply cannot be made available within three or four months after the end of the year. That is why we have decided to publish a report every two years. Accordingly I received the next report, i.e. the report of last year, when we debated the report covering the period up to 30th June, 1970. I then told the hon. member that we would be able to debate figures again in two years’ time. In other words, next year he will again get a report, which will cover the period up to 30th June, 1972. This is the practice. I hope the hon. member does not take it amiss of me.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question in this connection? Is the hon. the Minister prepared to make the figures available to us before the debate takes place, even if there is no report?

But of course. If any hon. member should ask me questions about the matter, or should personally telephone my department, all the statistics we have will be made available to him, but this year no inquiries were made in this connection. We did not have the figures officially until about four weeks ago, when I received the final figures for this year for the first time. We had figures up to the end of October. We receive them from time to time. I am prepared to furnish these figures, and I immediately want to tell the hon. member that I do not take it amiss of him. I think there has merely been a misunderstanding about the situation. Next year there will be a report for the period ending on 30th June, 1972. The year after that there will again be no report. There is therefore going to be a report every two years only. I just want to make this very clear to the hon. member in advance.

The question why we received fewer immigrants this year than in previous years has been argued in the debate. Perhaps it is necessary for me to say a few words about that, because it is true that, while we had received more than 41 000 immigrants in the previous year, the figure dropped to 35 845 last year. This is a decrease of just over 5 000. What are the actual facts? Some of the reasons have already been mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House. One of the first reasons is that most countries in Europe, especially during the first part of last year, experienced a tremendous boom in the economic field, and themselves had hundreds of thousands and even millions of foreign workers in their own countries. Consequently there was no tendency in those countries to send out emigrants, for the very reason that there was such a great shortage of manpower in their own countries. There was therefore no initiative to induce people to leave. I may just quote a few figures in this connection. According to a periodical dated February, 1972, there were 2 976 000 foreign workers in Germany in February, 1972, 2 664 000 in France, 983 000 in Switzerland, 655 000 in Belgium, 66 000 in Holland and 1 923 000 in Britain. These were the numbers of foreign workers in those countries themselves. If it is the position that there is such a shortage of manpower in those countries that they must have so many foreign workers, then surely it is logical that there is no strong pressure in that country for people to emigrate. Surely that is the logical deduction we must immediately make.

The immigrant figure has not dropped in South Africa alone. The figures have also dropped in other immigration countries, such as Australia and Canada. I quote from the annual report of the Canadian Department of Manpower and Immigration. This report states that in the 1970–’71 financial year 17 000 fewer immigrants immigrated to Canada as compared with the previous year. According to the Weekly Newsletter of the Australian News Information Service the number of immigrants from Britain to Australia decreased by one-third, while 17 000 former immigrants returned to Britain from Australia. The Canadians ascribe this drop to “buoyant economic conditions in most of Western Europe”. This is the reason advanced by them, but in our country the Government is blamed for the decrease in the figure. I admit that the figure decreased, but then I want to add immediately: Hon. members are welcome to look up my speeches since I became Minister, and they will find that I said from the beginning that our target is a figure of between 35 000 and 40 000. I have said this many times. I have also said that if it was a little more or a little less than that figure, we would not be concerned about it, because that was just more or less the target we had set. Our figure for last year of 35 845 is therefore completely within that target, but as hon. members have mentioned, a particularly large percentage of those immigrants are economically active, and although the immigrant figure itself has dropped, the percentage of those who are economically active and who are therefore a gain to the economy of the country has increased compared to the position two or three years ago. In this year there were 16 532 economically active persons in this group of approximately 35 000. That is a percentage of 47, the largest percentage we have had in any year in respect of economically active immigrants.

The postal strike has also been advanced as reason. That is quite right, and it is quite true. But where were the increases and where were the decreases in the various countries? In 1970 we received 21 323 immigrants from Britain, as against 17 347 in 1971, a decrease of approximately 4000 for that year. This was mainly due, initially, as I said, to the postal strike, and furthermore to the fact that in Britain, as a result of her joining the European Economic Common Market and other economic developments, there was not so much economic pressure on immigrants to leave the country. There were decreases in respect of the following countries as well: there were decreases in the number of immigrants from African countries, for understandable reasons, as well as from the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. These are the countries from which we received fewer immigrants than in the previous year. On the other hand, there was an increase in respect of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. The picture is therefore clearly that the decrease and increase is not due to any attempt on our part to keep certain people out or to bring certain people in, or whatever. It is simply a matter of conditions prevailing in the various countries.

Then there is a further reason for this decrease. The hon. member took it amiss of the hon. the Minister of Planning in an earlier debate that he said it seemed as though the labour needs in South Africa were gradually being met. But we are dealing with facts and statistics here. The Department of Immigration undertakes recruitment for individual employers who are prepared to carry the additional advertising costs in overseas countries. Requests of this nature from employers decreased considerably in 1971, as compared with 1970. In other words, the number of employers in South Africa that normally ask us to recruit people for them abroad, decreased tremendously in the past year. In 1970 508 advertisements were placed in various European countries at the request of 97 employers, advertisements to which we had a reaction from immigrants. In 1971 these requests decreased from 97 to 53, and the number of advertisements decreased from 508 to 344. From this I must conclude that the average employer in South Africa was not as much under the pressure of a manpower shortage this year as he had been in the previous year. The figures prove very clearly that there was not such strong economic pressure, and the hon. the Minister of Planning was therefore quite right.

†The hon. member for Zululand also referred yesterday to the speech made by Prof. Marius Swart at a gathering of Rapportryers in which he condemned immigration as a threat to the Afrikaner. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that I do not share Prof. Swart’s viewpoint in all respects—certainly not—and I think much of this speech is actually based on false information or insufficient information.

In which respects do you agree?

I have not gone through his speech, but I disagree with the biggest portion of the speech. I think it was based on incorrect or insufficient information.

It is sheer prejudice.

No, it is not sheer prejudice—not the whole speech. Parts of it, yes. However, I have an axe to grind with the hon. member for Zululand. He criticizes Prof. Swart, but he does not criticize the attitude of English-speaking South Africans such as Mr. Stuart Reckling, an influential member of the Durban Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the Chamber’s Non-European Affairs Committee, for his artcle in Commercial Opinion, as reported in the Daily News, under the heading “Blacks, not settlers, wanted”. I have the speech here and I would like to quote from it. This was reported in the Daily News—

But you said that last year.

Exactly, but the hon. member did not condemn Mr. Stuart Reckling for saying this.

But you said the same thing.

Yes, to a certain extent, but the hon. member criticized Prof. Swart for his attitude, yet he does not say a word against an English-speaking person who says exactly the same thing. But, Sir, I want to carry on; that is not the only case. I have here an article which appeared in the Sunday Tribune of 23rd January, 1972, an article written by Dr. Gerald Machanik. I do not know how to pronounce his name or what sort of “Machanik” he is. This article says—

This is an article which, from the first to the last, condemns immigration, but I have not heard a word of criticism of this article from the Opposition.

But he is a nonentity. Who is he?

I continue to quote—

This article was written by this gentleman.

He wrote one again last week.

Yes, I know. He wrote one again last week, about members of Parliament, if I remember correctly.

But he did not write it for anybody but himself.

I agree; the hon. member is very quick to criticize and Afrikaans professor who makes exactly the same points, but he does not mention this man at all. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Welkom continues making his interjections, I will take action against him.

Then, on the 30th January, 1972, there was a reaction to this article in the Sunday Tribune—

On 13th January, 1972, in the letter columns of this newspaper, a large number of people reacted to this article and agreed 100 per cent with it. Surely, Sir, this damages the immigration effort of this Government. But we do not hear one word of criticism from Opposition members. Here we find that a newspaper in Natal which supports that hon. member’s party, and which he should be reading every day, damages the Government’s whole immigration attempt every week, but we do not get a word of criticism from him. But a speech made by a professor in Port Elizabeth to the Rapportryers is immediately criticized and I am asked to state whether I agree or disagree with the views expressed by this professor.

Is the hon. the Minister not aware that whilst Mr. Machanik is a nobody, whom nobody has ever heard of, Prof. Swart is the national president of an important movement?

Prof. Swart may be the chairman of the Rapportryers Organization, but the fact is that he made this one speech, which was reported in one newspaper, and that was the end of the story. But this man has written several articles in Natal newspapers. Those articles produced a reaction from hundreds of people who wrote letters to the newspaper, and this campaign is being carried on from day to day.

Have you condemned him?

I am condemning him now. I have the opportunity to do so in this debate. But that hon. member had two opportunities and did not say a word, in spite of the fact that that newspaper is published under his very nose.

I have not seen it.

Sir, it is peculiar that the Deputy Leader of the United Party in Natal does not read the Sunday Tribune. It is very peculiar.

Sir, I want to come back to this article which was also quoted by the hon. member for Springs. I think in that article we can find the reason for this attitude of the United Party. I want to quote from this article written by Mr. Stanley Uys in the Sunday Times of the 27th June, 1971—

Are you against that?

No, I am definitely not opposed to it. But what I do condemn in the strongest terms, is that a political party openly makes an emotional appeal such as this one to a group of people entering our country in order to strengthen and consolidate our country’s position, an appeal not to throw in their weight with South Africa, not to take an honest standpoint on South Africa’s policy, etc., but to help the United Party to unseat the Government. This I want to condemn in the strongest terms. The logical conclusion of this will be that when I advocate the promotion of immigration at congresses, this question will be put to me: “Why do you want to bring immigrants here? The United Party is going to recruit them all to vote for them.” If there is one thing which prejudices immigration, it is this cheap propaganda made by the United Party. [Interjections.] I am stating this very clearly. If these people really had immigration at heart and did not only want to make political capital out of it, if they honestly wanted to bring immigrants to South Africa in order to integrate them in the South African community and wanted to afford these people an opportunity of politically deciding for themselves where they wanted to stand, I would say this was in order, but when these people openly make an emotional appeal to immigrants to throw in their weight with one party against another, i.e. to call in outsiders as the arbiters between the two political groups in South Africa, then I am telling you now that you are prejudicing the immigration effort to an enormous extent, and that you will have to understand that time and again I have to make a very firm stand against my own people who are revolting against immigration because this is the way the Opposition is trying to abuse it. Now I want to say at once that I reject this cheap attempt made by the Opposition with the contempt it deserves, for we know our immigrants and we know that as a result of the process of naturalization, in which we are engaged and which is being dealt with by the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” and the 1820 Settlers’ Organization, they reject this kind of petty politicking, and that they, as future citizens of South Africa, are viewing the matter soberly and taking up attitudes according to their own convictions and are not allowing themselves to be led by the nose by weaknesses such as these. This is very clear, but I reject the attempt made by the Opposition as a base attempt against the whole immigration policy for which we stand.

I want to go further. It is difficult enough to get immigrants, and the hon. members need not make this more difficult. The hon. members are talking as though immigrants are standing ready in queues and waiting for me to press the button for them to come. That is the impression which is being created here, i.e. that I merely have to press the button and then their numbers would be doubled. But are the hon. members aware of the tremendous effort that is being made abroad to prevent people from immigrating to South Africa? Are they aware of the efforts of people who want to undermine us? I am going to quote from the “ILO en Apartheid”, a booklet published by the International Labour Office in Geneva. I am going to read it in their own Afrikaans, for this is an Afrikaans brochure, no less. I did not make any attempt to improve the rotten Afrikaans used in it—

This is the kind of attack. The United Nations have also joined in. Here I have the Seventh Special Report on Apartheid, United Nations—

This is the kind of struggle we have to wage abroad in an attempt to get immigrants. Here our attempts are belittled as though we are engaged in petty things. But I want to read out another quotation. This is a document of the Anti-Apartheid Movement which fell into my hands. At a meeting held in London on 5th April, the following resolution was adopted—

This is the struggle we have to contend with for South Africa overseas, and we are getting very little help from the Opposition in this regard. What is this pamphlet that has to be distributed; what are the facts contained in it?—

This is the kind of propaganda. I could quote more; there are pages of it. Another paragraph reads as follows—

And so it goes on. The hon. member should not pass it off and treat it as a joke. The fact remains that the Anti-Apartheid Movement is engaged in a campaign to prejudice immigration to South Africa as much as they possibly can. In spite of that we got 35 800 immigrants. This is an exceptional achievement under the circumstances.

