I move—

A principle is involved here which unfortunately cannot be accepted. This particular person resigned from the Railway Service; his pension contributions were repaid to him and thereafter he joined a branch of the Public Service, and now he is really asking for condonation of the break in his service, namely that his pension moneys should be paid back and then transferred to the Public Service Pension Fund. That would create a precedent. There are numbers of officials who apply for a transfer, and it is often refused for good reasons. It has always been the policy, when the transfer of an official is refused and he resigns from the service, not to condone the break in his service for pension purposes. He may become a member of another pension fund, but his pension contributions are not transferred.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendations Nos. (28) and (29) put and agreed to.

Clause 3 (1) (c) provides—

It seems to me that there might well be a provision in this clause not only for a minimum period but for a maximum period. I think one of the problems in the past in the control of financial institutions has been the delay that has taken place in receiving replies; something has gone wrong and the registrar has asked for information and the matter has been allowed to go on and on, until it is too late for anything to be done. Here the position is that the minimum period in which the financial institution has to reply is 30 days, but there is no maximum period, and you could have the same state of affairs that matters may be allowed to drift and get out of hand. Perhaps at a later date the Minister might consider some amendment to lay down both a minimum and a maximum period.

I will have to go into the point raised by the hon. member. If there is any substance in it, I shall introduce an amendment in the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to move—

Clause 4 (2) really provides that when an inspection is carried out certain persons may be examined under oath. We know that in practice when an investigation has to be carried out, an attorney is usually one of the persons in such an undertaking who has most information at his disposal, and I think it is very desirable and also very necessary that we should specifically state in the Act that an attorney is one of the persons who may be examined on oath. As the clause now reads he is not included and it is very desirable that he should be included.

I hope the hon. the Minister will not be influenced to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. van Zyl). A communication between attorney and client, as the Minister very well knows, is a privileged communication-That situation should not be disturbed in a Bill of this nature. Here the inquiries will be made under very wide powers to take information on oath from persons associated with the business which is being inspected. If this suggestion is adopted, you are going to breach a situation which has always prevailed, namely that there is privilege between an attorney and his client. Actually you will see, Sir, that one of the provisos is that whenever an inquiry of this nature is being made, the person examined may have his legal adviser present at the examination. It is quite obvious that you are going to have a conflict here as well, because the attorney who is advising him is entitled to be there but who is going to be there when the attorney himself is being examined? However, on the broader principle I hone that the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment and that he wil leave the position as it is. The hon. the Minister told us that it was an agreed measure up to a point in so far as he has been able to have consultations, and I do not think any additions of this nature should be made.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider Clause 4 (1) (d) which gives very wide powers to remove securities, books, records, accounts and documents of a financial institution, seemingly for any purpose at all. The only limitation is that there may be a temporary removal from the premises, but how long “temporary” is depends, of course, on the whim of the person who removes them and on no other factor. I think here again the hon. the Minister should give this House an assurance in the first place that removals of this nature will not take place unless there are grounds for believing that an offence has been committed. I do not propose moving an amendment but I hope the hon. the Minister, as far as this clause is concerned, will give that assurance to this House and will take steps to introduce a limitation when the Bill comes before the Other Place. This, to my mind, is quite an alarming provision to be included in the Bill where responsible organizations may be involved, and I particularly stress that because of the word “stigma” which the Minister himself used in his second reading speech. Then I would ask the hon. the Minister to drop sub-clause (4). Sub-clause (4) would entitle inspection of the records and books of persons merely because they have done business with one of the financial concerns which is being examined. It seems to me that if that stage is reached, then it may well be a matter not for the inspector but for the police. If something has happened which takes the irregularity or the undesirable business feature outside the business which is being examined, it seems to me then that it should not be dealt with by this inspector any more; it seems to me that it might well be left to the police, and I hope therefore that the Minister will agree to drop sub-clause (4) of Clause 4.

I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. van Zyl). I do not see any reason for the objection which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) raised in connection with the question of privilege. The first question that arises is this: Who is the client of the attorney who is appointed here by the registrar? Obviously his client is the registrar. His client is not the institution which is being investigated, and I can imagine that a very important legal point may arise in one of these cases which have to be investigated, and the assistance which the registrar needs is legal assistance and he therefore appoints a person with legal knowledge. That person has to assist the inspector. The registrar must get somebody to go and assist the inspector at the inspection.

The hon. the Minister is wrong.

Of course that is so; the hon. member is completely wide of the mark. The clause provides—

I see now that I have not read this provision quite correctly and that the amendment relates to the attorney of the firm. I can only say that I think it is essential that we should also include “attorney” here. I am prepared, however, to examine this matter again with reference to the question of privilege. I cannot say that I am convinced of this at the moment and I shall go into it again therefore before the Bill is introduced in the Other Place. At the moment I am prepared to accept the amendment subject to further investigation, as I have said. I cannot, however, accept what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said in connection with Clause 4 (1) (d). I want to point out to him that there is a similar provision in the Income Tax Act in terms of which books may be temporarily removed. It does not apply in every case where an inspection is carried out but only in those cases where the registrar considers it necessary either to obtain copies or to get temporary possession of the books in some other way, apparently for the same reason that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue wants access to books, that is to say, with a view to prosecution.

As far as Clause 4 (4) is concerned, as I pointed out yesterday, unless we have the right to follow up what has become of the money of the company, we shall make the registrar powerless. He would then not be able to follow up the matter to see what has happened, and we must therefore have this provision in the Bill otherwise the value of the whole Bill is reduced. I am sorry that for these reasons I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

In connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. van Zyl), it seems to me the position is that the Minister is prepared to accept it in principle although at the same time conceding that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has raised a point which requires further consideration. As a matter of fact, the Minister indicated that he would go into it and if he found that there is any substance in it, he would be prepared to deal with it in the Other Place. Would it not be better for the Minister to say that, in these circumstances, he will not accept the amendment at this stage but that he will, if he finds there is substance in it, introduce it himself in the Other Place?

I said that prima facie I agreed with the hon. member but that I would investigate it further. Under those circumstances, I indicated that I would accept it.

But will it not be more economical to, instead of going to the expense of putting an amendment into the Bill now which might have to be taken out again in the Other Place, leave it out at this stage and introduce it in the Other Place if there is substance in it?

I should like to come back to my amendment. If the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) say that this is a question of privilege, I should like to ask them what about the auditor, the director and the other officials? If there is any privilege, it also exists in respect of the auditor as an outside official. There is no difference. If the attorney is excluded, the auditors and other outsiders should also be excluded. As the hon. the Minister has said there may be undertakings which have to be investigated, and if there is any corruption in a company the auditor and the attorney will know about it. If only one of them can be placed under oath and information can only be obtained from the auditor, then we are not going to achieve our aim, and much of the information which the inspectorate has to obtain will not be available. I would strongly urge therefore that the hon. the Minister should insert the word “attorney”,

I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to the request made by the hon. member for Constantia in this connection, because when the Minister originally agreed to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), there obviously was some confusion as to what the position of the attorney would be. As a matter of fact, the Minister has conceded that when he said he would accept the amendment, he was not quite sure of the context …

Prima facie I accept the amendment. I think prima facie that the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunny-side) is correct but in order to meet you I shall go into it once more.

I just wanted the hon. Minister to follow the advice of the hon. member for Constantia in this connection. However, I shall not take the matter any further. The comparison which the Minister drew between 4 (1) (d) and the provision contained in the Income Tax Act is not I think a valid comparison. The Income Tax Act is a fiscal measure and the intention under that Act is to preserve the interests of the fiscus. It is quite obvious that in cases like that rather more drastic action is necessary. Under this clause, on the other hand, the interests of the fiscus are not in issue.

I just want to refer briefly to the allegation made by the hon. member for port Elizabeth (south) in connecting with the provision that books, etc., may be removed. He says that when the stage is reached where that appears to be necessary, then it a matter for the police. But the very reason why this Bill is being introduced is to obviate any stigma attaching to the institution, thus shaking the confidence of the public in that institution. I can imagine nothing that will cause a greater shock to public confidence in a particular financial institution than a rumour that that institution’s books have been seized by the police. Surely the effect of that would be just the opposite of what we would like to achieve with this Bill. I want to ask the hon. member therefore to consider this aspect very seriously. After all, this is a routine inspection that is carried out; the public does not know when it is going to become a special inspection, nor does the public know when the books are removed. If, however, the police are instructed to seize the books of a financial institution, a stigma will attach to that institution, unnecessarily perhaps. I have discussed this clause with persons who have a great deal to do with these things, and they believe that this is necessary.

I do not think the point made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunny side) a moment ago in regard to the question of privilege is correct. It is quite clear that in so far as privilege is concerned, it applies for instance in the case of medical men and to lawyers under certain prescribed circumstances and it is also quite clear that other professional men, such as auditors, are not in a similar position. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will act in accordance with the request made to him in this connection, i.e. not to include the word now but to investigate it further. If it is included, I hope it will be included without prejudice …

If he has the privilege, he has it in any case.

… to any privilege which may obtain. The attorney is not, as seems to have been the case put by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), in the position of an auditor or of certain other professional men. Doctors and attorneys are in a special position in relation to privilege.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move the amendment of which I gave notice yesterday and which, I believe, puts the position more clearly than it is stated at present—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move the amendments of which I have given notice—

Because this is a new provision, the object here is to state the position clearly as far as the question of costs is concerned. Where a special inspector is appointed and costs are incurred, such costs are normally borne by the State. Here we are asking for authorization, however, to recover the costs in two cases. The first of these cases is where the affairs of an institution are investigated and it is found that it was necessary to carry out such an investigation. In those circumstances the Minister can recover from the institution the costs connected with the investigation. If the investigation appears to have been unnecessary, however, then the Minister does not have that power; in that case the State has to bear the full cost. The second case is where a person applies for the affairs of a particular institution to be investigated. If it is found that such an investigation was unnecessary, then the expenditure connected with it may be recovered from the applicant. We are making provision for it here. In my opinion this also introduces a healthier principle because as the Act reads at present, the costs are recovered in all cases from the institution which is investigated. We want to get away from this but nevertheless we also want to retain the right to make the institution liable for the costs in certain circumstances. The same applies to the person who applies for an inspection. We do not want to have frivolous applications which give rise to great expenditure without having the right to recover the costs from the person who asked for the inspection. The costs connected with the permanent inspectorate will continue to be borne by the State.

This provision is the one to which I referred in my speech at the second reading as one with which certain bodies are not satisfied. I feel, however, that the hon. the Minister’s amendment meets the position.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Speaker: I see that, according to the transcript of a speech which I made yesterday, on the General Law Amendment Bill, I have used certain words incorrectly and for which I should like to apologize to the Minister and to the House. The words in question are—

This, obviously, is incorrect. It was never my intention to say it. What I intended to say was—

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept my apology.

I accept the apology of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before the House deals with a variety of matters which, with one exception, namely Diplomatic Immunity, are primarily the concern of other Departments. All the measures involved, however, affect the Republic’s foreign relations and result from international discussions. The Bill is therefore being introduced by me as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister who is responsible to the Cabinet for the conduct of relations between the Republic and other countries, including the United Kingdom and her colonies.

Mr. Speaker, the House is indebted to the hon. the Minister for his full and careful explanation of the details of this unhappy Bill, which we will have to consider, and we are also indebted to him for having made available copies of his statement …

Move the adjournment before you weep.

… and for agreeing to give us time to examine the statement before proceeding with this debate. Therefore, with his approval, I move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to submit for your consideration the following point of order and to ask for your ruling whether in view of the provision of the Bill which is before the House, and in view of the provisions of paragraph (b) of Section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 and in the absence of appropriate petitions from the Provincial Councils of the Republic, it is competent for this House to consider and pass the National Education Council Bill.

Sir, I do this with great respect, because earlier this Session I submitted, in respect of another Bill, that it could not be proceeded with and you, Sir, after considering the matter, ruled as follows—

You thereupon ruled, Sir, that the House was competent to consider and to proceed with the Bill which was then before the House. As I explained to you when I informed you of my desire to raise this point of order, on that occasion the point was taken hastily and on very short notice and I am appreciative of your help in granting this opportunity of putting fully the case which this side of the House wishes to submit for your consideration in regard to this matter.

The Bill before the House is the National Educational Council Bill, and it is a Bill which introduces something entirely new. Inter alia, in Clause 8 it provides that no proposed legislation relating to the education of White persons shall be introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly, or in a Provincial Council, except after prior consultation with the Minister and any other interested Minister or an Administrator, and after the Minister has obtained the views of the Council thereon. It is my submission that Parliament in imposing this condition on a Provincial Council is derogating from the powers which are at present enjoyed by a Provincial Council, in conflict with the provisions of Section 114 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Sir, this is a matter of very grave public importance and very great interest, and I hope you will bear with me and with other hon. members when we attempt to put as clearly and as briefly as we can, but fully, the conclusions which we have reached on an examination of the effect of the various provisions of our constitution.

I wish firstly to refer to Section 114, which is quite clear and specific that Parliament shall not abolish any Provincial Council or abridge the powers conferred on a Provincial Council under Section 84, except by petition to Parliament by the Provincial Council concerned. I would like to say immediately that it is common knowledge that there has been no consideration of the Bill now before this House by any Provincial Council and certainly there has been no petition to this hon. House which has been laid on the Table in compliance with the provisions of Section 114 of the Constitution. It is of interest, and I think it is necessary that I should deal in some detail with Section 114. I had the honour of being one of the members of the Select Committee which was appointed by you, Sir, to examine the Bill which in due course became law, and to-day is known as the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, No. 32 of 1961. This Section 114 had of course been taken over from an Act passed in 1934. The first point I wish to submit to you, Sir, is that it was expected by Parliament that the effect of this clause, whatever may have been its previous effect, while it stands unrepealed, would be obeyed. Whatever was its previous effect, when this section was included in the Constitution of the Republic by a dying Parliament, the new Parliament, which is this Parliament, as then constituted, is bound to act in terms of its own Constitution. When there is a specific provision, such as this, with specific requirements, I submit that it would be quite incorrect to attempt to deal with any alteration of the section by implication. It is a matter which, if Parliament wishes to deal with it, it should deal with it by seeking to amend Section 114. I think I should say that when this matter was before the Select Committee, I felt that it was necessary to raise the matter of this section and its validity and I think hon. members—the hon. the Minister was also a member of that Select Committee—will agree with me that it was the specific opinion given to that Committee by the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government, the Senior Law Adviser, that this section was a section which, if inserted in the Constitution, would become binding on Parliament, but he made it clear that if it was contained in an ordinary Act, the position would be quite different. With respect, I submit that the opinion of that hon. gentleman is very relevant to the matter we are now discussing. So I proceed from the basis that Section 114 is part of our fundamental law. It binds this House. It binds the whole of Parliament, and I say that Parliament should abide by it. With very great respect, Sir, I wish to submit that the view which you had earlier expressed that Section 84 of the Constitution does not confer on Provincial Councils the exclusive power to legislate in regard to the various matters enumerated in that section; while I agree that it does not give to the Provincial Councils exclusive powers to legislate—I will deal with that a little more fully later—I make this submission to you, that as long as this clause remains unaltered, in so far as any legislation of this House would abolish any Provincial Council or abridge the powers conferred upon Provincial Councils under Section 84, this Parliament is bound to act in terms of the Constitution which gives being to this Parliament, and which requires that that legislation must first have been the subject of a petition to Parliament by the Provincial Council concerned. So I submit that it is necessary that Parliament should act in accord with its own Constitution and I submit, too, that this House, and the other Chamber in due course, would not be acting in accord with the Constitution of the Republic as freely adopted by the dying Parliament of the Union of South Africa, and which is now the fundamental law of the Republic, if we proceeded with legislation which in the slightest degree abridged the powers of a Provincial Council without that prior request from the Provincial Council.

Now I would like to refer to Section 118 of the Constitution, the section which gives very specific power to Parliament, and which reads as follows—

So it is clear that in terms of this section Parliament may repeal or alter any of the provisions of this Act, subject to that limitation, and it would appear that Parliament in terms of this provision is competent to repeal Section 114. There is no limitation, but it is my submission to you, with respect, that so long as Section 114 stands unrepealed on the statute book, it is the bounden duty of Parliament to act in accord with it.

I would like to refer to the other provisions of this Act, and perhaps I may take them seriatim. The first is Section 59, which says that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic. Not for one moment do I query that that creates a sovereign Parliament, as long as that Parliament acts in terms of its own constitution. It is common cause that we have an entrenched clause to which this House must undoubtedly conform if it wished to deal, for example, with the question of the languages. I would like to say that if Parliament chooses to ignore one provision of the Constitution, Section 114, it would appear to me that there is nothing to prevent it from ignoring another provision of the Constitution, namely that which deals with the languages But what I wish to submit to you for your consideration, Sir, in respect of Section 59, which is in the very wide terms that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic, is the fact that in your ruling you referred to that and said—

I accept that that is so, but how does Parliament make laws? Properly it must make laws within the four corners of its Constitution, and not in defiance of the Constitution. Sir, I would remind you that it is a principle of the construction of statutes that if there are provisions which are in conflict one with the other, then the later provision is the governing provision. The provision which says that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority is Section 59, and the limiting Sections 114 and 118, come very much later in the Constitution of our Republic. It is clear that if it could be submitted that Section 59 is wider than the others, as it does declare this to be the sovereign Legislature; it is perfectly clear nevertheless that Parliament must abide by Section 114 and 118. As I say, this was known to be the position, because even the Chief Law Adviser gave the opinion I have mentioned on Section 114 before it was passed. It is quite clear that the intention of the dying Parliament of the Union,—because it was in effect putting itself out of office by passing this piece of legislation,—was, as I have stated, that these provisions to which I have referred—and I am referring particularly to Section 114—should be binding upon its successor Parliament, which is this Parliament.

Now on the question of whether there is concurrent jurisdiction, Section 84 makes it perfectly clear that the Provincial Councils have certain powers, and among the powers given to the Provincial Councils are education other than higher education and Bantu education, until Parliament otherwise provides. Now it is quite clear what that means. It means that until Parliament has otherwise provided, education in respect of the matters dealt with in this Bill is the function of the Provincial Councils. When it says “until Parliament otherwise provides”, I submit that it must be given effect to in terms of the later provision, Section 114, which places the limitation to which I have referred, and clearly there would be an abridgement of power. Parliament has the power to abridge the powers of the Provincial Councils, but when it does that it must not, in my submission, do it by means of a Bill such as the one now before the House until the other provision of the Constitution has been complied with, and it is a very direct injunction to Parliament that it may not do this very thing, except on a petition to Parliament by the Provincial Councils concerned.

There is another provision to which reference might be made,—Section 85—and that is the one which makes it perfectly clear, that any ordinance made by a Provincial Council shall have effect in and over the Province as long as and as far as only it is not repugnant to any Act of Parliament. That section makes it perfectly clear that once there is an Act of Parliament properly put on the Statute Book, every Provincial Council must act in accordance with it, because no ordinance can be passed which is repugnant to an Act of Parliament. If a Provincial Council purported to pass such an ordinance, it would be acting ultra vires its own power. But I do not believe that this affects the present question. I make the point because it is quite clear that there is not concurrent jurisdiction in so far that a sphere of legislative power is vested in the Provincial Councils. It is my submission that in that sphere any legislation by Parliament automatically abridges the powers of the Provincial Councils, and in terms of Section 114 those powers may not be abridged except on a petition to Parliament by the Provincial Council concerned. I concede that Parliament can, if it so wishes, repeal the provisions of Section 114. It is given specific power to do so, but I say this to the Government and to the Minister in charge of the Bill that if this Government wishes to act in defiance of Section 114 of the Constitution, it will be far better that the Government quite openly takes responsibility for introducing a Bill into this House to repeal Section 114 of the Constitution. That power is quite clearly stated—I do not deny it—that power is given to Parliament, but I say that the duty of this House is clear; it is to protect the Constitution. If this Government takes the responsibility and forces through this House a Bill which repeals Section 114 of the Constitution, a Bill which presumably would be valid, then we would know exactly where we stand, but I would say that it does seem to be utterly wrong, when we have a Constitution on which we might almost say that the ink is scarcely dry, that Parliament should have brought before it legislation conflicting with the provisions under which this Parliament itself was formed. Sir, I do not think I can put it more clearly than that and I say to the hon. the Minister: Do not let us continue to ignore this provision. If the Government intends to regard that provision of the Constitution as of no force or effect whatsoever, let it have the courage to come to this House and repeal that provision.

Then, Sir, you would not be placed and I would be placed in the invidious position in which certainly I find myself this morning. But, Sir, there the provision is; I say it is a binding provision. I concede that Parliament can alter it, but it must alter it in terms of its Constitution as laid down here, by means of a Bill.

Why did you agree to sit on the Committee?

I agreed to sit on the Committee because I had hoped that we would get a Constitution about which there would be no more disputes between that side of the House and this side of the House, and I agreed to sit on that Committee because I believed that I could make a contribution, and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the members representing the Opposition did their very best to assist in drafting the best Constitution we could. The Government has not been prepared to act in terms of this provision and what I ask now is that you, Sir, should consider the matter and I hope that after calm consideration, you will come to the conclusion that your earlier ruling did not cover this point. I hope that in view of the new argument which will be addressed to you to-day, Sir, you will be able to rule that this Bill should not be proceeded with until either there are the necessary petitions from the Provincial Councils or, alternatively, the Constitution of the Republic has been altered to permit of this Bill being brought before this House.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order. The whole speech of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), was really based on the concluding submission he made, and the concluding paragraph is this, that this Government and this side of the House, if we were to carry on with this legislation, are not prepared to observe the Constitution of the Republic. He particularly tried to sow suspicion on the sincerity of the Government in regard to the section safeguarding bilingualism. That is the reason, and that is why when the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) came up with that point, an hon. member opposite said “Hear, hear”. I am very sorry that the hon. member uses this opportunity to sow some suspicion in this manner, for I am convinced that this is not the intention of the Government by a long chalk. But let us try to answer his argument. In the first place, he relies on the section in which it is provided that the powers and functions of the provincial councils may not be abridged—save at the request of the provincial councils—that is Section 114—and he relies on subsection (2) of that section. He read it quite correctly. It provides that Parliament may not withdraw the powers of a provincial council save pursuant to a petition from the province concerned. The first point I wish to make is that Clause 8 of the Bill does not fall within the scope or the effect of that section. I wish to put it to you this way: Clause 8 reads as follows—No proposed legislation relating to the education of White persons shall be introduced in the Senate or the House of Assembly or in a provincial council, except after prior consultation between the Minister and any other interested Minister or Administrator and after the Minister has obtained the views of the council thereon.