The World Council of Churches is engaged in the same thing. It forms part of the forces against which we have to fight. I quote from an article—

This is what is envisaged in regard to this matter. However, this is not only happening in England; it is also happening in other countries of Europe. It is also happening in the Netherlands. The position in the Netherlands is that when a person applies for immigration to South Africa and reports to one of our offices there, we have to refer him to one of the existing immigration centres in the Netherlands, and then they have to handle him: we may not handle that immigrant ourselves. That is the practice.

Here I have a document from one of the three, centres which are supposed to help immigrants to South Africa. It is an “open letter from the General Emigration Centre to those considering emigration to the Republic of South Africa”. It reads as follows (translation)—

This is an open attempt at persuading the immigrant who applies for emigration to South Africa—an attempt made on the last day when he fills in the forms—to go to another country instead, or to remain in the Netherlands. This is the problem we have to contend with. In spite of these issues and these problems, we have accomplished the said feats. It is in the interests of South Africa—economically, socially and otherwise—that we bring immigrants to South Africa. It is essential and in the interests of our country. Nobody on this side of the House is opposed to that. In the second place, it is essential for us to select immigrants, and not to throw open the doors to all and sundry. We are not prepared to take everybody, and we are very strict in selecting them. In the third place, there are certain conditions which the Aliens Act of 1937 lays down to me as the Minister and in terms of which I have to select them. It is not being done in an arbitrary manner. There are certain statutory restrictions which were laid down by this Parliament, and in terms of which I am bound as to the manner in which they are to be selected and what aspects I am to take into consideration. I shall say more about that at a later stage. In the fourth place, it is the task of every White South African, once they are here, to try to integrate them in and assimilate them with the existing community in order to make them good South Africans as soon as possible. This is our task and the duty of each of us. I have made that appeal time and again. I have come forward with various efforts to consolidate and promote that assimilation, and I want to express the hope that our people will stop being emotional by raising a dust in regard to these matters, instead of looking at the heart of the matter as it is, namely that those people have come to strengthen our country, and that we shall see to it and ensure that numerically the immigrants entering our country will not disturb drastically the ratio of our language groups. I repeat this undertaking, in spite of the Opposition’s criticism, that I as the responsible Minister will see to it that this will not happen.

Hear, hear!

In the second instance, I shall see to it that it will not disturb drastically the religious relationships in South Africa. I repeat this; I am saying this and doing this because it is my duty towards my country. I want to make it very clear that I shall proceed along these lines, because this is my task.

Then there were references to the question of admitting clergymen. The hon. member for Port Natal, if I remember correctly, spoke about the question of clergymen. I want to say at once that years ago we admitted clergymen as immigrants to this country just as we did any other person. Then we experienced the problem which at present we are still experiencing at times, namely that large numbers of the clergymen were not coming here to preach the Gospel at all, but in fact to indulge in politics. We had the problem that these people started doing that after we had granted them permanent residence in South Africa. In terms of the Act there are only two reasons as a result of which a person’s permanent residential permit may be cancelled. The first reason is if that person furnished incorrect information at the time of his application for residence, and the second one is if, within three years after being admitted to this country, that person chan ed his profession without the consent of the Minister concerned. This is what the Act provides. These people—I am referring to people with permanent residential permits—did not commit either of these offences, i.e. they did not furnish incorrect information, nor did they change their profession, but as a result of the politicking of some of these people—the Rev. Crowther, to mention but one example—we were compelled to expel and deport these people from the country. This evoked a great deal of sordid publicity which was to the detriment of South Africa. It was in the interests of the country that this had to be done, and we could not do it differently. In the light of this experience the Government has decided that in future no clergyman, irrespective of the church of which he may be a member, will be able to acquire permanent residence in South Africa the moment he arrives here: This applies to clergymen of all churches, and hon. members should not tell me that I am discriminating against this or that church or this or that faith. This applies to everybody. What is the procedure now? Clergymen enter the country on a temporary permit, a permit issued by the Minister of the Interior. That permit is issued in this case for a period of a year. If during that year he engages in the occupation for which he came here, namely that of preaching the Gospel, that permit is automatically extended for another period of a year, if he asks for it. In this way, after four years of unbroken devotion on his part to what he is or ought to be engaged in, namely preaching and spreading the Gospel, we are prepared to consider his application and to agree to his becoming a permanent resident of South Africa. Then we can grant him permanent residence. If, within those four years, he indulges in politics or even enters the field of politics, as is in fact done by some of them, it is not necessary to deport him, and it is not necessary to have a court order and a whole fuss. Then we simply do not renew the temporary permit at the end of that year. Nothing is cancelled; all that happens, is that the temporary permit is not renewed again for the next year. At the end of that year his time will therefore have expired, and then he will have to leave the country.

I suppose you are referring now to extreme leftist politics?

I am referring to the people who are making attempts to overthrow law and order in South Africa by force of arms or by force. That is the kind of person we are objecting to. Now hon. members are trying to imply that we are waging a war against the clergymen. This is the policy and the practical reason why we implement it. To prove that our position is very clear, I want to mention a few figures. In 1971 permanent residence was granted to 22 ordained clergymen and 64 other spiritual workers after they had successfully completed their four years in terms of the provisions of the Act. This proves that there is no discrimination against these people. This is our standpoint, and it is as clear as daylight.

Cathy, if you need spiritual help, we have two Boer clergymen sitting over there! [Interjections.]

Order!

Once the jubilation on both sides of the House has died down, I should like to say a few words about the standpoint I take in regard to atheists who want to come to South Africa as immigrants. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Wynberg, who raised this matter, that I am referring specifically and exclusively to atheists. I shall refer to other people in a moment. Irrespective of a person’s qualifications, irrespective of the necessity for such a person’s position in South Africa, irrespective of what that position may be, I am not prepared to admit to South Africa an atheist who openly indicates in his form that he is an atheist, and who, on further inquiry, confirms that he is one. I refuse to do so, and the reasons for my refusal are as follows …

What about an agnostic?

I am dealing with atheists now. Just wait your turn, for I am coming to all the others in a moment. This is a serious matter. I should like the hon. members to pay some attention, please. My reasons are as follows: The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which we all a reed to unanimously, provides the following in section 2—

This is our Constitution. This is the basis on which our people rests. Both sides of the House and all faiths in the country rest on that foundation: section 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, irrespective of whether persons hold views of their own on the matter—we do have the highest form of religious freedom in our country—the people of South Africa have a religious bias as reflected in its Constitution. In the second place, the proceedings of this Parliament are opened daily with a prayer ending in these words—I am not scoffing at it, but I am in earnest—“all which we ask in the name, and for the sake of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ”. In spite of the religious freedom in South Africa, which is complete, these words prove anew that this Parliament, as the highest Chamber of the people in this country, bows to Christ and believes in Him and is, as a people, a religious people. This is the starting-point.

The Aliens Act, Act No. 1 of 1937, in terms of which I have to select immigrants, provides, inter alia, that the Immigrants Selection Board may not approve the issue of a permit granting an alien the right of permanent residence, unless the applicant—

Now, it is my contention that, if this is the provision and the electorate of South Africa has a Constitution and a parliamentary system such as we have, which rests on these arguments and this basis, then I say that I am not entitled to bring an atheist into the country, because on those grounds he cannot become assimilated with the White inhabitants of South Africa. That is my starting-point.

I am saying this specifically with reference to the atheists, because I took the definition of an “atheist” as I found it in the Oxford Dictionary—

This Parliament cannot say that it believes in the guidance of Almighty God and then admit to the country immigrants who say, “I deny and disbelieve the existence of a God.” The Oxford Dictionary roes on to say—

This is the definition of an atheist. Then there is the explanation of Gladstone—

In an Afrikaans dictionary “ateis” is defined as follows—

On the strength of the quotations I have here, I adhere to the view that whereas this country has a religious basis and whereas it professes a God—I admit at once that there is religious freedom in South Africa —I am not prepared to admit to this country a person who tells me in advance, before leaving his country of origin, that he is an atheist. In other words, a person who says, “I adopt a negative approach in regard to a God; I deny the existence of a God; I allow myself to be driven …” according to the definition, “… to promoting and propagating the denial of a God”, I am not prepared to admit to the country, for then I would be acting contrary to my country’s Constitution and to other Acts. That is why I refuse to do so, irrespective of how capable he is and irrespective of how necessary he may be for South Africa in terms of economic standards. That is my starting-point.

As far as other faiths are concerned— and here I include agnostics, humanists and faiths with numerous other names—it is not automatically an immediate disqualification if a person adheres to such a faith.

I am glad to hear that.

In the case of an atheist, this is a disqualification. In all the other cases—for not one of the other faiths adopts a directly negative approach in regard to the existence of a God, but they simply take different views of a God—they are in fact admitted to the country.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the Minister include in what he has just said, the honest man, the agnostic, who says that he does not know?

If a person says that he does not know, he is an excellent subject for evangelization work in South Africa and the churches will teach him soon enough what he ought to know. I do not refuse such a person. However, the atheist is refused, and I take this standpoint for the reasons I have just indicated here. Therefore, if these are the facts, the matter is handled by the Immigrants Selection Board. This information does not count against a person, but when he furnishes this information, further inquiries are made as to his faith, whether his attitude is one of complete indifference, hostility or whatever the position may be. Arising out of those facts, the Immigrants Selection Board then decides that they approve or disapprove of the person in question, depending on their own position. The only instruction I have given the Selection Board, is that no atheists should be admitted. Other than that, all other persons form the subject of discussion by the Immigrants Selection Board, and this Board takes a decision after it has obtained all the particulars. I think I have now disposed of the question of faith and of the clergymen.

In conclusion I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Albany in regard to the speech I made in this House as well as the speech I made in Brakpan in regard to the two matters on which he has attacked me vehemently and which he has been holding against me. Let us understand each other clearly. In that specific debate I said here that in my opinion all Afrikaners were good South Africans. I want to add at once that by using the word “all” I did perhaps generalize too much, because a person such as Bram Fischer, for instance, is probably Afrikaans speaking and cannot be a good South African, and at that moment I may have exaggerated the statement. However, I want to add immediately—and this I will not withdraw— that all English-speaking persons in South Africa are not necessarily, and these were my words good South Africans. Surely it is logical that all of them are not necessarily good South Africans.

Other Afrikaners too.

The simple reason for the argument is that the Afrikaners were born in South Africa …

But, surely the English too.

Not all of them. Surely the hon. member knows that not all of them were born here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what, if that is the case, the position is of the Afrikaner who was born in Rhodesia or elsewhere in Africa and who comes to South Africa?

It is not the duty of a backbencher to illustrate his emptiness and hollowness whenever he puts a question.

Reply to him.

I shall give him a reply to it immediately. If a member is getting too big for his boots, it is necessary for him to be put in his place. The Afrikaans language and the Afrikaans culture can only be realized in South Africa; in no other country in the world can this be done. This is the only place where the Afrikaans language and culture can be realized. As against that the English language and English culture can be realized in a large number of countries of the world. Therefore the Afrikaner is morally and geographically bound to be loyal to South Africa, the only country where he can realize his Afrikaans culture and heritage. The English-speaking person is not necessarily bound to South Africa as the only place where he can realize himself. He can realize himself in Britain, America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and in numerous other countries of the world. That was the basis of my whole argument. By a good South African I mean a person who is loyal to South Africa as a country. Now I want to say at once that the numerous good English-speaking South Africans who are in South Africa, need not for one single moment take exception to my standpoint, for in my argument there is room for all of them to be good South Africans, and they are it too. Large numbers of them are.

Stop patronizing.

The hon. member for Zululand may talk until he is blue in the face, but in South Africa there are more English-speaking people than there are Afrikaans-speaking people who are not loyal to South Africa. There are numerous English-speaking people who are good South Africans—there are thousands, perhaps millions. However, there are more of them who are not such good South Africans as are the Afrikaans-speaking people. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. Therefore I am not withdrawing my argument; I have just explained what I meant. I stand by it, without withdrawing one single word of it. I want to go further, and I want to deal now with the question of what I said in Brakpan. Time and again I as the Minister of Immigration have made appeals to immigrants to try to become bilingual in this country as quickly as possible. Now I know, and any practical person knows this too, that when one comes from a foreign country and does not know either of the two languages, it is an almost impossible task to learn both new languages within a reasonable time. In practice it is customary for the majority of the immigrants to try to master one of the two languages and to abandon the other in order that they may at least make themselves understood in the new country. I have no fault to find with that, except that I want the attitude of that immigrant towards the other language to be correct. His attitude towards the other language should not be negative—it does not matter whether this is Afrikaans or English. I am not referring now to Afrikaans or English; I am referring to the second and the first language. His attitude towards the second language, no matter which of the two his second language may be, must be positive. He should at least try to speak that language. He should at least try to display the attitude that he respects that language; when people address him in that language, he should say to them, no matter how haltingly he does it, “I do not understand it; I am trying my best, but, please, I am an immigrant; I shall speak the other language too; I am not ill-disposed towards it; I am well-disposed towards the situation.” That is logical; that is my starting-point.

But as regards the younger generation entering the country as immigrant children, I want to state unambiguously that I think it is essential that those children should become bilingual in South Africa and should accept and use both languages, and that in their case one language is definitely not enough. That is my starting-point and my standpoint, and I state them very strongly. If we do not succeed at present in making those children bilingual, it will be necessary for us to take stock of the matter once again in some way or other, as we are doing now, to see that these children become bilingual in South Africa. I am not talking about legislation, but about the question of our having to see to it that those children will become bilingual in our country. I think nobody can find any fault with that. I have nothing to go back on. Nor am I prepared to withdraw what I had to say about Brakpan; I meant every single word of it. The position is precisely the way I said it was, and I am satisfied with having expressed myself the way I have just done here.

May I just ask a question? Would the hon. the Minister just correct the impression he created through the interjection that not all English-speaking people are South African citizens? I am referring to immigrants who are still waiting to become citizens.

Surely it is logical for the hon. member to know that he ought not to accuse or to suspect me unnecessarily of base thoughts. After all, I as the Minister of Immigration is the first person who will know that there are numerous immigrants who are keen to acquire citizenship, but that we ourselves, through our legislation, are laying down certain minimum qualifications and a period of residence before they can qualify. It is logical that they cannot be South African citizens at this stage already, but they can be loyal South Africans before they are citizens. Surely this is logical; this is clear, and nobody but a person who has malicious intentions, could have read that into my words. I did not level any reproach at those people who could not yet become citizens. But the fact that numerous immigrants have been here for years and do not want to accept citizenship, is indeed viewed in a different light. They can qualify, but they are not prepared to accept it.

I do not know whether I have omitted something to which I have to reply. I think I have more or less covered the whole debate. Of course, the members on my side made very positive speeches. I want to grant them that immediately. A strong stand was taken here, and most questions have already been replied to satisfactorily.

I want to conclude by saying that I think it is necessary for all of us in South Africa, Afrikaans and English-speaking people, Nationalist Party and United Party supporters, to understand one another on this aspect of immigration. In the first place, it is necessary for us in South Africa, as a result of the economic growth of our country, to rely on an addition of immigrants in order to maintain our economic growth, so that we may in that manner be strong and stable in order to take South Africa into the future as a strong country, as it should be. This is essential, and I am saying this to everybody. In the second place, neither of these groups should seek to use the immigrants as a group, to recruit them as a group for this side or that side in order that the one group may by those means plough under the other group; because any group which would do or try to do this, would immediately do irreparable harm to the whole attitude of the country towards immigration; because it is logical that the other group would then revolt immediately against the whole concept of immigration, i.e. if immigrants were used for that purpose. Therefore, I think that appeals and ideas for using immigrants in this manner are only doing harm to the whole matter and prejudicing South Africa as a whole.

I think immigration is one of the spheres in which we must approach the whole matter in a level-headed manner and with a calm mind. We must lay down our standards. I repeat this very clearly: I would rather be criticized in this House for the number of immigrants per year being smaller than I anticipated, than lower the standards I have laid down. It is my standpoint, and I adhere to it, that in this regard we shall supplement our population with the necessary people, but, above all, that we shall go out of our way—I am making an appeal to the inhabitants of South Africa—to assimilate immigrants as soon as possible with our own people, so that we will know that these people will also understand and share our ways, customs and problems, and our distinctive situation in South Africa. If we view the matter in that spirit, we shall benefit by immigration in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41.—“National Education”, R1ll 610 000, Loan Vote M.— “National Education”, R7 519 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 23.—“National Education”, R285 000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the privilege of the half-hour.

Granted.

Thank you. There are a number of issues I would like to raise—some in passing, without going into great detail. Let me deal briefly with some matters of principle and of administration upon which my colleagues will enlarge in due course.

First of all, with regard to differentiated courses in our schools, the Minister’s announcement of his intention to apply this principle towards the end of last year, had a very mixed reception, as he may know, largely from the teaching profession, but from certain other people as well. Let me say at once that we on this side of the House consider the basis of the plan to be very sound, and the application of it. of course, is long overdue. But far too many of these decisions appear to be taken unilaterally—that is, largely by the Minister himself or by some educational hierarchy in the background: I do not refer to the department—-without a free and open discussion of the merits of these plans between those people who are most concerned and the Government department. Sir, imagine the public’s astonishment when the Cape Director of Education has this to say on 18th January, this year. I quote from Die Burger—

This was Mr. Theron, the Director of Education here in the Cape—

But the Minister did it.

Yes, but this is the Director of Education in the Cape. Surely this indicates a serious lack of consultation and co-operation with the committee of educational heads of the provinces, people who are most vitally concerned. Prior to this, of course, we did have two announcements, one in the Government Gazette of 12th November, 1971, setting out the basis of the general educational policy in terms of section 2 (1) of the 1967 National Education Act. That Act deals at some length with the new scheme for differentiation to be applied in schools; but it was not until 23rd January, of this year, that the Minister, by means of a radio talk, which Mr. Theron himself, the head of education in the Cape, had been awaiting, set out in detail for the general public—and, may I say, for the teachers, too, for the first time—the final details of the scheme and the policy motives behind it. This is no way to engender public confidence over a change of this magnitude. We have been asking for it for years, but the way it was handled we consider to be very bad indeed.

One cardinal question that must be asked is the following: Why were the teachers not consulted over this issue? Could this not have been done with the greatest of ease through the teachers’ associations or through their Federal Council, or both? After all, they are the people who are going to have to make this system work, and it amounts to a vote of no confidence in the profession to ignore them in this way. I find the failure to consult them reprehensible indeed. The hon. the Minister, if he was in the Transvaal, may not have seen two long articles which appeared in Die Burger on 30th and 31st December of last year in this connection. The first is entitled “Onderwysmense is nie geraadpleeg nie”. The writer is obviously no United Party supporter. He says—

He then goes on to say—

In other words, he is simply saying that the teaching profession were given their orders, that they were not consulted and that they will receive circular letters and that will be that. I wonder how the hon. the Minister can possibly justify that kind of thing. This writer says quite correctly in his first article that the teachers were distressed about the situation.

Will you not read the reply to that?

In the second article, which also appeared in Die Burger, on 31st December of last year, the same writer, a teacher, ended up by saying—

Well, Mr. Chairman, he was quite right there; this was not the way, I suggest, in which to handle this situation. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the authorities to be a little more open in their discussions with teachers and with the general public on matters of this kind. Must we always be subjected, as we have been over the years, ever since this Government has been in office, to the machinations of a little hidden inner clique, a sort of Nationalist hierarchy somewhere, whom we know have secretly controlled the whole education system? They have done so for years, Sir, I do not have to tell hon. members; they know very well who some of them are. I think, for instance, of Ds. Gericke, Prof. Thom, Prof. Bingle, all the dyed-in-the-wool Christelik-nasionale Onderwys people; these are the ones behind the scenes who pull the strings, and the Minister himself appears to be a pawn in their hands, much as I like and respect him as an individual, may I say.

When one comes to the practical side of the application of differentiation, it is indeed ironical that the De Villiers Commission on Technical and Vocational Education, which reported in 1948, made three urgent recommendations. On page 270, paragraph 2066, they advocate the provision of three years of differentiated education for all school-children after the completion of primary school. Secondly, in paragraph 2053, they made estimates of the financial provisions necessary for secondary differentiated education for all children. Then, in paragraph 2057, in making their financial estimates, they considered that by 1956 “sufficient time will have elapsed to test out an implement … our recommendations”. Sir, it is nearly a quarter of a century since that commission reported and made these recommendations. Much as we approve of the present plan, basically, and what the Government is doing, the country has suffered an irreparable loss in this field by having to wait 25 years, as a result of the Government’s dragging its feet and fooling about over this issue.

The second matter I would like to raise is the question of this “youth preparedness syllabus”, which is now being made compulsory in all high schools. The first question that arises in anyone’s mind when reading such a title is, of course, “prepare for what?”, since the course includes first aid, self-defence, fire-fighting and shooting practice for girls, amongst other things. I think it is legitimate to ask whether we are expecting a general war or not and, if so, whether the children are to he involved. It is a most extraordinary thing. The Transvaal Teachers’ Association in March objected very strongly to two things about this course.

Firstly, they said that the teachers’ associations had not been consulted and that the whole scheme and the syllabus had been drawn up in secrecy, as usual, and secondly they objected very strongly to the atmosphere of emergency which attaches to this school programme. In fact, as the hon. the Minuster may know, they submitted alternatives to the Transvaal Provincial Administration, suggesting how this scheme should be amended. The alternatives which they suggested were very wide alternatives, and I will deal with them in a few moments. The MEC in charge of education in the Cape, who announced that this programme would be applied here and made compulsory as from next year, had this to say, according to the Cape Times of 25th February; he said that it would apply to Std. VI and then went on to add that as far as possible the course would be integrated with the syllabus of existing subjects.

Sir, can the hon. the Minister tell me how any education department can integrate first aid, fire-fighting, shooting practice and self-defence in the ordinary syllabus of existing subjects at schools? Because if he can tell me I should like to know. The thing is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. This same Mr. Theron, who is in charge of education in the Cape, made an astonishing statement; he had got the message by this time; he had at last been given some information, and in April of this year he said to a meeting of school principals here in the Peninsula—and I want the hon. the Minister to listen to this—

“Trained and equipped on a military basis”—

Sir, what right has this Government, in the name of education, to train and equip our children on a military basis in terms of what this man is saying? We have a conscript Army; the hon. the Minister knows that. Is that not sufficient? When it comes to insidious propaganda, to which Mr. Theron referred, from inside the country in an attempt to break down the morale of our young people—and this exists in every country in the world—let me tell the hon. the Minister, if he does not know it already, that this propaganda will not be defeated by teaching children how to shoot or to fight fires. That is not the way in which to do it.

What do you suggest?

The Transvaal Teachers’ Association had some very constructive suggestions to make; they publish their alternatives in their journal. The association said (Rand Daily Mail, 8th March, 1972)—

The suggestions which were made to the province were listed in the journal. They say that they suggested a change in the title from “youth preparedness” to the old term “youth guidance”.

Continue reading the quotation.

I have not got time to read it all; it is too long.

Then I will do it for you.

Then they said—

My hon. friends over there spend half their political lives talking about impending disasters. Then the association went on to say—

Then later on, under the same heading—

Then they make a very pertinent comment. They say—

And they are perfectly right. Then they went on to say—

They are perfectly right. Those are very valid criticisms. Then the Director of Education in the Transvaal, Dr. Kotzee, says there are no party politics at all in this plan. He assured the parents and the public that the programme would have nothing to do with party politics, and then with the most astounding naivety, or impertinence, whichever you like to call it, he said—

And there was a lot more besides which was pure Nationalist propaganda.

Do you believe it?