There is not the slightest doubt that Parliament is competent to pass legislation on the education of White persons. Let us assume the hon. member is correct; then it is obvious that when this Parliament passes an Act on the education of White persons, it will always do so either after consultation with the provinces, or it will do so at the request of the province. This particular clause does not exclude those petitions from the provinces. On the contrary, Parliament is simply imposing another duty upon itself, and it says: Look, if some day, even after a petition from the provinces, we wish to make a law, we shall still have prior consultations with the Administrator and the education council. The hon. member may say that the prior consultation is a limitation of the powers of the provincial council, but it is not so at all. The provincial council may be requested to address a request to us. So this section does not conflict with the provisions of Section 114 (b) at all; it will still be capable of being done within the provisions of that section. So the first point the hon. member has made, namely that Clause 8 constitutes an abridgement of the powers of the provincial council is not a point of any substance, for there is no provision anywhere in this clause where this Parliament is abridging the powers of the provincial council. Let us proceed to the member’s second point in regard to Section 84 of the Constitution under which the provinces make ordinances and pass measures in regard to education, “until Parliament provides otherwise”. The argument of the hon. member is now that the provision should be read in terms of Section 114 (b). But there is another problem which the hon. member has not underlined fully, and that is the wording of Section 24 of the Constitution in which it is provided expressly that the legislative power of the Republic shall be vested in Parliament, and Section 59 says that the legislative authority shall be the sovereign legislative authority. The word “sovereignty” has throughout the ages had different meanings, but in modern times it means nothing less and nothing more than that on the one hand it is the supreme lawful and law-giving authority within the State. So Section 114 has also to be read subject to that. So this Parliament is quite competent to pass this measure. Supposing, Mr. Speaker, you were to rule that it is an abridgement of the provincial powers; I want to repeat again that I think you will have acquitted yourself fully of your task if you were to rule that Clause 8 of the Bill is not an abridgement of the powers of the provincial councils, but if you were to rule that it is an abridgement in fact, then my argument would be further, that all the provisions of Section 114 and all the provisions of the Constitution have to be read subject to this general provision of Section 59, in which it is provided that sovereignty vests in Parliament, that is to say, the supreme power of legislating vests in Parliament. Now what does that mean? It means that when this Parliament decides to proceed, it may be that hon. members opposite raise the objection that we have not obeyed a convention. But a convention is not a rule of law which compels the Speaker to say that Parliament cannot proceed, as he would be in the case of a rule of the law in which he could be subpoenaed or in which we could obtain a mandamus from the Court against him personally to give a particular ruling. In the whole of the Constitution, there is only one section dealing with this so far as I know constitutional law. There we have a case where the Speaker would be compelled to rule a Bill out of order. But such a thing cannot be read into Section 114—perhaps it can be read into Section 118 to which I shall come in a moment. In this case, where it is simply said that Parliament shall not proceed with this legislation save by petition from a province, I say that Parliament is nevertheless competent to do so because it is the sovereign legislative authority. But it is possible that the Opposition, if they are aggrieved, may be able to get their sanctions and their redress in Another Place—not against the Speaker nor against the Government, but from the public who placed this Government here. That is really whence conventions actually derive their sanctions. The Government adopts a certain line of action because it is easy and good, and because it is in accordance with custom, but the Government is not obliged to observe those customs. It may disregard those customs, but then it runs the gauntlet of criticism from the public outside, and that is all the hon. member for Germiston (District) can do, assuming he feels that the Constitution is not being observed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, if you cannot rule under Clause 8 that this Bill is not an abridgement, that your ruling should be that because Parliament is sovereign and because it may exercise all the legislative powers, it may proceed with this measure.

Now I come to the last point made on that side, that we on this side if we proceed with this measure will be offending against Section 118 of the Constitution which entrenches bilingualism; that we are now violating bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, we can write books on that section. I am one of the neople who believe that Parliament should itself obey its own rules as regards its Constitution, and as regards its functioning. We could for instance, quite competently meet in Pretoria and pass a law: that is a convention too, but I do not think we can try to pass a law without the Senate. Nor do I think we can pass a law without meeting, because it is part of the Constitution that we should do so deliberately, that is to say, that we should come together and exchange views. Section 118 deals with one of these matters. A certain function has been entrusted to certain organs of Parliament, and they have to perform that function either unicamerally or bicamerally, or the Two Chambers have to sit jointly (it is a matter of jurisdiction) and the question may arise whether Parliament, if it were to try to go beyond its jurisdiction, would be making a law that is valid. We can argue a lot about that, but in the Committee on which the hon. member served, and on which I also had the privilege to serve, we told each other that whatever the position may be, we know that Section 137 and Section 152 of the old Constitution is part of the law and that we just cannot repeal it, even if we tried. So what is repeated in Section 118, even if it is only in a different section, is still our law and if at that time it was valid law, as the Apellate Division subsequently held, then it is still valid law to-day, because it has not been abolished. That is merely by way of observation. Mr. Speaker, you need not have complete regard for that part of the argument. I am merely replying to the hon. member, for I do not want him to go through the country, and all his chorus after him, to vilify this side of the House as if we are endangering bilingualism. I can argue with the hon. member that Section 118 is a section that has to be obeyed absolutely, but not Section 114, for the one contains a provision of law that is enforceable, and the other contains a convention that is not enforceable. That is why I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should not uphold this point of order.

I should like to support the point of order made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I propose to go into considerable detail in this matter and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will bear with me. I do so because, as you will appreciate, the matter is one of considerable importance and it is difficult to make one’s arguments clear in a matter of this sort without going into details.

I must say that the hon. member for Germiston (District) was very lucid and very clear and I hope the hon. member can advance some new points.

Mr. Speaker, I do propose to advance some new points, but of necessity, in order to raise these new points it will be necessary, so as to make my argument clear, to refer to some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District). But I assure you, Sir, that I will deal with the matter as briefly as I can.

The first point that I wish to make is this, that this House and the Parliament of this country derives its powers from the Constitution of the Republic, and since it derives its powers from the Constitution, this House is bound by the Constitution. From this two points flow, in my submission. The first is that Parliament has no powers beyond those given to it by the Constitution, and the second is that it must exercise the powers given to it in accordance with any provisions that there may be in the Constitution. As has been pointed out, the powers of the provincial councils are set out in Section 84 and the particular part of Section 84 which concerns us in Section 84 (1) (c) under which the provincial councils are empowered to make ordinances in relation to education, other than higher education and Bantu education.

Until Parliament otherwise decides.

Until Parliament otherwise decides. Section 84 must be read with Section 114 which, as has been pointed out, provides that Parliament shall not abolish any provincial council or abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under Section 84, except by petition to Parliament by the provincial council concerned. Now Section 114 (b) and the corresponding section in the South Africa Act were clearly inserted, in my submission, with the intention of safeguarding the rights of the provincial councils. There could be no other intention. I would point out that Section 114 (b) and the corresponding section in the South Africa Act have been enshrined in our Constitution since as long ago as 1934. I submit, and I make this submission with the greatest respect to you, that this point is of fundamental importance in considering the point of order made by the hon. member for Germiston (District); the point being that by the enactment of Section 114 (b) the intention was clearly to safeguard the rights of provincial councils given to them by the Constitution.

My next submission is that the Bill before the House does in fact abridge the powers of provincial councils. Once again I do not wish to go into details, because that point has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Germiston (District). He has pointed out that by Clause 8 of the Bill provincial councils will no longer be able to make ordinances on educational matters until they have consulted with the Minister and obtained the views of the Education Council. To that extent, I submit, it is clearly an abridgement of their powers because at the present time provincial councils may make ordinances relating to education without prior consultation with the Minister and without considering the views of any other body. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Clause 8 goes even further, because the effect of Clause 8 must necessarily be that a provincial council will be bound by the views of the Education Council presented to it through the Minister. That must be the necessary implication of the clause, because otherwise there would be no point to it at all. If the position was simply that the provincial councils were required to consult with the Minister, to obtain the views of the Education Council through the Minister and then to have no regard whatsoever to those views, there would be no object whatsoever in inserting Clause 8. It would be quite ineffective. So in my submission it must necessarily be intended by this clause that the provincial councils will be bound to accept those views under the pain of having the consent of the State President to the ordinance refused.

The hon. member will appreciate that that is quite a questionable point of view.

It is a matter of construction, Sir, and I may well be wrong, and you, Sir, may well rule that I am wrong in that construction. I merely advance this as my alternative argument, my main argument being that the very fact that a provincial council is now required by Clause 8 to consult the Minister is in itself an abridgement of its powers.

It follows from my submissions that since the Bill abridges the powers of provincial councils to make ordinances in relation to education, the Bill cannot be considered or passed, except after a petition to Parliament by the provincial councils, as required by Section 114 (b).

There are, however, certain other sections in the Constitution (which have been referred to to some extent) which I wish to deal with more fully and in a somewhat different light to that thrown on them by the hon. member for Germiston (District). The first is Section 59. It has been pointed out that in terms of Section 59 Parliament is the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and has full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic. The hon. member for Standerton, rightly, pointed out that under Section 24, Parliament is defined as consisting of the State President, a Senate and a House of Assembly. Now, Sir, it has been suggested by the hon. member for Standerton that Section 114 (b) derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament as defined in Section 59 and that therefore Section 114 (b) must be disregarded or ignored where it conflicts with Section 59. In my submission that argument is not sound, for reasons which I will explain in a moment, but before I do so, I would make the point which has already been made by the hon. member for Germiston (Dis-, trict), viz. that if that argument is a sound, one, it must necessarily follow as a matter of logical reasoning that the same argument can be applied in respect of the entrenched sections of the Constitution.

Propaganda again.

This is not a matter of propaganda.

Order! Will hon. members please give me the opportunity of hearing the argument on the point of order?

I am trying to confine myself to legal arguments and I am indebted to you for examining what I am saying in that light. In my submission it must necessarily follow that the same reasoning would apply to the entrenched sections, because these entrenched sections are all part of the Constitution. They are merely two of the sections of the Constitution and they are part and parcel of the whole Constitution which consists inter alia of Section 114 (b) and Section 63, to which I shall refer in a moment. If one section can be disregarded or ignored on the ground that that particular section derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament, then the same argument applies to the entrenched sections and they become worthless and valueless.