It does not matter two hoots whether I believe it or not. He is a man who is handling the education of all our children and if they have to learn to think and assess for themselves they should be shown both sides of the picture and not only one. As we know very well, of course, all this is deliberately calcluated and when hon. members through their teachers on that side of the House talk about patriotism and love of the father-land, whenever they invoke that, it is usually invoked for a specific purpose by them, in order to indicate to the children that true patriotism in South Africa can really be equated with Nationalist Party thinking and valued. We find so often that the Government is really terrified—and I think that is one of the most alarming aspects of our public life—of an open society of any kind. We on this side of the House are as much opposed to over-permissiveness, to drugs, to immorality and anarchy amongst our young people as anyone else, but this is not the way to set about the prevention of phenomena of this kind or activities of this kind either. What extraordinary lack of perception, imagination and insight prevents this Government from accepting the fact that our young people are absolutely determined to think for themselves, whether their elders and betters like it or not, and I say thank God for that. And to the bunch of extreme right-wing authoritarians in the educational hierarchy behind this Government we now clearly, in view of this youth preparedness programme, have to add the names of various other people, and I am going to mention a senior policeman who took part in one of these conferences recently, whom the hon. the Minister knows. It is very significant that of all those whose pictures appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times on 21st May as members of the Executive Committee of the Broederbond, 75 per cent are educationists; I am very sorry the hon. member for Waterberg is not here now.

What status does the teaching profession have after what I told the House about the extent to which they were ignored over differentiation and ignored over the youth preparedness programme? It is quite extraordinary to me how they go on remaining as loyal and dedicated as they are: It is absolutely monstrous that they should have been left out of these two decisions, and it reinforces our contention, which we have repeated year after year in this House, that teachers should be given a professional council such as the medical profession, the architects and the other professions have and that they should be divorced from the Public Service.

Will you enlarge on that?

Yes, I will, because membership of the Public Service virtually prohibits them from doing what they are entitled to do as professional people, and that is to come out openly and criticize educational policies, which should be as professional as a matter as any medical or architectural or any other professional policies are. Another point about teachers is that I am still not at all satisfied with the discrepancy between the salary scales of men and women teachers, particularly the starting salaries, where the discrepancy is the greatest of all.

Now I want to say a few words more about the way we are handling our young and the question of education. Everybody in this House knows that Sabra’s activities in this field have become a matter of very great public concern, and if they do not know it, it is time they did. There have been a whole series original conferences which have been held and are being organized right now. There is the head of the Rapportryers; he ought to know. [Interjections.]

He has been chucked out.

These conferences are being held with the connivance and the financial support of the National Education Department. Now let me read to the hon. the Minister, since he is quite happy about this, what Sabra set out in its own circular, which was issued in 1970 entitled, “Die strewe en werksaamhede van die S.A. Buro vir Rasse-aangeleenthede”—

And one of them is “skakeling met die jeug”. It says—

Quite clearly their stated intention is that our children should be taught to accept Nationalist Party doctrines as gospel and irrefutable and as an inviolate form of truth in our education system. And when they grow older and they find that so many of these doctrines are false, what then? The very manner in which Sabra sets out its historical background for these conferences is to me a most appalling distortion of South Africa’s history: and the historical background is from 1652 to the present time. Throughout the entire record of course there is no mention of Louis Botha and there is no mention of Smuts and there is no mention of any of South Africa’s other outstanding statesmen. The only people who are mentioned are the all-powerful leaders of the Nationalist Party, all-righteous, infallible people. The whole thing is a nightmare. I have it here. May I just say that the concept of education as such, as we understand it, the academic ideal of the search for truth, the balancing of facts and conclusions in order to attain truth, are both ignored and dismissed. and here we have the other polarity, evidenced in these documents of which the hon. the Minister approves. You have permissiveness on the one hand, of which we disapprove, and you have these closed minds which the Minister is very busy creating, on the other hand. Both are essentially authoritarian in concept and both breed a tyranny of their own. These methods will do nothing to counter, or to protect future generations from, Communism in this country, because the methods are communistic themselves. That is the main point. Now there was a conference held at Calvinia this year, on 21st February, at which General Van den Bergh, head of the Buro for State Security, addressed the conference. I want to question the propriety of a senior policeman, in the first place, the head of BOSS, and a civil servant, addressing school children in this way, and under the aegis and the approval of the Department of Education. It was an outright political speech. What right has a member of the public service to express such views in public? Normally he would be penalized in terms of the Public Service Act and the hon. the Minister knows that very well.

Did he talk about the Imam?

Oh, shut up. I do not have the time to go into the details of the historical background. This is the historical background of all these conferences organized by Sabra. It is entitled “’n Saaklike uiteensetting van die Suid-Afrikaanse Landsbeleid”. This, of course, means the policy of the Nationalist Party.

The South African policy.

But, good heavens, that is not education. [Interjections.] To me this is the most frightening document. It would not be so frightening if only the children were given the other side of the story. But they never are. At the De Aar conference that was held in 1970 the children were given a list of recommended reading, e.g. Verwoerd aan die Woord by A. N. Pelzer; The Principle of Apartheid by Sampson; Het die Afrikanervolk ’n Toekoms? by G. D. Scholtz (sometimes we wonder); ’n Swart Suid-Afrika by G. D. Scholtz; Segregeer of Sterf by Prof. H. J. J. M. van der Merwe; The Case for South Africa by Eric H. Louw; Die Bantoes van Suid-Afrika by Bruwer; Die Jeug se Aandeel in Goeie Rasseverhoudinge by Sabra and Die Bybel en ons Afrikaanse Volkebeleid by Prof. Spoelstra. But what chance do these children ever get to balance this picture? There is nothing by Denys Reitz, Jan Smuts, Leo Marquard or Alan Paton. Whether you agree with the latter’s views or not he is a first class writer. There is nothing to create a sense of balance in the minds of these children.

I do not intend to indulge any further in an analysis of the extent to which this Government, through this department, is indoctrinating our children in the schools and colleges, and in the universities to a certain extent too, in trying to persuade them to accept a ready-made doctrinaire, “Weltans schauung”, based, as I believe, on premises that are no longer tenable in this day and age. The concrete evidence is there and I have already given it. Let me just say one thing very clearly to the hon. the Minister. After 25 years of separation and indoctrination of our young people in our schools and elsewhere the young are singularly unimpressed by it all. I want to tell this hon. Minister that indoctrination in the long run will simply not work.

Then what are you crying about?

I am worried because it is unethical in terms of education to do this. The fact of the matter is that in spite of a quarter of a century of the application of the so-called principle of Christelike Nasionale Onderwys our young people are actually aware that more historical wars have been fought—and they are not going to be bluffed—in the name of Christianity and of Nationalism over the centuries than in any other cause. I am not decrying this either, but the fact of the matter is that any historian knows that for 2 000 years the whole of Europe was racked with religious wars of a most vicious kind. These members are afraid to face their children with the facts of history, but the young are not afraid to face these facts. I make no defence here of activists on the left or the right amongst the young. Both of them seem to me to be doctrinaire. None of this is going to prevent our young people—thank heavens —from thinking for themselves. I will say that in spite of the prejudices and fears which are generated by members on that side of the House, which, I regret to say, are propagated indirectly through the department, and no matter how extensive their attempts are to indoctrinate South Africa’s youth to think their way, politically, socially or morally, they are going to fail. I want to say thank God for that.

Gracious me!

I say thank God for the fact because they have failed already. The young are no longer impressed by double talk and double standards. That is the reason why. They think for themselves and they are going to insist upon thinking for themselves. When they are told to put their hands on their chests and to say that they are Christians, they no longer believe that the Christianity about which their elders talk so much, consists only in the long run of saving the White man’s skin at other people’s expense.

You are saying irresponsible things.

I want to quote briefly from an Afrikaans publication which my hon. friend knows very well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg had half an hour at her disposal and she jumped around from one theme to another like the proverbial cat on a hot tin roof. However, at one spot the cat’s tail got caught, and that was when it came to indoctrination. I shall refer back to that again in a moment. She also referred to the new system of differentiated education. I may just tell her that I, as a former educationist, like this system very much. I have studied it, and I like it. I should very heartily like to congratulate the bodies concerned and the department, which worked on this sytem.

From time to time the United Party harps on this alleged indoctrination. As regularly as clockwork this accusation is aimed at the Afrikaans-speaking teachers who are allegedly indoctrinating children at the Afrikaans schools. Because of a lack of vitality the old United Party slogan has begun to die away the past few years, it is true, but quite suddenly Brakpan’s by-election caused the flames of the indoctrination obsession to be fanned again.

Who started it?

They were fanned by means of the accusations against the Afrikaans-speaking teachers. Those accusations came chiefly from the U.P. candidate in the Brakpan by-election. When the director of education in the Transvaal, Dr. A. L. Kotzee challenged the relevant candidate to come along with factual proof and he, the director, rightfully wanted to protect his teachers, he was accused of venturing into the political arena. I now ask whether he should have sat still and allowed the teachers to be accused in that way? With this accusation, and other similar ones, our schools and our teachers are being dragged into the political arena by the United Party. The United Party, like the hon. member this afternoon, is recklessly engaged in these denegration tactics. The United Party is so obsessed with its accusations that indoctrination is taking place in schools that accusations are made not only against the teachers, but also against parts of a syllabus and sometimes against the subjects that are being prescribed. In this case, as the hon. member did here this afternoon, the accusations are levelled at the subject itself as a whole, i.e. against Youth Preparedness. Thus during the past few months a new campaign has started up against the subject of Youth Preparedness, as it is called in English. This subject was introduced into the Transvaal schools as far back as 1st January, and of course the other provinces will also be getting it. It is now being alleged that it is leading to party-political indoctrination in high schools. Quite suddenly it is now no less than disguised propaganda for the National Party. The hon. member also alleged as much this afternoon. The accusation that the new subject will be used to indoctrinate children politically is a blatant accusation. As far back as last year, in August, 1971, this subject was already being made suspect in advance by the English-language Press. An English newspaper reported at the time that the objection to the subject was allegedly the fact that it envisaged promoting the values of apartheid and Calvinism and strengthening a “laager mentality”—those are the words that were used. Others, again, claimed that it was an instruction that came directly from the Government or, otherwise, that the Minister of National Education had instructed that this subject be introduced in schools. All these accusations are false, misplaced and they give a hopelessly crooked image of the true state of affairs. Unfortunately the United Party always sees politics even in a positive educational endeavour. It is a trick of theirs to smother a very good cause at the outset, and in this case a very essential and very efficient subject, under the cloak of suspicion. It is completely wrong to say that such an instruction came from the Minister. Youth Preparedness has absolutely nothing to do with party politics.

Oh, no!

The hon. member is groaning, but she does not know what she was talking about. I have here a copy of the course for principals of secondary schools in the Transvaal as far as the implementation of Youth Preparedness is concerned.

What about the standard ten syllabus?

I shall give this syllabus to that rowdy hon. member and also to the hon. member for Wynberg so that they can read through it. Then they must come and show me where party politics appears in this syllabus. I challenge them to show me any party politics in this proposed syllabus.

Youth Preparedness was born out of an absolute necessity of the present era. This subject is the result of a deeply-felt need. The idea comes from educationists, from individuals who love our people, and above all, live our youth, individuals that realize that our youth are our people’s greatest asset, individuals that are loyal to the country and the people, individuals who realize, despite all these accusations of so-called “indoctrination” against them and against education, that they have a task to carry out for the youth who must take over the leadership in this country in the future.

Let me briefly sketch the background. In the 1970 annual report of the Committee of Educational Heads—those hon. members also have this report at their disposal —there are references on pages 11 and 12 to the departmental advisory committee on the action of Youth Defence and Emergency Training. It is mentioned that the recommended syllabuses of the departmental advisory committee were considered by the Committee of Educational Heads and that the Committee1 of Educational Heads decided on the components that would constitute the Youth Defence and Emergency Training programme. On page 12 the components are given in broad outline. The most important of these—it tops the list— is Moral Armament. It is a programme that was drawn up—I want to repeat this—by experts in the field of education. This House, including the hon. member for Wynberg, ought to congratulate them sincerely and to thank them for this positive step. As far back as 1970 the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr. Van Niekerk, announced during the main session of the Provincial Council that Youth Preparedness would be introduced into the Transvaal schools. It is chiefly in the Transvaal where the English-speaking people are making such a fuss and launching attacks against this sbuject. The Administrator of the Transvaal also defends the subject with conviction. I just want to read to the House what an English-language newspaper said in connection with this matter. I am referring to the Pretoria News of 23rd February, 1972. The report reads as follows:

At the outset they call it “controversial”—

As far as we are concerned “age-old moral values” definitely have a great deal of value. In addition the newspaper quotes the following from the Administrator’s speech:

That in brief is also the broad object of this Youth Preparedness programme. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked what our objection is to Youth Preparedness, and I want to quote to him a Std. VII syllabus: “South African in relation to the rest of the world: Religion; national monuments; and heroes.” A few weeks ago there was argument in this House about whether Jopie Fourie was a hero or not, and now this subject is going to be introduced into class-rooms and discussed there. That is the objection. There is also talk here of the difference between “conservative and decadent groups”. Apparently there is only a conservative group or a decadent group. What is the United Party then? Do we form a conservative group?