I submit that the true position in regard to the Constitution is as follows: Parliament passed the Constitution. It passed, as I have already said, not only Section 59 but every single one of the sections of the Constitution including certain restrictive sections. I submit that the effect of passing restrictive sections is that Parliament voluntarily and of its own free will decided to restrict its sovereignty in certain respects. But, Sir, it does not follow, with respect, that that means that Parliament is now no longer sovereign. Because Parliament has in fact maintained its sovereignty in the Constitution through the provisions of Section 118 by which every single provision of the Constitution can be either repealed or varied. I do not wish to read the whole of Section 118. It has already been referred to. But the first part of it reads—

Then there is the proviso that Section 118 itself and the section providing for equal language rights, Section 108, may only be repealed by a two-thirds majority. So the effect of that is that every single provision of the Constitution may be amended by a subsequent Parliament, but in respect of two sections a particular procedure has to be adopted, and in respect of all other sections the ordinary, normal procedure for the passing of Bills will be sufficient. My submission is that if one is to give effect to every section of the Constitution—I submit one must do that because that is the ordinary principle for interpretation of any Statute—one does so on this basis, namely that Parliament has imposed restrictions upon itself by passing the Constitution and that these restrictions are binding until amended or altered by a subsequent Parliament or the same Parliament as the case may be. That does not in any way derogate from the sovereignty of Parliament. In order to explain my argument, I should like to refer to the powers given by Parliament to Ministers. From time to time Parliament gives powers to Ministers and Ministers then, as it were, take the place of Parliament in respect of those powers. To that extent Parliament has abrogated part of its powers, has reduced its sovereignty. But it continues to remain a sovereign body because it can at any time take back? those powers. I submit that an analogous situation arises in respect of the restrictive conditions. Until such time as the restrictive conditions are repealed they are binding, but Parliament may at any time repeal them and is therefore completely sovereign.

I have already advanced the argument that if the argument of the hon. member for Standerton is a valid one, namely that because Parliament is sovereign it can ignore restrictive provisions such as Section 114 (b), the same would apply to Section 118, and it would also apply to every other section. One of these sections is Section 63 to which the hon. member for Standerton has referred. That is the section which provides for the procedure to be adopted where there is disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. The same argument could be advanced in relation to Section 63; the argument could be that Parliament is sovereign, Parliament is entitled to make whatever rules it likes, Section 63 derogates from the sovereignty of Parliament, therefore it can be ignored and some other method of passing legislation can be adopted where there is a disagreement between the two Houses. But that argument was considered in the Case of Harris and Others vs. the Minister of Interior and Another, which is reported in the South African Law Reports, 1952, Volume II. The particular passage to which I wish to refer is a passage from the judgment of the Chief Justice at page 463. The judgment reads as follows—

Those are the entrenched clauses which are referred to, Sir—

I think the hon. member is addressing the House on a constitution which does not exist. He should come back to the present constitution.

realize that, Sir. I referred to this case because Section 63, which is referred to in Harris’ case is precisely the same as Section 63 of the present constitution. My submission is that the reasons for judgment given by the Chief Justice would apply equally to the existing Section 63.

The hon. member must come back to the existing constitution. I am not prepared to listen to arguments concerning the previous constitution.

The only other case to which I wish to draw your attention is an Australian case. It is the case of Trethowan vs. Peden which is reported in volume 44 (1931) of the Commonwealth Law Reports. In that case the question was considered as to whether restrictive provisions in the Australian Constitution could be binding because of the sovereignty of Parliament. Exactly the same argument which arises in this point of order. The Court considered this point and came to the conclusion that it did not derogate from the sovereignty of Parliament, precisely on the basis that I have argued, namely that the Australian Parliament is, nevertheless, despite these restrictive provisions, able to amend or vary those particular provisions. The conclusion reached was therefore that until such time as those provisions were repealed they were binding. For your convenience, Sir, extracts from that judgment are referred to in “Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Commonwealth” by Marshall at pages 111 and 112. There is a footnote which gives the relevant portion of the judgment of the Judge in question.

I think the hon. member must conclude now.

Very good, Sir. To sum up, I submit that every section of the constitution is effective and must be given effect to. Therefore Section 114 (b) is operative until amended or repealed and that this can be done as far as Section 114 (b) is concerned, by the ordinary procedure of a simple majority. But until such time as it is repealed or amended it binds Parliament. My further submission, Sir, is that this is in no way a derogation of the sovereignty of Parliament, for the reasons that I have given, and is in no way contradictory to Section 59 of the constitution. I have submitted that Clause 8 of the Bill does abridge the powers of the Provincial Councils in the respects which I have mentioned. Therefore I submit that this Bill cannot be considered or passed by this House without a prior petition from the Provincial Councils themselves.

Does any other hon. member wish to address me on this point of order? I just want to say that I am grateful to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) for having come to see me this morning at 9 o’clock in connection with this matter. He and the House will realize that it is impossible for me at this stage to give a considered ruling, particularly after the speeches which have been made here. But in view of my previous ruling, I am going to rule that this debate should continue, and later on in the course of this debate I shall seek an opportunity to give a considered ruling. If hon. members are satisfied with that, we shall carry on with this debate just after the lunch adjournment.

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

I move—

Will it go no further than that?

The hon. member should just listen carefully. Before any legislation by the Provinces can be submitted to the State President for his approval, the Minister of the Interior (that is my task, and therefore I can refer to it), must obtain the assurance of all State Departments which might possibly be affected by the Provincial legislation that there is no objection in respect of the promulgation of such legislation.

When the point of order was raised this morning, I did not take part in the debate on the legal aspect, because I am a layman, nor do I want to discuss it now. But the practice is simply what is now being confirmed in respect of education. And here we are taking a step further. The Minister of Education was never before required to send his draft legislation to the provinces and to say: I intend introducing the following legislation in respect of education. But now the Minister of Education in terms of this clause compels himself to do the very thing which is expected of the provinces. The Minister of Education also submits his draft legislation to the provinces. And there is only one idea behind that. There should be no suspicion in this regard. If such suspicion exists, it will not avail hon. members at all in the long run, because all it means is that if one wants co-ordination, if one wants a measure of uniformity, one should be careful not to introduce legislation which will even further disrupt and splinter education than is the case at present. But it is not the Minister alone who will judge of this. It will now go to that advisory council, and the council will advise the Minister. It will not be the Minister, with his political ideas and with his sinister motives and with the stealthy thoughts he possibly harbours with the idea of cheating the people, who will judge of this. It will be the council. I can only say that Administrators will now also be consulted in connection with legislation of the Central Government dealing with education if it affects them, and the views of the council in regard to any legislation dealing with education must first be ascertained. Therefore I can only visualize that the first successful step of this council will be not to formulate a national education policy, but to assist in order that gradually a national education policy can be evolved. That is very important. The main purpose of establishing this council—and this should not be forgotten—is that it will be and will remain an advisory and co-ordinating council, and any body or person interested in education will view with joy the gradual evolution of a national education policy. This policy is not something which can or will be enforced. If use is made of political pressure or other means to exert compulsion, the survival and success of this council will be threatened with an early death, and it will be doomed to failure. It will go the same way as all the other attempts. I would be the last man and this Government would not tolerate it after all the mistakes we know were made in regard to education in the past, to kill this council before it had even had a chance to show what it could do. This Government would never be so mad and so stupid as to do that.

On the other hand, such a national policy is not just waiting to be formulated, but it will gradually, almost imperceptibly, through the co-operation of all interested bodies, take its rightful place in our national life. I want to state to-day that for too long has the focal point in education, viz. the child, been used, or rather misused, for experimentation, and too little attention has been devoted to bringing that child to his full development and responsibility towards his Creator, his fellow-man and his community.

Throughout the years there has been unsound competition in the sphere of education, and in our well-intentioned attempts the child to a large extent has been the victim. I do not want to be misconstrued as meaning that since the earliest years nothing good has been achieved in the sphere of education. On the contrary, there has been phenomenal progress in every sphere in our country; the growth and development and the potentialities have been utilized. There has been progress in every respect, but the factor which is lacking is coordination and unity, resulting in an ever-widening gulf with all the attendant disadvantages.

When this council has been established on the basis of the Bill now before us, I have so much confidence in the future of the education of our country that I want to dedicate my own Department of Education, Arts and Science to this great task to-day. I want to say this for the benefit of the provinces also: If this Department of mine has sinned in the past by considering in the first place its own advantage and expansion, then I want to state to-day that it will not do so again, and it will humbly abide by the advice of this Educational Advisory Council, just as I hope all the other bodies will also do. I have this confidence in the future council because I have already decided that only the very best educationists, men as well as women, will have the privilege of serving on it.

I ask for the support of the entire Republic, not for a new experiment, but for a firm foundation on which to build soundly and to attain, not that destructive and monotonous uniformity, but unity of aims, and to ensure the existence of that, which is dear to every White population group. Do hon. members know that the suspicion which exists between Afrikaans and English-speaking people is not the result of the separate mother language schools, but that it is an artificially cultivated suspicion? And do you know that when you talk to the conservative English-speaking parent, he feels just the same as the conservative Afrikaans-speaking parent about the education of his child? He wants only the best. He seeks the very best. Therefore I say: Here is where the best will be found, where suspicion will vanish and where the United Party will now have to stop trying to derive advantage from always beating that drum. If we are serious in wanting unity in our ranks, if we are serious in wanting to build a nation, it is more than high time that the educators of our nation should throw in their weight to obtain only the very best for our children and for future generations. Here we now have common ground, where we can get rid of suspicion, jealousy and competition, and where we can co-operate for the welfare of our country and our people. I hope that from what I have said it will be realized that this matter is being tackled with the greatest earnestness. If the criticism is on such a level that it smacks of suspicion, if it shows no appreciation of the merits of the case, I shall treat it with the contempt it deserves.

I must say that I am a little disappointed at the Minister for not moving the adjournment of the House after completing his speech this afternoon so that we could also go watch the Lions play the Universities, but he did not do so, and I shall now be obliged to proceed with my speech!

In the first place I want to join the hon. the Minister in thanking wholeheartedly those persons who gave evidence and also conveying to them the appreciation of this side of the House for the trouble they took and the expense they incurred in coming here and giving evidence before the Select Committee. I think that it is no more than right that we should express our appreciation and thanks to them in public and for the record.

To the Minister himself I want to say that I admire his naïevity, the confidence which he places in this council which he is to appoint and the way in which he is looking forward to the great success which this council of his will achieve! At the very outset I want to say that I sincerely hope that his confidence will be justified, and that it will be fulfilled. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am grateful for the fact that he has submitted this matter to the House so fully and clearly. We cannot have any doubt as to his standpoint or as to what his object with this education advisory council is. I personally am sorry that the Minister could not also come and give evidence and have been taken under cross-examination. Perhaps he would then have submitted a better Bill to us and a different point of view.

The evidence of those who appeared before us as well as their memoranda and evidence under cross-examination, have been recorded and we can read and study it, in order to judge and if necessary, to condemn. In my opinion it will therefore be futile and a waste of time if I should devote too much time to this aspect. Anyone who reads the evidence can immediately form his own conclusions, and I submit that the predominant and considered opinion to a very large extent, if not entirely, fits in with the submissions I and this side of the House will make to this House.

But whatever may develop from this Report, there are two facts which are crystal clear. The first is the seriousness with which the professional people who appeared before us gave evidence to us, and secondly, the confidence which nearly all of them expressed that something good might result from this attempt by the Select Committee and the trouble which they had taken to come and give evidence before us. I think it is necessary that on behalf of this side of the House we should give those professional people and the people who gave evidence before us and particularly the teachers the assurance that if nothing good flows from what we are trying to establish to-day, it will not be their fault, but that the fault will be ours. Furthermore I want to say that I am going to confine myself this afternoon to basic principles. I am not going to discuss individual clauses. We can do that at the Committee Stage.

To me it was most interesting and also informative after so many years once again to meet and to draw upon the wisdom and the knowledge of men who practise the science of teaching, men and women who do not allow themselves to be influenced by party politics, and who also refused to answer political questions which were put to them, with the answer that this was something which belonged to the politicians. Of course here and there we had an individual person who could not resist the temptation also to submit party political matters or his own political convictions to us, but to his credit I want to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee made short shrift of them.

Just as the Minister has done, I want to express my appreciation to the Chairman and my colleagues on the Select Committee for their pleasant and friendly attempts to achieve co-operation in the interests of our education and of our children whose future is at stake here

In the nature of things we must of course differ in our approach, yet for the sake of education, if not for the sake of anything else, we need not necessarily quarrel over our differences or show bitterness, because a dispute cannot further the cause which we want to serve, or the children who are involved therein. It will also be my humble endeavour, without hesitating to say what I want to say, to put the matter unequivocally so that the world outside can know exactly where we stand, yet without making use of personalities or petty arguments. I am doing so not only in order to set out the attitude of this side of the House, but also to make a last attempt to get the very best for our education, because by already indicating that he will move certain amendments the hon. the Minister himself has admitted that this Bill is not an ideal Bill. It is full of weaknesses. But I must not anticipate our attitude. The attitude of this side of the House regarding this difficult yet important matter is briefly as follows:

We have no objection to the principle of establishing an advisory council for education in our country or an educational council as such, provided, however, that it is an advisory council and not a control board, a body which will not derogate from or interfere with the functions of the appropriate educational authorities in our country. Here I want to use the words of the S.A.O.U.: “They must not be inquisitors.” When they institute an investigation for example, in the schools, as the Minister has said or as is provided in the Bill, then they must not go there themselves, but they must use the local machinery for their investigation.

Secondly, the council must not interfere with the autonomy of the provinces, in other words, in its advice it must not violate Sections 84 and 114 of the Constitution of the Republic.

If one of the provinces should decide not to put a principle into effect which has been laid down as national policy by the council, do you think that the council should have the power to recommend to the Minister that such province should be compelled to do so?

The reply was—

Then there is the Educational Panel. My hon. friend knows that it consists of eminent scientists and educationists, professors and so on. I think it only has a membership of 26 or 28. I read from Question 320 on page 103—

It must be developed, as the Minister said.

Yes, the Minister also used the words of the professor. Then we come to the Interkerklike Komittee. I am referring to Questions 209 and 210. The hon. the Minister knows that the Interkerklike Komitee is one of the most important committees which gave evidence before us—

Reply: It has never been our intention that this meaning should be attached to the word. As a matter of fact, we recommend in our memorandum that the provinces should retain the power they have at present.

Question 210: You are therefore not in favour of the provincial administrations being replaced by the council as far as education is concerned?—No, definitely not.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party furthermore believes that such an advisory council for education should be a truly national and comprehensive council. I shall come back to this later. Yet, at this stage I should just like to say in this regard that this side of the House believes very strongly in what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) in his wisdom said some years ago in this House. (See Hansard, September 1953, col. 3900)—

And then he went on—

I shall come back to this later. This was also the considered opinion of the overwhelming majority of those who gave evidence before us and to whom this question was put.

In the third place, together with the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we feel very strongly that this proposed council which must serve as an advisory council, should consist of practical educationists, as the Minister has said, and furthermore of representatives of those organizations which have to deal with the products of education, as well as members who have distinguished themselves in the field of education or who have other qualifications relating to one or other aspect of the activities of the council. In other words, the membership of the council should be drawn from—I am now going into greater detail, and I think the legislation should say this—the leaders in the educational field in the provincial administrations; from the leaders of the educational associations (these are of course the professional people); in the third place, from representatives of the army, agriculture, the mines, industry and commerce; and in the fifth place, there should be at least one representative of the private schools. If the Government insists that the private schools should fall under this legislation, then they simply must have a representative on this council. I then go to the sixth requirement. Because I am speaking of a fully comprehensive and representative council, of which aspect I shall enlarge later, there must also be representatives of the Coloured, Indian and Bantu schools. Then I come to the seventh requirement: There should be representatives of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is important, the State President should appoint or nominate representatives on the ground of their special knowledge or outstanding services to the country. I can for example not envisage a council which does not have on it men of the calibre of Hendrik van Eck, Meiring Naude or Frikkie Meyer.

What about Van der Byl

He has been dead for a long time. [Laughter.] If, however, my hon. friend is referring to the member for Green Point, I am glad he has been so quick to take the point that he immediately saw a member on this side who should serve on the council! Mr. Speaker, what I regard as being of the utmost importance is the necessity for this council to be so constituted that it will not only have the status, but also the conference of the educational profession, of the provinces and of the public as a whole. Here I just want to quote again from the evidence of the Academy, and I am referring to Question 336 on page 110—

To this question Prof. Burger replied—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the witnesses, just as I and hon. members on this side of the House, ask that we should have a council above suspicion and quite outside party politics; not a council which will create suspicion through its appointment. And for this reason, and I say this in all earnestness, it is absolutely essential that the Minister, any Minister, should be as little concerned as possible with the appointment of members to this council; and that the teachers’ associations or other authorities concerned with the activities of the council should as far as practically possible appoint their own representatives on the advisory council. As soon as a Minister, and I repeat any Minister, is responsible for the appointment, the council will immediately come under suspicion and it will immediately lose the confidence which it should enjoy if it is through its activities to earn respect and serious attention.

The fact that this Bill leaves all appointments in the hands of the Minister of Education is in my opinion—and I repeat this with the utmost respect—its greatest deficiency, its greatest stumbling block, and in my opinion also embodies the greatest danger for its continued existence, its status and success. It is therefore a very great pity, if not a tragedy, that this deficiency can result in this council being doomed to failure from the outset, to its dying before it is born. Appointments which are completely in the hands of the Minister can result in this council not enjoying the required status and its being stillborn, as happened with the previous council for which the Minister himself was responsible. I have tried to find an explanation for myself as to why it can be that the hon. the Minister does not have confidence in the teaching profession and in the educationists of South Africa. Can it be—and I say this with the utmost hesitation—that the Minister is afraid that if these authorities should appoint their own representatives on the council, they will not give him the advice which he would like to have.

That is mean.

Mr. Speaker, as a professional man to a professional man, I should like to apologize if the Minister reads any insinuation into what I have said. I am putting a question, and I am doing so openly. I am not making an insinuation. If I want to say something, then I shall do so. If the Minister reads an insinuation into it, I withdraw it, yet on condition that the hon. the Minister in his reply gives an acceptable and irrefutable explanation which will satisfy us and the educationists outside as to why he wants to appoint these members. I repeat that it is a great pity that the council must start burdended by suspicion. Notwithstanding the explanation of the Minister, and I want to accept it, which he gave in his introductory speech, and also not withstanding the assurance which he has given us, his council will start with a millstone round its neck. The Minister is aware or should be aware of the suspicion which has arisen over the past two or three years towards the proposed council which he wishes to establish. So strongly did this suspicion come to the fore during the meetings of our Committee that the Chairman repeatedly had to say to the people: “Forget about the old Bill. We are dealing with something quite different.” He knows that suspicion existed regarding the object in establishing such a council. Therefore, if the Minister insists on appointing all the members of this Council, if he does not want to make a concession, by introducing other methods of appointing these people, or allowing the majority of the members to be appointed particularly by the teachers organizations, then I do not know what will become of his council.

My hon. friend has made a further mistake, and he has now realized it. He has made a psychological mistake, or his Committee members made a psychological mistake. I want to congratulate the Minister on having realized this, namely the omission of the word “advisory”. It is not that it meant a great deal; it is not that the insertion of the word “advisory” will mean that it will be the correct advice. One can call it just what one likes. The value and status of the council will depend on the functions one gives it. But I am glad that my hon. friend appreciates the psychological mistake made by his hon. members on the Committee when they omitted the word “advisory”. I wonder with all due respect whether my hon. friend cannot insert the words “advisory council” after the second reading. I shall also introduce such an amendment but I understand that it will not be in order.

This suspicion was clearly apparent from the evidence and the witnesses stated unequivocally that they had no objection to a scientifically constituted advisory council, but that they were opposed to a council which would be the mouthpiece of the Minister of Education, no matter who he may be, or a council which could come under suspicion as being the mouthpiece of the Minister, or which could be regarded as the mouthpiece of the Minister.

I think the Minister has tried to explain to us to-day, and another member of the Committee has also said so, that they do not want any pressure groups. They want to prevent there being pressure groups or narrow interests or group influences on this council. They want to eliminate that. That is why they want to give the Minister the sole power of appointment. Yet with respect I feel that his reasoning is not satisfactory or convincing enough, in the light of all considerations which I have submitted to the House this afternoon, or in the light of previous commissions which the Minister has discussed or in the light of the evidence given before us; and to prove this, I am just going to quote again from the main commission and witnesses. These are not people whom one can describe as United Party supporters. I do not know what they are, but I can definitely not “abuse” them as being United Party supporters, if I may put it in that way. There is the Federal Council of Teachers Associations, and I am referring to Question 26 on page 10. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Council of Teachers Associations represent 27,000 teachers. It also represents all teachers’ associations, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. Question 26 reads as follows—

Reply: There should be representatives on the council of the five Provincial Education Departments, of the Central Government, of the organized teaching profession, and of other interested bodies on which the Government may decide. The latter two groups and the provincial administrations should be allowed to nominate persons for appointment by the Minister.

Then I turn to the S.A.O.U. (page 41)—

And on page 47 the S.A.O.U. said—

If the Minister insists on his provisions or even refuses only to make his appointments after consultation with the teaching profession, or to appoint them from a panel—he can make any amendment as long as he recognizes these people—if he insists on this provision, then I can only express the hope that he will appoint a council consisting of men of such high calibre and status that the council will not only be an ornament to our educational profession from the outset and will be regarded as such, but that the council will also act in such a way that it will gain the confidence and the respect of the teaching profession in particular and the country in general.

A further objection which this side has to this Bill is, as I have already said in passing, the fact that the council will not be a reflection of what it claims to be, namely a National Education Council. Mr. Speaker, in terms of this Bill it cannot be national in the true sense of the word. Because it does not represent in all respects or in actual fact the education of all groups in South Africa. And it is for this reason, in fact, not a national body, except in name. Except for the fact that the word “national” in our country already has acquired a limited and unpleasant, and I concede, sometimes a false connotation, we cannot accept the concept as embodied in this Bill, because, I repeat, it will not deal with the educational matters of all racial groups; If my hon. friends read this evidence, they will see that the overwhelming majority of the witnesses to whom this question was put, were of the opinion that this council should deal with the education of all racial groups, if it is to be truly all-embracing council. I have already explained that we must remove these difficulties and this suspicion. I was listening the other day once again to an hon. member opposite and I thought how restricted the meaning of the word “national” had become in our vocabulary. He referred all the time to the “national Government”. This is a restricted meaning which the word has acquired, just as the word “national” in connection with this proposed council. We do not want a Nationalist council. Nor do we want a Broederbond council. We want a truly national council. Mr. Speaker, if this is to be a body, as the Minister has indicated, which in its activities, functions and actions is to be a council which will further the interests of education, then I really see no reason why it should not be made available to all racial groups; or why must we hesitate to say this in the legislation? What are we afraid of?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is prepared to bind himself to a certain extent in terms of Clause 8, but he is not prepared to bind the other Ministers who deal with the other educational groups! Why not? He is prepared to bind the Administrators to a certain extent, to bind himself, but he is not prepared to restrict the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of Bantu Affairs or the Minister responsible for the education of Coloureds. Why? What other reason can there be, Mr. Speaker, than once again the fragmentation philosophy, or the philosophy of a state within a state of my friends opposite.