That is a good question.

The United Party candidate in Brakpan focused lasting attention on the indoctrination that is taking place in schools. I have here all the irrefutable documentary proof of this. What makes the whole matter even more unsavoury is that it has the hon. the Minister’s approval. At the time of his appointment we knew that the hon. the Minister was an ex-diplomat, but we also knew that he was a former secretary of the Broederbond. It seems to me that all we have left today is the secretary of the Broederbond. The unbridled outbursts of Afrikaner hate we had in this House from the hon. Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Health, were in no way isolated cases. Even when the hon. the Minister of Defence was still marching around under the cloak of verligtheid, the hon. the Minister of Education was carrying out experiments with young South Africans and young Afrikaners, under the nice name of “extra-curricular education” to find out how this political weapon works. If one reads these Sabra speeches one sees that at these indoctrination camps two things take place. In the first place it is the verkramptes and extreme rightists who are given opportunities to make speeches. The golden thread running through all these speeches is an anti-English attitude. Everything that is wrong in South Africa is the fault of the English. Even the singing of English sports songs …

Where is that stated?

Here I have it Even the singing of English sports songs is in reality, according to these speeches, a sign of degradation.

Read it.

I shall do so. The parts played by Smuts, Botha and other leaders are wholly and completely ignored or misrepresented. Only the Nationalist Party’s policy, and particularly the verkrampte elements of the Nationalist Party’s policy, are presented as the only solution. Nothing is said of alternative policies. One would now say that these indoctrination camps take place on an extra-curricular basis, but when one goes through these documents one finds that the taxpaper has to pay for the actual youth camps. The actual indoctrination already begins within the school context. Here I have the circulars that were sent to all school principals.

Read what they have to say.

I shall do so. These letters constitute the spadework. In these circulars everything is worked out to the finest detail. One finds, for example, that only 10 pupils from each school may attend these camp Of the 10 that may attend, the following is said: “They must take part in the preparatory section of the programme”. Where does the preparatory section take place? Within the school. Subjects for essays, discussions, competitions in public speaking and debates are also mentioned, and this takes place in school. These subjects resemble a syllabus and cover about three pages. One even finds the following subject there: “The use of the Bible in policy questions of a political and ethnological nature”. Therefore, it is even determined how texts from the Bible must be quoted to justify this Government’s policy. Then one also finds this:

“Background sketch with a view to preparation for the Bureau’s youth programme.” Here it must be remembered that only those that have completed the preparatory programme within the school context are chosen. Even the hon. the Minister would blush if he were to read this background sketch. Here it is stated, for example, as far as political rights are concerned, that during the Second World War “it was put to the non-Whites that they could demand political rights in the White areas”.

Yes.

But what are the historical facts? Long before the Second World War the non-Whites had political rights in South Africa, they were on a common voter’s roll and the Nationalist Party kept the Coloureds on a common voters’ roll. In this propaganda document, however, it is stated under the heading “Laissez-faire” that when the United Party was in power during the war years, the non-Whites were told for the first time that they could demand political rights in White South Africa. In addition, mention is made under this heading of communist agitators, etc. That is surely incorrect. But let us go further. There is further mention here of the Second World War and the unsurpassed influx of non-Whites that took place to the urban areas. Then it is stated, however, that when the Nationalist Party came into power influx control, etc., was introduced. But what are the historical facts? The historical fact is that the United Party introduced this in the forties. That is exactly what took place. According to the indoctrination and brain-washing recipe one may never let it be known to one’s guineapig that the persons one opposes did, in fact, do anything good according to one’s own estimate. This type of conduct is typical of the communist: If history does not suit one, one simply rewrites it. Is this the wonderful example that is being set to build up youth preparedness? In this propaganda document there is also a paragraph with a heading “The Hertzog Era”, which simply covers the period from 1910 to 1936. The 1913 delimitation of Bantu areas is stated in such a way that one would think it was Hertzog that did it, while he was not even in power at the time. Then one also reads that the traditional policy of the Afrikaner is the “recognition of the sovereignty and of the national homelands of the respective Bantu peoples”. That, then, is the traditional policy of the Afrikaner, and the date is given as 1924. Why is it not stated, as we heard Dr. Eiselen state recently, that even in 1950 Dr. Malan said it was a stupid concept? They simply kept absolutely quiet about that. However, let us look at what is said about the 1936 agreement: “General Hertzog emphasized that the future of the Bantu is vested in the sovereignty over their own areas, and added strength to his argument by extending the tribal areas by 70 per cent in 1936. The acquisition of this additional land by the Bantu had to take place in such a way that the consolidation of the scattered Bantu areas would thereby be promoted.” Where does one find that in the 1936 Act? Where is there any mention of consolidation? I want to go further and say that I, as an Afrikaans-speaking person, am tired of these insults to the Afrikaners. These are the biggest insults that can be levelled at Afrikaners, because this only happens to young Afrikaners and in Afrikaans schools. In other words, the Afrikaner is being regarded by the Nationalist Party as someone that can be made into a conditioned robot. They want to take away the individuality of the young Afrikaners, and that is why I, as an Afrikaner, want to object to that. The hon. the Minister does not have to go any further, because here I have the proof. He can read through it. There is not a word about General Smuts and General Botha, and there is not a good word said about the United Party as such. Now we also find the fact I have already pointed out, i.e. that at the real Sabra youth congresses, which parade under the guise of youth leadership congresses, one finds not only the verkrampte and extreme rightest taking part. A man like Prof. Spoelstra himself said by implication that Afrikaans and English-speaking people may not even marry, that this would in fact mean the end of the world. As he said, if one sings English songs at sports gatherings, the Great Trek has been in vain. That is what we get. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, here the hon. member for Durban Central made a very filthy insinuation as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “filthy”.

I withdraw it, Sir, I say it was a very ugly insinuation. It was scandalous. I now want to tell the hon. member today: He was a teacher and a United Party organizer. What we have left is a United Party organizer—his educational knowledge has completely disappeared. That hon. member speaks of indoctrination. He was a United Party organizer in Durban while he was teaching. Is that not indoctrination of the first degree?

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I say that it is completely untrue.

That hon. member was teaching and doing organizational work for the United Party men at the same time. He again went to study with an education bursary and returned as the United Party organizer.

He learned nothing.

That is the man who now speaks of indoctrination! Sir, these people are so sensitive whenever there is talk of anything that is characteristic of the country. According to a law of this country education must have a national character. But they are so far removed from anything that is national, that anything which is characteristic of this country is foreign to them and evil. They speak of indoctrination. Do you know where indoctrination takes place, Sir? At the English schools! I know of an English high school where the pupils were conditioned in such a way by the teachers, with the advent of the Republic, that when they received the small Republic flags they threw them on a heap and set them alight. That is the kind of indoctrination that takes place against the Republic. Do you know where indoctrination still takes place? At our universities through the medium of the liberal thinkers. But that is not a sin. When South Africa and the South African way of life is undermined by liberals at our universities who indoctrinate our students, it is “free speech”; then it is “free thinking”; then it is praised as being something noble. But when our children are allowed to obtain a national character in our education, it is a sin. I am very glad the Education Council gave the following definition of the concept “national character” in its 1971 report—

Is it indoctrination if these aspects are brought home to our children? I should like to know what the hon. member for Durban Central has to say. Is that indoctrination? No, Sir, these people must not speak of indoctrination. They are the guilty parties. Then a positive system in which youth preparedness, which has become a need of absolute urgency in our time, enjoys preference, is labelled indoctrination.

Sir, I should very briefly like to bring to the hon. the Minister’ attention a problem which many people have recently been considerably concerned about. The problem relates to the alarming increase in the running costs of our universities. Sir, university tuition has become tremendously expensive. In spite of the fact that university fees were increased, in spite of the fact that the Government has made considerable concessions to private individuals and companies who make donations to universities, and the fact that a great deal of money flows to the universities from that source, the universities are completely unable to balance their budgets from their own funds. To tell the truth, as far as I can gather the State must cover as much as 85 per cent of university expenses this year, while the universities can only contribute something like 15 per cent from their own sources. It is definitely a matter about which there is concern because these expenses are increasing tremendously. The following figures indicate how alarmingly the State’s contributions to university tuition have increased in the past 20 years. In 1951 it was a mere R2,8 million; in 1961, R9,2 million; in 1971, R65 million, and this year it is R68 million. We are very grateful to the State and this Government for being able to subsidize our universities to such an extent that proper provision can be made for our students, but the fact is that from time to time university authorities still have to come with their hats in their hands, as it were, to the Minister and the Cabinet to ask for more money. It seems to me, from the personal knowledge I have of this matter, that we shall soon reach the stage where the State will have to carry 95 per cent or more of university expenses, and then one must ask whether the time has not come for the universities to become State universities; for the State to assume full responsibility for university tuition. If that cannot be done—because I know that there are people who will immediately moan and say that the universities will lose their autonomous status—then I want to suggest that ways and means be found to make the universities self-supporting and independent of State aid. The universities will then of necessity have to increase their fees to such an extent that they can cover their expenses from those fees. This will mean that a student will perhaps have to pay R1 500 or R2 000 per year in student fees. This will in turn make the university an ivory tower that is only there for the children of the privileged wealthy people. If university fees are increased to that extent, I want to suggest that the State should lend the full university fees to the student, in terms of an agreement, and that the student should then repay that loan when he is working one day. This would mean that the student would immediately have a responsibility, because he would not be studying with the taxpayer’s money, which he can simply waste, but with money he eventually has to repay. It would mean, in addition, that the State could cancel that loan if the student is guilty of continually neglecting his duty or is engaged in subversive activities against the State, and that the university will then be able to hold the student or his parents responsible for the amount that is still outstanding if the State withdraws its loan. Sir, in that connection I also want to mention another aspect. There are hundreds of foreign students, from the United Kingdom and elsewhere, who are studying here. I understand there are about 800 foreign students studying in South Africa. Those students cost the State anything from R800 000 to R1 million per year. Some of those students are guilty of subversive activities. Their parents live abroad. They pay tax there; they have no obligations here. [Time expired.]

Sir, I trust the hon. member for Algoa will excuse me if I do not follow his particular theme in regard to the financing of university students, partly through their own efforts. I want to come back to a matter which is causing anxiety in the minds of many parents of school going children, and that is the question of drug abuse and the attitude of the hon. the Minister and his department to this particular problem. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that his predecessor in 1969, when I raised the issue of drug abuse and the part that the schools and the Department of Education could play, reacted to this immediately. On the 24th April, 1969, in column 4706 of Hansard, Minister De Klerk said that he supported my suggestion that consideration should be given to this aspect. He went on to say that there was a special section on dagga and the use of drugs in our high school syllabus and he promised to give serious attention to the question of having this matter investigated. Sir, since then we have had the publication of the report of the Grobler Committee on the abuse of drugs. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 105 of the report, where no fewer than six recommendations are specifically referred to the Department of National Education for attention and consideration. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether at this stage he can give some indication as to what steps have been taken in this particular regard. Sir, I am fully aware of the difficult problem that this presents. We must not underestimate the difficulty. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister something which appeared in the World Health Organization technical report series, published by the expert committee on drug dependence. This is what it says, under the heading “Education”—

I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it does make the question of education in this particular regard a difficult one.