Do you want a mixed council?

You have Blacks on the brain, old friend. Leave them alone. I am now speaking to Whites.

What does the hon. member mean?

I mean I am speaking about Whites. My hon. friend over there always talks about Blacks when we are dealing with Whites. I have not referred to their representation. Now my hon. friend asks whether I want a mixed council. I did not submit that. I want to repeat, together with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort—I am sorry he is not here—that education in its essence remains education, and although we receive separate education in our schools, I regard it as unscientific, as uneducational, to use the word the hon. Minister has used, also to drag in the concept of apartheid into consultation regarding, and control over education.

Do you want the same schools?

Yes, if I can get you into them!

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to deal with the functions of the council and the effect of these functions. I think that even the Minister will agree with me that the description of its functions contained in Clause 7 has many unnecessary and cumbersome frills.But even if one overlooks that, there are too many omissions as regards the functions of this National Education Council. I have already indicated that this side of the House respects and wishes to uphold Section 84 and Section 114 of our Republican Constitution;and besides Clause 8 of this Bill, I feel that the functions entrusted to the council in Clause 7, can also result in the infringement of the rights of the provinces. I am referring particularly to Clause 7 (1), (2) and (5). In this regard particularly, if it is the intention of the Government, as it claims, not to interfere with provincial matters, it would after all have been far wiser of the Minister to have said so in his Bill in defining the functions. If he had indicated clearly that interference was not his intention, it would have been far better.This can easily be done. If the willingness was present, that guarantee could easily have been written into the Bill, namely the guarantee such as we have under Section 114 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I also feel that the functions of this important council should be clearly set out, so that no uncertainty can arise or exist, and so that suspicion cannot be created. In any provision defining these functions, in this instance Clause 7, besides the guarantee to which I have just referred, namely that the autonomy of the provinces will not be derogated from, there should be a provision from which the following would be apparent. I am not original; I am taking my ideas from the laws of Canada, Australia, America and other countries—how they have drawn up their legislation, particularly as regards the functions of their advisory councils. In the first place, the functions of the council should include inter alia: advice and recommendations to the Minister concerned regarding education in general; advice regarding the best methods of ensuring the highest degree of bilingualism in our country; advice regarding the conditions of service and salary scales of teachers.

You want to make advice static.

No. Furthermore, advice regarding the division of primary and secondary education between the State and the provinces: advice regarding the provision of the necessary health services to students; advice regarding research and consultation with the Administrators and the education administrations concerned; advice regarding the collation and preservation of statistical data relating to education; advice regarding the standard of our examinations, particularly the matriculation examination as admission examination to an university; the availability to Ministers and Administrators of all possible knowledge acquired as a result of research and distribution of such knowledge through regular publication.

Etcetra, etcetra, etcetra.

If the Minister would be more specific, he would achieve greater confidence in this council which he wishes to establish! In addition to this vagueness, there is the absence of the guarantees, namely, that there will be no interference with school matters, or with the autonomy of our provinces.

In conclusion, I want to sum up by saying that the crux of our objections is the following.There is no guarantee in the Bill that the Minister will only implement the wishes of the council if all the provinces agree or have asked for such action, or that the council will only be able to recommend the Minister that certain legislation be introduced regarding education when he has obtained the unanimous approval of the provinces. The next point is that the Bill fails to lay down that the Education Council will deal with the education of all racial groups in the Republic. For this reason it can therefore not be regarded or accepted as a national body. The guarantee that the council will be a body which will not be linked to anyone, is also lacking and there is the possibility that the Council will not enjoy the essential respect and status which should be accorded it and will only be regarded as a body behind which the Minister can hide. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House refuse to support this legislation and I move as an amendment—

1. (1) it interferes with the rights of the provincial councils to control primary and secondary schools as embodied in sections 84 (c) and 114 (b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; and
2. (2) it confers powers upon the Minister to interfere in education generally, there by jeopardizing its quality and its value to the peoples of the Republic.”.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation to the Minister for introducing this Bill and for the fact that the Government has decided to establish an Education Advisory Council. I am very glad that it has been announced that the Council will convene conference from time to time. I very much waited to see some such step taken and I shall indicate presently what type of conference I should like to see. Then for the third time I want to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Select Committee for the work they did. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr.Steenkamp) has just said that he does not want the advice of Nationalists….

A Nationalist council.

… but I hope he will at least accept the thanks and gratitude of Nationalists, particularly for what he personally did to assist me on that Select Committee. I am particularly grateful to the persons and bodies who gave evidence and for the 80memoranda which were submitted to us. I actually want to discuss the content of our education and the value of giving it content, in order to establish a framework in which the council can function. This is a more or less elevated object. May I be forgiven if I use the word “elevated” in the atmosphere we have to-day of materialism, pettiness and banality, influences which are trying to force the nations of the world into the abyss. If there are still people in this world who try to up lift the human soul and mind, one is so grateful and pleased, even if there is opposition to each step, because we cannot take one step forward without the United Party putting obstacles in the way. We cannot discuss education in this House, and this sort of thing has been going on for 50 years, without encountering opposition and refusal to co-operate in the field of education. Here we again have an amendment.The United Party bluntly refuses to help in this educational attempt. Mr. Speaker, what we need most, and what I am striving for, is a system. I do not want to deny for one moment that the provincial authorities have a system, but we do not have a national system. We do not have a system for the whole country and the whole nation. I have translated all my quotations, but I happen to have one here in English still. A man by the name of Sir David Eccles, President of the Board of Trade in England, was speaking in Johannesburg three years ago and he said—

Not only the best syllabus, but an educational system, is what we need most. Amongst all the documents which I have received—there are about 80—I received one very remarkable document from the Education League of South Africa. Just as did many other document swhich were submitted, the Education League has impressed on me the firm conviction that, despite any opposition, Parliamentary opposition, the campaign of vilification which has been launched, the agitation which has been launched, the piles of telegrams which I have received this morning saying “withdraw your Bill”—despite all this I formed one firm conviction, namely that there is a great change in the feelings of the people, whether they be English- or Afrikaans-speaking, but they want to build a future together for South Africa and a legacy for all our children, despite the attempt still being made across the floor of the House to-day. The best basis which I have found was submitted by this League and I want to quote it. They first quote Professor Rosello, who wrote in the International Yearbook of Education that during the 1950”s every second country was changing its educational system—once again the word “system”—was reviewing its system of primary education, and that the proportion of countries which were reviewing and improving their secondary education systems was still higher. In other words, more than half the countries were improving and reviewing their education in general. The Education League further states that together with many other persons and organizations it is convinced that such reconsideration is just as essential in South Africa as it is considered to be in the other countries of the world. The League says that it is high time that we should start improving our whole educational system. And that League is not a bunch of Nationalists or O.B.s; they are real Englishmen. I therefore say that despite what has been said and done here, I have they tmost confidence that as a result of this movement our population groups will find one another and will stand together indivisibly in order to build up a heritage for future generations. The League further says that it would like to point out that in most countries of the world there appears to be a repetitive pattern which eventually results in the change of education legislation. I just want to point outthat since the European nations devised systems—at first they did not have systems.This movement actually started in Prussia when Frederick the Great in 1763 introduced the first attempt at a system of communal schools.We all know that there was Mann in America and in England it came a little later, but systems developed; they were built up. We now turn to England and they have periodically after every “upheaval” in their history, revised their education. In 1902 they immediately put their educational system into order.In 1919 there was the Fisher Act and they once again revised their education. In 1944, when the war was not yet over, Butler introduced the famous Education Council Act. He established education councils. England has hers and Scotland hers, and Monmouth and Wales have theirs. Education is being reviewed, but where this is being done most is in Russia and Red China. In China they claim that every child should pass the matriculation examination. But we now turn to Holland. Holland established her council as long ago as 1919.Germany has her councils. France started immediately after the setback caused by the surrender to the Germans in the last war, and France to-day probably has one of the model educational systems because she immediately started to review it. America has lagged behind a little, and when the first sputnik went up they flew at one another and said: “I told you so; what did I tell you?”, Now they are all enthusiasm. Conant’s first report was published.

They are now reviewing their schools carefully from the bottom to the top and they find that there is necessity for such a review. America is painfully aware of the fact that she neglected to improve her educational system at once.But I must hasten. It is not one moment too soon for us to tackle this matter. This coordinated system should have been tackled along time ago. It is very interesting that some of our most learned people all more or less agree on the main issue. When I refer to the main issue, I am not referring to the less important matters; for example there has been a terrible fuss in the country and propaganda has been made regarding the so-called ad hoc committees, and the witnesses were asked whether ad hoc committees should go to the school and scratch in the drawers of the principal. Nusas submitted what was really an offensive memorandum in which they said:What prevents the Minister appointing apolice man to his council, and that police man must always keep a watch on the actions of the principals; he must spy. One of the members of the Committee asked Professor Burger what would happen if these committees were to snoop, and Profess Burger’s reply was dignified that I want to repeat it. He said—

And this is the type of council and this is the type of system we want to establish, namely one which will not stoop to trivialities. If we can establish that system, I shall be very happy.

I have here quotations from the evidence by Professor S. P. du Toit of Stellenbosch, one of the best contributions we had. He says the ideal should be to heal this division and disruption, that there should be unity of control.It is his conviction that the solution is probably to be found in the central control of all education with the assistance of a system of effective decentralization and an educational council consisting of professional people who should be able to work out a national educational policy. But in the same breath he says that if the introduction of this system is not possible, as appears to be the position at the moment, the solution should be sought with in the framework of our system of provincial councils as it exists to-day, and let the control then be divided. In other words, he agrees with the great majority that the system can be achieved without derogating from any existing authority, and I think that we shall really be able to find at least 15 persons in this country who have the sense to achieve this without derogating from any existing authority. It is not necessary for the one department to dominate and replace the other.

I should like to refer to the attitude adopted by Professor Macmillan of Natal. On page 93he says—

That is a very sound idea, but it so happens that Professor Macmillan comes from Natal where school boards and school committees are very scarce. This concept of a type of centralized policy with a decentralized system of education, that is to say, greater decentralization of our schools, particularly in the lower classes, is a sound idea.

I now first want to deal with the question of the general policy for education. Here we have two professors: In principle they want to have a system; it does not matter how it is achieved, but there must be a system.Now we are introducing this system, and any system in education has the tendency always to incline towards a certain philosophy. We know that rationalism and humanism have dominated education. We have had this position over the years, and in recent years particularly, as a result of empiric education, especially under the influence of Dewey and his pragmatism, education has come very much under the influence of the philosophy of psychology. We have psychological education or educational psychology. At the same time men such as Freud, Jung and other educationists have come forward, men who have strongly advocated the connection between education and psychology, and then the intelligence test was introduced. To-day the opinion in the educational world is that the policy should move in quite a different direction. It should move in the direction of sociology. It should go back to the home, to the parent, to family life. It should not be analytical, but it should be synthetic. One should not analyse the person piecemeal, but one should build up his personality from his original natural individuality. I think it would be best for such a council to follow such a coarse. If he does so, there are three foundation stones on which we must build. The one is education itself, which is the basis for all fields of development; knowledge, learning, science, art—everything rests on education. The second is sociology. This is the science of the people, its structure, its heart, its essence, its actions, its continued existence. The third is the economic realization, the utilization of the scientific knowledge which comes from education for the general use and benefit of the people. We have already partly realized the connection between the three, but not altogether. When conditions in our national life were very bad, particularly at the time when we were faced with the problem of the poor Whites, were repeatedly reproached it from a socio-economic point of view in 1913, in 1923 and 1933. We always held congresses and we always sought a solution from a socio-economic point of view. When the overall planning regarding the great apartheid problem was started, the Tomlinson Report was brought out—a socioeconomic and not an educational report. These two, the socio-economic aspects, stood apart from education, and because education lost contact with the needs of social life and economic life, education in South Africa has fallen behind as far as meeting these needs is concerned. That is why it is so often said to-day: You must make haste; you must give us technologists; we want scientists; we want outstanding experts. Education is being reproached for failing to produce the people to meet the social and economic needs of the nation. The crux, from a scientific point of view, will be to plan along such lines that education as a science can link up with sociology and economics. If this planning is under taken along correct lines, if education can give us not only workers and skilled workers but technologists, thinkers, philosophers, leaders, people who can hold executive positions, people who can direct the economy and the welfare of the people along the right lines, people who can control the social essence of the nation in the correct way, education will be fulfilling its purpose. If education cannot do this, it will fail. Mr. Speaker, there is an excellent example of countries which have appreciated this, but which have done so wrongly. One of the countries which has been most oppressed by other countries from time to time is Poland. Poland realized in the old days that she should care for her education, but she kept education apart from sociology and economics; the two were never in contact with one another, and Poland has always been oppressed by other countries. But Denmark as a result of the wisdom of one single person, Pastor Grundvig, has built up a system in which these three fields of knowledge, these three scientific fields are integrated, and together with Grundvig there was later, particularly in the educational field, Christiaan Kjold.They integrated the factors into one system, and Denmark remained free from aggression, from oppression, in the face of all the dangers around her. And although she is a weak country, Denmark particularly as a result of the work of Grundvig and his educational system, has built up her agricultural economy not only into one of the best in the world, but the best in the world, and she is a small country. As Sir David Eccles has said, it is not numbers that count; it is the minds which one has in such a country that count. Now we in Africa are faced with more than 220 million non-Whites and we are not even 4 million in number. Mr. Speaker, what attitude should our educational system adopt? What are we planning for? I cannot find a better reply than the one given here; I shall put the four points and then we shall see how amazingly similar our thoughts can be when we so wish. The first point is—

That is White leadership in the first place. The second is—

In other words, our level of education in general must be raised and this will be an investment for us as responsible citizens. The third point is—

There is no one who will dispute that. Then the fourth point is—

These four points were not drawn up by the National Party Caucus, but by the United Party Caucus of the Cape Province. The United Party Caucus in a memorandum signed by Mrs. Cathrine Taylor has put forward this object. It was one of the best documents we received. I return to where I started when Is aid that despite all the obstruction which there may be in the country, despite deliberate opposition to this legislation, the people are ready for it and the people, the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking sections, will come together and stand together in order to devise a system of education, educational, social and economic, which will be a permanent asset for all of us and all our children.We cannot fight with numbers against the other nations in Africa; we cannot use the atomic bomb as a weapon, but as long as we try to uphold our White community, and its leadership by means of education, by the moral content of our education, by improving our technique, we shall not go under. Mr.Speaker, here I want to issue a warning: Undueemphasis is placed and is still being placed every day on the fact that our children must just become technicians. I want to warn very strongly against this. Here someone is writing:“Twilight of English in South Africa”. Every where we hear complaints that the standard of Afrikaans is low, that our knowledge of history is poor. We are losing our balance and we are merely concentrating on technology;we are forgetting the finer arts; we are forgetting philosophy; we are forgetting religion; we are forgetting the moral character of our people, and this is the greatest danger which we can face. I hope that this Educational Council will not succumb to the temptation of merely concentrating exclusively on those things which can only bring material advantage but that they will keep the soul of the people of South Africa healthy and honourable.

Mr. Speaker, I could have said far more about this matter, but in the main I just want to say that the touchstone for all the work of this council should be: Do not try to score off one another, to make life difficult and embittered by splitting hairs as we have done in the past. Here sit my colleagues; I told them when we met to prepare for this debate: “Do not reproach the provinces; do not reproach the other section. You have prayed for 50 years for a republic and you got it; show once and for all that in this republic we want to seek for all our children, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, for all our citizens and for all our parents, the best and the very best, but do not let us perpetually tear our children away from our homes, nor the Afrikaans child from the English child.”

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “hear, hear”, but I want to refer the hon. member to what Prof. Macmillan said on page90 where he unfortunately pleaded for a two-stream policy. He calls it “two-stream” and I am very sorry about this. We must be honest once and for all, and this council must be appointed and it must tell us whether we are going to have a single nationhood or adual nationhood in South Africa; whether all the struggles of the past and all the sacrifices which have been made, whether those sacrifices have been made at Amajuba or El Alamein, and all the work which has been done in the past, have been in vain. It does not matter where those sacrifices were made, but what has been done for South Africa must rise again in the form of one nation, one people, one great ideal, one future, one educational system.

Having listened to the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert), I think members on both sides of this House will agree that we wish to build one nation. But I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Witbank said last year, in 1961, when the same subject of this National Education Bill was under discussion in this House. The hon. member said (Hansard, col. 5697)—

I think there we could agree with the hon. member for Witbank, but I would ask both the hon. member for Witbank and the hon. the Minister why they are introducing a Bill then which shows none of this quality of impartiality. Sir, in examining this Bill, I was most interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s reassurances to us earlier this afternoon concerning this National Council. The views of this side of the House have already been put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr.Steenkamp), but I would say that it is a very great pity that the views expressed by the majority of the witnesses heard by the Select Committee, have played so small a part in the drafting of this Bill which we are examining this afternoon. We had 96 memoranda submitted to us and evidence was taken from 25 of these bodies. We heard some of the most eminent educationalists in South Africa. We heard Prof. Lighton, Dr. Bleksley, Prof. Malherbe, Prof. Macmillan, Prof, du Toit from the University of Stellenbosch, Prof. Burger, Prof.Bingle, Mr. Wahl from the Cape Province, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Ferguson and headmasters from private schools and very many others. We heard all the major educational bodies in South Africa, and we also heard evidence from those associations which have been formed since the1960 Bill was first introduced into this House, educational associations that were formed by thousands of parents who sent petitions against this Bill to members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Council and they have done so since 1960. The majority of the bodies and persons heard by the Select Committee pointed out that while there is no objection in principle to the establishment of an Advisory Council for Education, the function of such a council must be purely advisory with no executive or administrative powers over education whatsoever. This was borne out by a great deal of the evidence. I would like to quote first of all from the evidence of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. The Federal Council was very anxious about this Bill. They were opposed to the type of Council that the original Bill of 1960 and 1961 had put forward. Three representatives from this Federal Council were heard, one representing Afrikaans-speaking teachers, one representing English-speaking teachers and one representing the bilingual associations. They expressed their anxiety, and at page 3 of their evidence they expressed concern over the fact that they had not been asked for any advice whatsoever on the formation of this Bill. They said—

They mentioned further on that they had advocated this for 17 years but that they felt very unhappy that they had not been consulted at all about the formation of this council as proposed in these three Bills. These three representatives were unanimous in their views. It is interesting to see that Prof. Bingle from the University of Potchefstroom, when he was talking about an advisory council, said—

And yet in spite of these recommendations we see these clauses in the Bill before us to-day.1 think the hon. the Minister is well aware ofthe fact that parents and educationalists from all four provinces in this country have been profoundly disturbed by this succession of three Bill that have appeared during the last three years. The contents of all three of these Bills have done nothing to reassure the public. The public feel this general disapproval on account of four points of principle which appear in these Bills. These four points that the public are very apprehensive about are, firstly, that this measure may seriously encroach on the autonomy of the provinces, secondly that the nomination of members of this council is entirely in the hands of the Minister of Education, and thirdly, they are perturbed about the way in which the council will exercise its functions, and, last of all, the private schools are very anxious as to the control that will be exercised over them by this council. Sir, here I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what I would call the Gestapo clause of this Bill, the clause which empowers the Minister to appoint committees to investigate a school. It is these points in this Bill that are perturbing the public of South Africa at this moment. This Bill says that the Minister may appoint the members of the council, and here I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the original Bill of 1945 constituting the C.S.I.R. This Bill starts off by saying, “There shall be established a council,” not that the council shall be appointed by anybody. It mentions that the powers of this council shall be to co-operate with Government Departments, Universities, Technical Colleges and other persons in the promotion of scientific and industrial research, to co-operate with educational authorities and scientific societies in the Union. Sir, it is this word “co-operate” that one would like to see incorporated in the clauses of this Bill instead of the word“co-ordination”. Co-operation is an entirely different thing. Sir, when I asked the hon. the Minister a question earlier this Session concerning the meetings of the present National Advisory Council for Education, this council that was set up in 1957 and which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell)referred to last year when this Bill was debated in this House, I was informed that this council has not met since its inception. It is a coordinating and advisory body for the Education Departments in respect of matters arising for discussion at a very high level; and yet the hon. the Minister says that it has not been called together since 1957. With due respect, I would say that surely the formation of this National Education Council in the Bill now before us is a matter requiring discussion at a high level. One may well ask why the present five-member council was not called together in order to consider this Bill, because if this council, which is composed of the present Minister of Education and four Administrators of the Provinces, is supposed to examine these things at a high level, I would have thought that its advice would have been sought on the formation of this Bill. Sir, in Clauses 2 and3 which provide for a council to be nominated by the Minister, who nominates the chairman and also the two vice-chairmen, and the members, I would query the words “in the opinion of the Minister.” The majority of the parties who gave evidence before the Select Committee were in favour of outside interests being included in this council. Here I refer particularly also to the De Villiers Commission of1948, one of the commissions that the hon. the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech to-day. The De Villiers Commission particularly recommends that outside interest should be incorporated in this council—representatives from commerce and industry and mining and the universities, who not only educate the products of the schools but who educate the educators.They should also be represented on this body.These are the people who should directly nominate their members. I submit, as far as the composition of this council is concerned, as provided for in Clause 2, while the Minister may choose the members and while he may choose those who enjoy the confidence of the country—he may choose educationalists of high calibre and intellect and common sense and of scientific standing—yet none the less insidious changes could take place in the future. Councils change and, with due respect, Ministers change too. There is no guarantee to the general public in the wording of this clause that the high repute of the members will be maintained.With due respect also, how free will the members of this council be to express their opinions if they are entirely beholden to the hon.the Minister for their appointment? With due respect I maintain that it is the words of the Bill that count and not only the assurances that we have been given earlier on by the hon. the Minister to-day in his introductory speech.