Then, Sir, I want to come to the training of pharmacists, because this hon. Minister is responsible for the training of almost 90 per cent of the approximately 250 pharmacists who qualify each year. There are now fewer than 10 training institutions in the Republic dealing with the training of pharmacists. Seven of these are the responsibility of this hon. Minister while three are universities under the Ministers of Bantu Education, Coloured Education and Indian Education respectively. But this hon. Minister has under his control two universities and five colleges for Advanced Technical Education. I said they produce up to 90 per cent of the chemists and druggists. Last year the three ethnic universities among them produced 17 chemists and druggists, three Coloureds, 11 Indians and three Bantu, at a cost far in excess of the figure which was riven to me by the hon. the Minister, of a unit cost of 656 for a White student at the technical college at Port Elizabeth. The figure for Turfloop for a pharmacy student is given at R1 600 per annum. In passing I would like to point out a further anomaly, and that is that when this man is qualified under these conditions, he receives, according to the starting salary laid down for a pharmacist, R150 a month, whilst his White counterpart educated at the White institutions, receives a minimum of R350 a month. The point I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention is the large drop-out rate which is taking place. Now this is not taking place as the result of inferior staff, because if the Minister would go into it he would appreciate that his department has suffered a brain drain to provide the teaching power for the ethnic universities. I am wondering whether it is not time for the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of the trend which is taking place with this brain drain from his department and whether he should not see that the teaching which is being provided is making the maximum effort to produce the maximum number of chemists and druggists of all races who are needed to fulfil the need for pharmacists in this country. I have no time to quote the figures in detail, but I may mention that there have been 679 enrolments of non-Whites in the first year. The drop-out has been down to 73 in the third year, leaving a total number of 40 non-White qualified chemists and druggists; ten per cent remains in the third year. The picture as far as White chemists and druggists is concerned, is completely different. We find that of 470 first-year students, 314 are still taking their course in the third year. Last year 94 non-White students took the first year enrolment course and 24 students were in the third year enrolment course. I believe this is something which the hon. the Minister can no longer ignore. I have asked him on occasions whether he has conducted a survey to investigate any possible brain drain from his own department to other departments, and he has told me “no”. He does not think it is necessary. I believe that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this aspect.

In the short time left to me I wish to deal with the question of statistics. I have wanted to try to compare the enrolment and the passes in the White universities under the Minister’s control and the non-White universities under the control of other Ministers. When I seek statistics I find I can get up to date and revealing statistics from the other departments, but from this hon. Minister’s department there seems to be a difficulty in getting the statistics. I must express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister because he indicated in one reply to me that he has deputed an official specifically to collate the figure for the 1970 statistics I sought in reply to a question. In a computer age, is it really necessary to find that the 1970 statistics of university enrolments and the number of graduates and diplomats who obtained degrees and diplomas is not available in 1972? I am certain that this is something which requires investigation. I want to point out that the hon. the Minister said that I could get the statistics which I sought from the annual reports. I was looking for a ten-year spread. When I referred to the annual reports, I found that after 1972-’73 there had been a change in the manner in which the statistics had been collected. Whereas in those years it was possible for me to determine the number of degrees and the number of diplomas, the total number which had been awarded by all the White universities under the Minister’s control, thereafter the statistics were published in such a way that it would have needed an adding machine or a computer to arrive at an accurate total. There were no subtotals, no totals and no possibility of getting a clear picture of the number of graduates for degrees per year. I want to suggest to the Minister that this is important information and that it should be available and that the various universities should be requested to render returns in such a way that they can be collated so that people who are interested in statistics are able to obtain the figures from the reports. [Time expired.]

I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Wynberg, but she has since disappeared. I should like to say this to the hon. member. after she became so excited about the conference that was held at De Aar. I suppose that because it took place in my constituency, Dr Jooste sent me the full programme of the proceedings, complete with all the papers that were delivered there, and I saw nothing wrong or suspicious in that. The hon. member has, of course, again seized on this opportunity, as has rightly been stated here, after the Brakpan United Party candidate also began with these indoctrination stories when he realized he was not going to make the grade. The hon. member could just as well have taken the Sunday Express instead of those typed sheets that she read out. Indignantly she calls out “Nationalist Party policy!” I feel inclined to tell the hon. member that if the United Party had a policy that the world took any notice of something could possibly have been done to it. The fact that our policy is attacked to such an extent is specific proof that our enemies are afraid of it.

But let me come to the hon. member for Durban Central. I have thought several times, when the hon. member was speaking, of the words of a wise man I read about, a man who, when he is listening to people who get so excited—I almost want to say who go too far—issues the warning: “Wisdom dies out with you.” The hon. member is still young, and I think he will still be learning a great deal, but I want to warn the hon. member that in his youth and impetuosity he must be careful. He actually came along and presented himself here this afternoon as the protector of the Afrikaner and his cause. Preserve us from ever being under his protection. He is an Afrikaans-speaking person who has now become sick and tired of what is being done on this side by the Government; now he is our guardian. As true as faith, then I refuse to be protected, and the hon. member must not blame me. Dramatically he calls out that everything that is English must be condemned, is wrong.

Everything that is English?

You said that. We can also quote examples, and if you get hurt you must not cry, but I am going to restrain myself from doing so.

I should like to express two further ideas here, aspects which are frequently a little worrying to me, since I am someone who is interested in teaching and education. I am fully aware of what we are doing in connection with education. I am thinking, in particular, of school education. I am aware of the progress we have made through the years. One is nevertheless constantly aware that one will probably never have achieved everything one strives for. Our system and our activities will never be perfect. Seen in the context of our times I feel it is essential to emphasize again that from school-going age we should already be preparing a child along certain lines so that when he leaves school, or even goes to study further, he can adapt what he has learnt at school to his future needs. Today I do not want to try to discuss a syllabus; for that we would need a great deal of time, and it would also require intensive study. But one is not always completely convinced that the subjects pupils choose are really of such importance. I should also like to say a few words in connection with university training. It is generally known that our universities today are full to overflowing. It is generally known that it costs a tremendous amount of money on the part of the State and on the part of parents to keep students at university and to see them through until they have completed their courses and are prepared, as the adage states, to enter upon life. What bothers me tremendously and unsettles me is the fact that at our universities there are numerous students—I almost want to say hundreds, if it does not border on thousands—who sit there year after year, some of them hardly passing a single course in four, five, six or seven years. Those students take up the space that could be taken up by other more deserving students at the university. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that attention be given to this mater at the highest level. I personally am aware of numerous such students. Some of them are only there to play sport. I have nothing against sport, and that is not my objection either, but I feel that if there are places—one may almost call them costly places—that must be filled at the university, they must not be relinquished to those who are perhaps there to get a little polish. In most cases they do not even get that.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively, to the hon. member for Wynberg, and I want to say that the hon. member tried very hard to state her view in this House. I think that at times in her political career she has had such lucid moments as those in which she criticized her own party in respect of the fact that they do not want to acknowledge that the National Party has succeeded in its Bantu policy.

Say that again!

In respect of education she has not got that far yet. The dilemma the hon. member for Wynberg finds herself in, and this relates to education as well, is that she—this is also the dilemma in which the United Party finds itself, in particular the English-speaking section of the United Party—leans on the Afrikaans-speaking people in that party. The Afrikaans-speaking people in their party cannot give them a clear picture about what the Afrikaner really believes in and what he really thinks.

You are talking nonsense.

It is exactly the same with education. The English-speaking members of the Opposition allow themselves to be led by Afrikaners whom I cannot but describe as confused individuals, people like Etienne Malan, Japie Basson, Willem Kleynhans, Jan Loubser, Prof. Nic Olivier and, last but not least, the hon. member for Durban Central. These Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party are misleading the English-speaking section of that party and South Africa, and placing them on the wrong road. I am very serious when I say this. I now want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central whether he can say sincerely that as a practising teacher he never had any part in United Party organizing, because he is a man who advocates that our teachers in South Africa must be given time so that they can be nominated as party candidates in a political election. Then, if he loses the election struggle, the teacher should immediately be allowed back into education.

There is another question I want to ask the members of the United Party. In the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s idiom they must tell me on what grounds we can have mixed, integrated universities in South Africa, and on what grounds there must be separation in respect of primary and secondary education.

Then there is also a third question I want to ask hon. members. A few months ago about 12 000 pamphlets were distributed at certain high schools in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pietermaritzburg in which a blatant attack is made on established and founded norms amongst school children to bring about discordant relationships between pupils and parents and pupils and teachers.

That is National Youth Action; it has nothing to do with us.

These pamphlets contained, inter alia, the following statements (translation)—

About teachers it is stated:

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

Unfortunately there is no time. I have only a few minutes at my disposal.

I just want to ask that hon. member to go and read again what she said about what she regards as being the foundations of education. The hon. member said, inter alia, that she wants to tell the children: “Search for the truth and balance the facts.” If that side of the House were now to establish an education policy for South Africa, in this modern world in which we live and with the big problems modem man has to struggle with, do they want to tell all pupils from nursery school to matric, in the light of the information these people are distributing amongst our young people, that they must search independently? Here is what these people tell the pupils about the teachers (translation)—

One of those is mentioned as being pornographic magazines and comics. I could elaborate on this, but I now want to ask the Opposition a question. Sabra holds certain youth congresses with the utmost responsibility as far as human beings are concerned, with the greatest possible acknowledgement of what authority, order and discipline in South Africa are. Let me now say very clearly that I do not always agree with everything that people at Sabra congresses say. I do not always agree with everything that scientists say. I was also a lecturer at a university. And believe me, in my subject I did not echo any political party. I felt myself at liberty to regard matters on merit and form a scientific judgment. But I always knew that those in practical politics do not have the benefits that a scientist has. This is evident when one has a person like Prof. Kleynhans saying one thing this evening and changing his tune again next morning as it suits him. In the light of their violent attacks on Sabra, and on the youth congresses that Sabra holds, I want to ask those hon. members the following question: Give me the name of one single responsible United Party member, whether he be a committee member or leader, who has already stood up before an audience to condemn the pamphlets that were distributed amongst our young people. I want the hon. members of the Opposition to stand up and say it in this debate. If they do not succeed in doing so, the United Party will find itself exposed, as far as the teachers, the parents and the up-and-coming youth of South Africa are concerned, as people who want to harness education in South Africa for their own political advantage.

I should now like to make a few remarks about our universities. I think that for centuries now it has been a case of an older generation taking very careful note of the up-and-coming generation. Many times we are also inclined to see the faults in the up-and-coming generation, to realize the faults we ourselves made, and then to prevent the up-and-coming generation from making those mistakes. I had a great deal to do with young people in the course of many years. I think that the National Party, as a party, has great confidence, not only in the young people as a whole, but also in our students throughout the country. I venture to say that in those universities where the university leaders are to a large extent people who support the principles of the National Party, there is greater peace and quiet and more opportunity for finding people who can mean a great deal to our society. In that connection I should like to mention the University of Pretoria as an example. On this occasion I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to the new rector of the University of Pretoria, i.e. Prof. Eddie Hamman. I have, in particular, great confidence that as a man with a highly scientific training, and as a man who has reached the highest rung in his field, he will be able to keep this university the Voortrekker university. In welcoming the parents of first-year students on 15th February, Prof. Hamman made a speech which I think it would profit every parent and student in our country to read.

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a good testimonial to the education system in our country and to the progress we have made during the past decade and longer, then it is the debate on education which has been conducted in this House this afternoon. For every department the debate on its Minister’s Vote is more than any other the occasion on which matters of policy are stated. I am now asking hon. members, with all the objectivity at my disposal, what judgment was passed this afternoon by the Opposition on the educational policy of my department. A few trifles were pecked at, which we can discuss later. But about real matters of policy, about our objectives, about our organization and our deficiencies, nothing was said by hon. members on the opposite side. There is only one conclusion I can draw from this, namely that the Opposition, in spite of what it wants to profess, is also satisfied with the education set-up as we have it in our country today. What also struck me was that the hon. Opposition works with completely obsolete concepts. They have not kept pace with the tremendous development and the entirely new dispensation which have been brought about in education. I said this recently in the Senate when a motion on education was being discussed there, and I want to repeat it here. We had points of criticism here which were raised by the main speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Wynberg, and I want to tell her that some of those points she raised were quite simply based on obsolete concepts. In other words, her premise was quite wrong, and consequently there was no substance to her argument. I tried last year, and the year before as well, to teach her a few things, but it seems to me she has learnt nothing.

No, she failed again.

It seems to me the Opposition members who are interested in education do not want to learn much. The hon. member for Durban Central, who should in fact be able to learn, came forward here with matters, and on a level with which I shall deal later. I do not want to drag it into this argument now. Why do I say the hon. Opposition work with obsolete concepts? The hon. member said here that the De Villiers Report had in 1948 already envisaged a period of eight years in which to implement those recommendations so that we could get a policy of differentiated education in the country. That is quite correct, and it is stated in the report.

However, I said last year that the problem around which everything centred until the stage at which the National Party had the courage to do what it did, was the divided control which existed on the secondary school level. This is no new discovery the National Party made. Since 1910 there have been 11 commissions on education, and each one of them found that divided control over education should be abolished. That was the essence of the problem. Now I want to ask who governed the longest and the most from 1910 until the National Party took over the government in this country for the future? Why did the United Party not take those steps and change and expand this system? Now the hon. member says that the Government “is dragging its feet over it”. The Opposition is working with obsolete concepts. I want to remind hon. members of the fact that it was the National Party that had the courage to carry out what these previous commissions had found was necessary, namely to transfer vocational education to the provinces. From then on we were able to start with the expansion and formulation of a comprehensive and consistent differentiation policy. Earlier this had not been possible.

Of course there was always a measure of differentiation in various ways and in various directions, but a comprehensive and a consistent differentiation policy was not possible because of the major struc tural failings in our educational system, namely that one had the divided control on the level of secondary education. I hope that the hon. Opposition will in future take this set-up as it exists at the moment into account. I maintain that the education system which my department controls is as good as the best one can find anywhere in the world. Our education system, as far as its objectives are concerned, as far as its organization is concerned, as far as its results are concerned, and particularly, too, as far as its scope is concerned, for all the requirements one may encounter in society, is really efficient and comprehensive. When I say “all the requirements one can find in society”, I am referring not only to the clever children which one finds in a community. It is easy to teach and encourage them. But I am also referring to those who are intellectually less well-endowed. I am referring to the physically and mentally handicapped. I want to say that at the moment we have a system which, when it has been properly expanded and when full differentiation has been achieved, will be as good as any system to which one could justifiably compare it.

The hon. member quoted here from Die Burger what a certain newspaper correspondent, under the pseudonym “Onderwysman”, wrote. I ask the hon. member: Is she convinced that “Onderwysman” is really a person who can speak with authority on education? If he is not, why does she quote him as her authority?

Why does she not have recourse again to the De Villiers Report, which is a report based on proper educational principles, and which indicated to us the guidelines? Why does she not have recourse to the statements of very well-known authorities and thinkers on education in our country, and even abroad? Instead, she quotes a letter from a man who calls himself “Onderwysman”. The letters which followed showed very clearly what those people thought of the opinions of “Onderwysman”. I said that I do not begrudge anyone the right to write to newspapers. In fact, it is something which many people are inclined to do—if they have nothing else to do, they write letters to the newspapers. I do not begrudge them the right to do so, but I did ask, what right do we have to accept that he is not perhaps a frustrated or old teacher trying to bring about a change in the system? Those are all possibilities we have to bear in mind. But to hold him up to this Parliament as an authority on differential education is, I think, exaggerated. I think the hon. member, by doing that, made herself a little ridiculous.

The hon. member objected vehemently to the fact, which “Onderwysman” and other people also alleged, that the entire educational profession was supposedly not informed about what is being planned and what they will eventually have to deal with. The hon. member is shaking her head. Therefore she still adheres to that standpoint. Sir, is the hon. member not aware that I administer my department in terms of an Act which specifies the procedure explicitly, point for point, as to who should be consulted and when? I think the hon. member was already a Member of this Parliament when that Act was piloted through. If she is so clever now in regard to the procedure of consultation, why did she not at the time make proposals in this House to improve the system? But I do want to say to the hon. member that I agree that the procedure which is laid down from me in the Act, as it is at present, is long and cumbrous; we shall have to improve it.

In the light of the experience I have gained, I will in due course improve it. When the time arrives to do so, I shall make an appeal to the hon. member to present her ideas. It is no use levelling criticsm and saying that people have not been consulted, which is something that I deny. Sir, the teaching profession was consulted to the extent to which the Act prescribes that it should be consulted. I do not know whether the hon. member understands that to mean that I should hold a referendum among the teachers on every point, or something to that affect. I do not know whether she expects me to obtain the individual opinion of every teachers’ association officially. But I do want to give her the assurance that the teaching profession has been consulted in regard to this matter, as it was consulted in regard to all educational matters, to that extent to which I am directed to do by the Act.

I should now like to deal with a few of the more specific points raised in this debate. I have said that in regard to matters of policy, in regard to the real essence of education, little has been said in this discussion up to now which I deem to be of importance. The hon. member for Wynberg, and the hon. member for Durban Central as well, kicked up a terrific fuss about what was allegedly indoctrination. The hon. member for Durban Central, at meetings and in the periodical Press statements which he makes, elaborated on this at length. He waxed very eloquent about this. This afternoon he came forward with the same story as he recounted in the newspaper, namely that this was supposedly a calculated move of indoctrination. He referred to the Broederbond, and I do not know what else he is also afraid of. He thought that he was going to make out a convincing case here. He said that he had everything in black and white. I do not know whether hon. members who heard him thought anything of his arguments. I thought very little of them, for what he quoted here did not convince me. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. member for Durban Central, and this will be my only personal reference to him: I feel sincerely sorry for him because he, who was a teacher, in other words a man who was an idealist, has forsaken that path and now finds himself in a situation where for the sake of his seat he has to perform menial duties for those people whom we regard as an Opposition in this House.

He is a real James Bond; all he still has to do is find himself a pretty girl, then he would have everything.

Sir, I am not going to spend much time on this indoctrination charge, for there are a few matters which I still have to deal with. I want to say to the Opposition, and more specifically to the hon. members who have participated in this debate up to now, and who joined in this chorus, say that on the basis of my experience, on the basis of my every-day observations, on the basis of documents I have before me, and on the basis of my personal contact with these people, I have complete and utter confidence in the educational authorities in all the provinces and also in my department. Sir, we have a statutory body, the Committee of Educational Heads, a body which is invested with great and important powers and which has great responsibility. As I know those people, they are not people who will co-operate in any intrigue to act subversively in regard to any political party or in favour of any political party. I want to tell you this, Sir, that school principals and the teachers’ corps as a whole are reliable and loyal South Africans, people whose services we do not always estimate at their true worth. To sow suspicion against them here, and to think that the educational authorities are engaged on a plan and that a large corps of teachers are carrying out that plan and do not have the courage or the strength of their convictions to oppose it, is absolutely far-fetched; it is a motion of no confidence in our teachers’ corps, on which so much depends as far as our future and our survival in this country are concerned. Sir, I reject that kind of suspicion which is being sowed against these people.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he himself as head of the department and as Minister approves of teaching schoolgirls to shoot?

Of course. Yes.

Sir, that is one of the items of the youth preparedness programme to which we shall return in a moment. I first want to complete my argument. I shall not evade the question; I have noted it down. Sir, I want to say that these people, the educational authorities, the school principals and our teachers’ corps in general, are thoroughly trained people. They are responsible people; they are inspired and loyal South Africans. I am satisfied that the teaching profession in South Africa is in responsible and reliable hands. I concede —and the hon. member will probably want to make use of this later—that here and there there is a difference in emphasis; that certain English-language teachers associations perhaps allow the emphasis to fall differently to Afrikaans-language teacher associations; that I want to concede; it is part of our human nature. There may even be a difference between them here and there in regard to methods, but I want to state emphatically that there is no difference between them in regard to educational principles. That is why I say hon. members may rest assured that this group of educationists will do nothing in this country, nor will they participate in anything, if it cannot be defended educationally. I want to say to hon. members on the opposite side that they are making themselves ridiculous by. recounting the story they did this afternoon. The English language teachers, the U.P. teachers however many of them there may be—and I do not begrudge any tea cher the right to be what he wishes as far as politics is concerned—are having a good laugh at the Opposition’s expense over this matter. Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg quoted here from the Transvaal Educational News, the educational journal of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. She began to make this quotation, and I asked her to quote further. If I understood her correctly, she then said that she did not have the entire article with her. I then promised to quote further from it. Sir, I want to quote to you what is said by the Transvaal Educational News, the mouthpiece of an English-language teachers’ association, a major and important teachers’ association, in its editorial column, in its leading article, on this matter of youth preparedness. It was stated—

Sir, this is the standpoint of a responsible educational body. The hon. member now wants to make this House believe that this programme of youth preparedness is an evil thing. Why are we having this campaign? I want to say to hon. members of the Opposition that it is not an entirely new line of thought, for at all times school principals and teachers have also made their influence felt in regard to those values which in our opinion ought to be brought home to school children. It is the truth. During assemblies in the halls, the school principals gave talks on many of the subjects which you now find in this programme for youth preparedness. I say that all we have before us now is a purposeful and balanced programme of youth preparedness which concentrates the knowledge gained over the years into a properly co-ordinated effort. The row which is now being kicked up in regard to this matter had its origin in the recent by-elections. Each time a by-election is held, particularly if it is a provincial by-election, or when the Cape Provincial Council or the Transvaal Provincial Council is sitting, the same hardy annual makes its appearance. And who trundled it out? Fritz Botha in the Cape Provincial Council and Andrew Pyper, who even boasts of being an Afrikaans-speaking person in this House, and Opperman in the Transvaal. Sir, it surprises me that if one wants to gain a seat on that side of the House, one has to go to such lengths in regard to one’s own convictions and things which are dear to one.

That is untrue.

Our children are being indoctrinated.

If the hon. member for Turffontein wants to believe it, he may do so.

I was indoctrinated myself.

The hon. member says he was indoctrinated himself. He was indoctrinated so well that he is now sitting in the back benches of the United Party. [Interjections.] I am sorry the standpoint of the United Party and the hon. member for Wynberg, that we should teach our young people to think for themselves and to think critically, was not already in vogue in the days when the hon. member for Turffontein was still at school, then he would perhaps not have complained today that he had been indoctrinated.

Sir, I want to dispose of this matter quickly. The key syllabus of this youth preparedness programme has been approved by the Committee of Educational Heads. In the same way key syllabae have been prepared for all the subjects. In other words, this responsible educational organization meets and deliberates on what is necessary and how much is necessary; what form it should take and how it should be presented.

Military training.

I say that that key syllabus was approved by the Committee of Educational Heads, but like responsible people this committee decided that every department should determine its own programme; and what have the departments done now in the light of the developments there?

What about military matters?

I am still coming to that. They decided that discussions and orientation courses for school principals would first be held before this programme was put into operation at the beginning of next year. There is one matter which causes the hon. member terrible concern, and that is that girls will be taught to shoot. As far as I know the art of shooting is something which is not practised by men only. There are all kinds of target shooting, and the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who is a great target shooting enthusiast, will be able to confirm this, and I think the hon. member for Umlazi, who in his day has probably taught quite a lot of young women pistol shooting, will admit it. Ask him whether there is anything wrong with teaching a girl to shoot. In principle I have nothing against a girl being taught to shoot. If my educational heads, however, as the experts in the sphere of education, tell me that they regard it as being educationally unjustifiable that girls should be taught to shoot, I shall reconcile myself to that. But personally I see nothing wrong with it. The hon. members have now tried to build up a case against youth preparedness. I have said that I shall not go into the youth preparedness programme any further, except in so far as the matter of learning to shoot is concerned. I am surprised the hon. member did not broach the matter of karate as well.

Fire-fighting.

Yes, fire-fighting. The hon. member asked how one would be able to integrate fire-fighting into the rest of the school programme. It goes without saying that one cannot integrate all these components of this programme with the existing subjects, but in so far as it is practicable and feasible, it is being done. That is the reply to that. I say that I want to leave at that this question of youth preparedness, which is supposedly such an important part of a pre-conceived plot to indoctrinate. If the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. Opposition on the opposite side are really so concerned about indoctrination at our schools, do they know what the most effective counter-measure is? The most effective counter-measure against indoctrination is to produce their own teachers, both men and women for their own people and their own schools. Then there will be an end to the continual objections in regard to indoctrination.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred here to the “Christian National type of education”, of which she was supposed to be so tired by now. I want to ask her whether she means by that what the hon. member for Durban Central meant when he made his speeches and had his interviews with the Press. He referred to a pamphlet published years ago by FAK. That is after all what the hon. member for Durban Central meant, not so? He said it. I have the clippings here.

What does FAK say?

The Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings. The hon. member referred to a pamphlet which they published some time ago and made as if this was the policy I was supposedly forcing upon schools. I could quote it to the hon. members, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. The hon. member for Durban Central’s concepts in regard to the educational set-up are so obsolete that he also states that he objects to my wanting to force this scheme upon the entire country, including Natal, and that I do not take into account the fact that Natal is governed by the United Party. It is a pity Uncle Douglas Mitchell is not here this evening. It would warm the cockles of his heart to hear that there is a young member here who, just as he did, wants to march to take Natal out of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not mention hon. members by their names; he must refer to the constituencies they represent.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I mean the hon. member for South Coast.

I want to return briefly to the Sabra Congresses. I am sorry we have to return to this matter, for it is one which I dealt with in full last year. However, I must return to it, because the hon. Opposition has tied it in with this deliberate attempt which is supposedly being made to indoctrinate schoolchildren. I said last year, and I am speaking here from last year’s notes, that it is one of the functions of my department, and a very important subdivision of its work, to cultivate qualities of leadership among children and young people. I do not want to discuss the school itself, now. I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg that it is the object and endeavour that we should impart knowledge to our children but that we should also give them a sense of values and an ability to distinguish between and weigh up facts. They must learn to think for themselves, and as far as that is concerned, she and I are in agreement. There are few other matters on which we agree. I have said that this is an important subdivision of my task, and I derive that task from the National Cultural Council legislation, to help organize our youth on an extramural basis. This is not being done only through the efforts of my department itself, but by giving support to many organizations. The hon. member for Wynberg smiles broadly when we say this. Last year I did not furnish the particulars, but simply referred to the annual report. I want to apologize for the fact that the annual report of my department is not yet available, but it is hoped that it will in fact be available within the next few days. I want to mention to the hon. members a few particulars of what my department has in fact done in recent years to make contact with young people and to organize the development of leadership potential in co-operation with outside bodies, and of our own accord. I want to mention to the House that we held 111 camps for general youth courses which were attended by 13 000 young men and women. The land service movement organized 33 regional camps, 46 week-end camps, 10 school camps and three national camps which were attended by 11 000 land service members. In addition 11 camps for naturalization courses for immigrants were organized. In 1948 my department had only one camp site. Today we have more than 14. This is a wonderful development which is taking place in our entire set-up. Those grounds are available to organizations outside the department. [Interjections.] Oh, please, the young people in the hon. member for Hillbrow’s constituency pay no need to him, and he pays no heed to them either. Therefore he need not join in this discussion. These particulars I have mentioned here prove that we are engaged in the development of a wonderful set-up to reach our young people on an extramural basis. Sabra. which holds these courses every year, is one of these groups receiving financial support from us. Last year and this year again, in reply to questions put by the hon. member for Orange Grove, I explained how this support is being given, that it consists of ad hoc allocations which are made on the basis of the submission of audited statements for actual expenditure, and that it is allocated on the basis of organization which is done. Last year in the same debate the hon. member for Durban Central asked whether I would allocate it to certain other organizations as well. I told him that each organization was considered on its merits. I see that he has made an appeal to them to organize a similar effort on a country-wide basis. It does not seem to me as if his appeal has met with any response. I want to state again that there is no doubt in my department in regard to the standpoint which these organizations adopt. I said last year that I do not censor the lectures given there, but we do take cognisance of what is being said there. On that basis continued support or initial support is considered.

The hon. member for Wynberg saw fit to quote here from a circular allegedly sent out to the schools in 1970 by Sabra. Why did she not quote the 1971 circular? If she had done that, she would have seen that that circular was amended considerably because I had given instructions that certain changes had to be made to that circular. But she saw fit to quote the 1970 circular because it strengthened her argument and because it could cast suspicion on what I regard as a very deserving effort. I say that we are aware that Sabra was established to promote separate development scientifically. Does the hon. member except now that, with such a premise, Botha and Smuts and all the others who were mentioned, should also be dragged into such a programme?

If you are trying to establish an historical background, can they then be omitted?

If one is sketching a historical course of events, it roes without saying. I say that it depends on the emphasis one wants to achieve.

Yes, exactly.

There is nothing strange about this. Those hon. members need not laugh about it. If one’s premise is a certain objective which one announces openly, it goes without saying that in the historical set-up one does not analyse all the other directions in the finest detail. Have hon. members ever heard the Opposition stating its own policy when it is arguing about relations policy in the House? They have more to say about our policy than about their own.

Do not run away.

I am not running away, and least of all from these scare stories. Hon. members can go and read the papers delivered at the Sabra Congresses and they will find in them no trace of indoctrination. The hon. member for Durban Central also said that this is only for Afrikaans schools. Why did he say that? Surely he knows that it is not true.

The hon. the Minister may not say that he “knows that it is not true”. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. But I told the hon. member last year that all schools in a specific area in which the congress is being held receive these circulars. Not all the schools can send all their children to attend, and that is why it is being limited to 10 per school. You do not want the poorest pupil in the school attending such a congress. This is, after all, a youth leaders’ congress. That is why one wants hand-picked children. Now he says it is a prepared programme, where one is already beginning with indoctrination in the school.

The programme which is published by the department appears only in Afrikaans. Why does it not appear in English as well?

Did the hon. member ask whether an English copy was available?

That is the position in Natal.

Did the hon. member ask whether there was one available in English? I want to emphasize again that at these congresses there is no possibility and no proof—and hon. members were unable to produce any proof—of one-directional indoctrination of the policy of the National Party. The best proof of that is that the United Party members, when it suits them, do not hesitate to quote what was said at those congresses against the National Party and its policy. I think this is conclusive proof of the statement I have now made. Let us not sow suspicion unnecessarily, when this is not justified. When we consider our educational set-up, let us consider it in general. Let us, in heaven’s name, have an end to this hackneyed allegation of indoctrination, which we have been hearing about ad nauseam, but in regard to which we have never yet been given any proof. We had this position again in Brakpan. The same applies to the hon. member for Durban Central, who says that he has the proof. If he can produce proof of indoctrination, he must please raise the matter with the Director. The reliable and responsible educational authorities will see to it that those accusations are investigated. If you do not have confidence in those people who are in charge, because they are Afrikaans-speaking persons in all the provinces, see to it then that your own people get to those positions, and the member will perhaps have more confidence in them.

I want to mention another point in this context. My hon. colleague from Potchefstroom referred to certain pamphlets of the National Youth Action. No, it was the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Wynberg’s reply to that was: “That has nothing to do with us.”

It has not.

Yes. I know that. But this is the reproach I levelled at the United Party in a previous motion in this House, and it is one which I want to repeat. If we omit to do what we ou ht to do, we are as much to blame as we are for those things which we are deliberately doing to the young people. Let us do what we can to protect the young people in this country. to make them strong and prepared for the difficult task which they have to perform in this country tomorrow and the day after. I feel myself at liberty to say that my side of the House has never hesitated, not only today and during this session, but over the years, to say where it stands in respect of the youth in this country, in respect of the essentially sound, conservative youth in our country. The United Party is still sitting on two stools. They have never adopted a standpoint. With this unsavoury Wits Student incident which we had the United Party again fobbed off its task with the pious condemnation that it was unsavoury and that it was to be deplored, and thought that with that the matter had been dealt with. I say again that if the United Party is really concerned about the youth, they must adopt an attitude in favour of the conservative element amongst our youth, which is the most important element amongst our young people. As long as the United Party fails to do that, I will continue to say that they are neglecting their duty to the young people of South Africa by coming forward with these worthless arguments, as they again did this afternoon.

I now want to proceed to a rapid discussion of a few points which were raised. The hon. member for Berea touched upon a few very important matters here. He referred to an undertaking which my predecessor gave in 1969 in regard to the abuse of drugs and narcotics at schools, and referred to the Grobler Report. He asked whether we had done anything in this regard. I want to tell him that my department regards this instruction to it in a very serious light, and that the matter has received the attention of the Committee of Educational Heads, which busied itself with this matter for a long time and in a penetrating way; not only in analysing the problem, but in finding actual countermeasures. As the hon. member rightly said, knowledge alone is not a solution to the problem, the availability of means is also necessary. That is why I am pleased that it would appear as if the measures which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, advocated here yesterday. apparently have the support of the hon. member for Berea. We also referred this to the Committee of University Principals. who also busied themselves with this problem, for the picture in that sphere also gives cause for concern and we must ensure that whatever is humanly possible is done here. The hon. member may therefore rest assured that this very important matter is receiving the necessary attention.

The hon. member also referred to the question of statistics, and I want to agree with the hon. member that our statistics are not always in the form and on the level in which and on which they ought and could be, particularly in this century in which we are living. I should like to concede this to him and say that my department itself is concerned about it. The Human Sciences Research Council is at present investigating the individual data system. and my department is co-operating closely with it. I hope that when we have organized this matter more satisfactory statistics will be at our disposal.

The hon. member also referred to the loss of training staff of my department to the universities for the different non-White ethnic units, and he related this in particular to pharmaceutical training. It is true that my department and all the educational departments are continually losing staff to other departments, and also to the private sector. I am sorry that we are losing these people, but I cannot stand in a man’s way if he is able to better himself. On the other hand I also say that it is a good thing if people who have had training as a teacher or as a professor, people with a solid background, see an opportunity of rendering service in a different sphere of life, and I would not then like to stand in their way. We are losing these people, but I do not think they are being lost to our country. Therefore, as long as my department is losing them to our own country, I do not regard it as a disquieting problem and I do not regard it as essential that I should take steps to counteract the loss of these people.

There were other matters as well which were raised by the hon. member for Algoa. He referred to the increasing financial burden university education imposed on the State, and asked whether another system could not be applied. I want to remind him that the Van Wyk de Vries Commission is working on this matter under wide-ranging terms of reference, and that we hope to receive the report by the end of this year. One of the specific terms of reference on which that commission has to report is in fact the financial set-up, the financing of the universities. I hope that we will find that some light has been cast on this important aspect of university eduction. Where the hon. member linked this to the idea that the authority should seek closer contact with the students, in this sense that they can, by way of bursaries, have control over the progress they are making so that they do not spend and waste their good years at university, I think that this is something we will have to think about. It is quite true that there are people at the universities—I am afraid that there are too many of them—who are occupying the place of other people who want to study and do research work. Therefore we shall certainly look into this idea.

While I am dealing with this point, I want to say that there is another aspect and it is that we have by way of concession allowed certain non-White students, for whom provision does not yet exist at their own universities, to study at the White universities. I want to say this here today —this is not a threat—that if this concession is abused, in other words, if certain elements want to use those students, who are studying at our White universities by way of concession, as a lever to oppose the Government’s policy of separate universities, they must know that the easiest action for us to take against this is simply to compel these students, for whom provision does exist at the other universities —and these comprise the largest group— to go there. I want to be specific; it is necessary. Studying at the University of Cape Town here are a large number of Coloureds and also Indian medical students. Studying at the University of the Witwatersrand are a large number of Indians, particularly in the medical faculty.

Send them to Stellenbosch or Tukkies as well.

The hon. member is not as stupid as he is now pretending to be. I want to tell you that if those people are to be used as a lever to disparage our policy of separate university facilities, then I think it is time they made way for other people who want to come to our universities.

Sir, since I still have two minutes left, I shall refer to another matter which we shall also have to look into in conjunction with the problem raised by the hon. members for Algoa and De Aar and that is the following: On 1st June, 1969, there were 2 835 students from beyond our borders studying at our 10 White universities—excluding the University of South Africa— students therefore in regard to whom the taxpayers of South Africa are paying approximately R1 000 each per year to keep them there. I think the time has come for us to see whether those students are really studying, or whether we are not perhaps, in some of the cases, wasting our money on those students who come from beyond our borders.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.