As far as private schools are concerned, the private schools were very clear about the type of wording that they required in this Bill. The implications of Clause 1 (5) and of Clause 5 (2) (a) and (b) made them very anxious indeed, and they recommended in their evidence at page 449 that instead of “or receives financial assistance out of public funds” it should read “or receives more than half its revenue from public funds”. This application by the private schools—the same principle—was reported by the 1961 Education Council composed of 38 members. Can the hon. the Minister give an assurance to the private schools as to the type of advice that will be given to them …

You won’t accept my assurance.

The private schools feel very anxious indeed about these clauses and about the composition of this council.

Sir, I would like to refer now to what I called earlier the Gestapo clause, the clause of investigation. This is the clause that gives the Minister not only the power to form committees but which says that those committees may investigate schools. Now this Committee has investigatory powers, and this clause gives a considerable amount of misgiving to schools in the four provinces, and it is felt that the functions of a committee such as is envisaged in this clause can very easily be carried out in conjunction with the inspectorate of the provinces. They are the right people. The committee can get all the information that it requires direct from the Department of Education or through the inspectorate, and it seems that Prof. Burger of “Die Suid-Afrikaanse Academic” had the same idea, as set out on page 108 of the evidence, where he said that there should be no investigation into the schools, that the task should be performed by the Department of Education.

Regarding provincial powers, I am a firm believer in the rights of provincial councils.I am a firm believer that provincial councils are an important adjunct of government, and I feel that it is a matter of the greatest importance—I am referring now to Clause 8—that there should be no encroachment what soeveron the autonomy of the provincial councils by this advisory council, and that provincial councils should continue to exercise an independent responsibility over primary and secondary education in the provinces. This safe guarding of the democratic system of government necessitated the decentralization of the provincial authorities and that has been incorporated both in the Act of Union in 1904 and also in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Section 85 (c) and Section 114 (b), and this is an integral part of the decentralized provincial administration; a part of it has been provincial control of its educational system. But obviously there have been very good reasons for maintaining this system for over 50 years, and one of these reasons is the fact that provincial affairs are dealing directly with matters affecting local interests. That is one of the strengths of the provincial councils and it is in the interest of South Africa that the existing rights of provincial councils should be protected and maintained, and the wording of Clause 8 rightly makes the general public anxious and suspicious. That is why it is necessary to reassure the general public, which I regret to say, with due respect, the hon. the Minister has not done in this Bill. This side of the House believes that if an advisory council of education has to be established, its provisions must be acceptable to all sections of the community, all sections of South Africa.Are hon. members on the other side of the House prepared to stand up for the rights of the provinces? I shall be very interested to hear if there are members on the other side of the House who are going to put forward the viewpoint of the provincial administrations.Or are they going to act merely as a weak part of the party machine? It is our duty to retain fully these powers of the provincial councils as laid down in the Constitution and to strengthen the Constitution of South Africa, and not to weaken it by removing provincial powers in the Bill before us.

Coming to the membership of this council, if the hon. the Minister wishes to create confidence in South Africa in this council, and also to reassure the general public, the anxious public who have been apprehensive about these three Bills since 1950, then he will appoint only members of the very highest educational quality and calibre and representatives who deal with the products of education. When I heard earlier the name mentioned of Dr.Frikkie Meyer and others, I felt I would like to add to these the names of Prof. Lighton, Prof. Bleksley and Prof. Macmillan, people of that calibre to reassure the English and the Afrikaans-speaking sections of the community.

The functions of the Council are often not clearly defined in Clause 7. The functions are only very broadly set out, and it seems tome that the hon. the Minister should remember the Transvaal Education Ordinance of 1953, where in Chapter I, Section 3, it is laid down what the functions of education should be.It says here that the provincial education policy should be—

We see progress to-day in our modern world dependent upon the calibre of the men and women who are going to man the key-posts in commerce and industry and education in South Africa now and in the future, and in common with most other countries, South Africa is starved of these people to-day. Our research in regard to education should concentrate on all these points, and yet I do not see in Clause 7 outlined the needs stressed for raising the low standard of education in South Africa; I do not see the need for more technical training mentioned; I do not see the need for increased facilities for highly qualified specialists stressed here. Those are the aims of education and they should be outlined in very much greater detail. It seems to me that in the Bill, before us, we on this side of the House, backed not only by the majority of the evidence but by a large proportion of the public of South Africa, feel that the proposed advisory council as put forward by the hon.the Minister in this Bill, should be composed of experts in the field of education and representatives of organizations concerned with the products of education who should directly nominate their representatives to this council, and the members should not be nominated instead by the Minister. We believe that the powers of this council should be purely advisory and that it should have no powers of encroachment on the autonomy of the provinces, and we believe that the Gestapo Clause of school investigation I referred to earlier, should be eradicated from this Bill, as all information can be obtained through the provincial education departments and also through the provincial inspectorates.

Order! I don’t feel very happy about the hon. member referring tothese committees as Gestapo committees.

Shall I call it an investigatory clause instead? It is because this Bill does not include any of the recommendations of the majority of the evidence and the recommendations of a large number of the people of South Africa that this side of the House is opposing the Bill. Why does the Government not incorporate some of the views that we heard in the evidence only last month, and what is the point of taking evidence when the majority recommendations are left out of the final Bill? Because education is the life-blood of the country and it is not something that should come into the political sphere at all. It seems to me that rather like a shoal of fish intermittently seen below the surface of the sea, the Government party politics have an unpleasant habit of breaking surface every now and again and they show themselves in force in a Bill like this to remind South Africa that we still have the Nationalist Government in power. It is very difficult to understand why the Government have to do this, because this is a triple failure, a failure in 1960, in 1961 and 1962, it is a triple failure now not to act on the recommendations of the most eminent educationists and education associations in South Africa, and it exposes to my mind a wrong philosophy of indifference to the real interest of education by the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House, an indifference to the wishes of those who are the leaders in the field of education here, who are non-political and who are advocating policies in the true interests of education. In this respect the Government stand condemned and speakers on this side of the House will be pointing out in opposition to this Bill why we are opposing it on the lines of the amendment put up by the hon. member for Hillbrow. It seems however that the hon.the Minister is unmoved by these pleas of the parents of South Africa and that he prefers just to move straight on. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Can it be that the functions of this council will not be advisory?Could it be that its purpose is coordination rather than it being advisory, rather than there being co-operation? Because Clause 7 (4) contains powers of compulsion, and in view of this I can find no measure of agreement with the hon. the Minister in this Bill, and I therefore fully support the amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow in expressing the apprehension and anxiety of parents, of educationists and of the taxpayers in South Africa, and the pupils in the schools at the sweeping powers that this Bill confers on the hon. the Minister to dictate the policy of education, incorporated in this Bill.

Finally, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a fear that has been put to me and that is exercising the minds of one-half of the language groups in South Africa, the English-speaking section, and this fear is this that they are afraid that there is an additional qualification, not mentioned in this Bill, that might come into the nomination of members of this council and that is political affiliation.

Oh, no!

I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister.

But you said just now that you did not want my assurances.

I feel that it is now time to point out that the English-speaking South Africans have been observing with disappointment and considerable misgivings the packing of every Government-appointed board with adherents of the governing party. The Government makes great play with the word “unity”, but in their acts the Government uses every opportunity to pack these public boards with its followers, and when expressing the apprehensions of the one language group section, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister that he give an assurance to this House that there will be equal numbers of both the language groups incorporated in the membership of this council and that they will be selected from people whose qualifications as educationists will be the first consideration and that their political qualifications will take a back seat. I would like to say that when referring to English-speaking representatives, I do not mean isolated individuals, people who represent nobody but themselves; I mean English-speaking people who are well-known amongst their own people and who have upheld the rights of education, of science or the rights of universities throughout their career. I would like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that these points will be considered first. Because to my mind, Mr.Speaker, this is a test case. The Governments should bear in mind that national unity could be achieved now at least on a non-political basis by establishing a non-political council as the National Council for Education. The Nationalist Government would be well-advised to consider these points which are disturbing a large portion of the population of South Africa, who have borne the major share, not only in creating the present economic position in South Africa, but also in furthering education in South Africa since the days of Sir JamesRose-Innes.

Before I come to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). He said i.a. that as regards his side of the committee there was no objection to the establishment of an advisory council. Now Is should like to refer him to this Report and more particularly to the last meeting we had.The Chairman then came along with a motion as follows—

The hon. member for Hillbrow then moved an amendment to that as follows—

If his amendment had been accepted, the motion would have read as follows—

Read the next proposal.

The next proposal was one by Mr. Moore and has nothing to do with this.

Then you are preaching half a truth.

But the hon. member simply proposed an amendment that indicated that he did not want any council at all. Nothing further followed upon the amendment of the hon. member. But I shall satisfy the hon. member now and read the amendment of Mr.Moore also, although it has nothing to do with the matter. It was an equally odd proposal as follows—

I still asked the hon. member whether he is so scared of the word “national” for it does not mean “Nationalist”. Furthermore I pointed out to him that “national” to-day is used where formerly you would have used“union”. It simply means that it includes the whole Republic instead of a province. It is clear proof to me that the hon. members opposite do not want an advisory council. They are not opposed to an advisory council because they are satisfied with the system of education, nor because they think there are no shortcomings in the present system, nor because they think that certain steps should not be done to eliminate the shortcomings. We have plenty of proof of that surely. Only a few weeks ago we had a private motion here which urged more attention to technological and scientific education. In that they blamed the Government because the position is unsatisfactory.But this lack of technologists, of scientists and of workers in other fields is attributable only to the extent of 80 per cent if not more, to the chaos which we in South Africa refer to as secondary education. Now the Minister comes along with the idea of establishing machinery to create order and efficiency from this chaos, and then you get this typically negative reaction on the part of the Opposition: “No, they do not want it.” The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) referred to a “philosophy of indifference”. Is it not a philosophy of indifference on that side of the House? They are aware of the short coming sand they know it is necessary to eliminate those shortcomings, but they refuse to agree when the Minister comes along with machinery of this nature to try to eliminate those shortcomings. There is no positive approach on their part. They do not come along with an alternative. There is only this brake reaction we have had throughout this Session also in regard to other Bills. The hon. Opposition has lost touch with its own followers. If you read through this voluminous report, you will find that almost without exception, the evidence we heard was in favour of an advisory council.

Except the Black Sash.

Yes, there were a few of these organizations, the Black Sash was one and the Home and School Council was another.I do not wish to insult the Opposition by accusing them of having become the mouthpiece of those odd placard bearing organizations such as the Black Sash. With a few exceptions, all the evidece was in favour of an advisory council. What we really differed upon, was how it should be constituted and what its functions should be. We grant it to the Opposition that they should exercise criticism in that regard. We want to establish the best kind of council. But now the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along and says, for instance that the members of the Council should not be connected with anybody. They some along and say that the members of the Advisory Council should be designated by the organizations they come from. Whether it is a U.P. Minister or a National Minister, but if I have to choose between nomination by the Minister who can select the people, “handpicked” people, then I must say I would sooner leave it in his hands than in the hands of such organizations. The risk that the organizations will produce members that will be useless on the council is greater than when you leave it in the hands of the Minister.

What grounds have you got for saying that?

As an educationist you ought to know it. And when you say that the members should not be bound to anybody, then I should like to ask: If you bring the people on the Council as representatives of specific groups of people, then I suppose they could very easily adopt the attitude that they are there to represent the particular bodies or organizations or persons who put them there, and that time and again they will want to go back to hear what their opinion is. No, we want people of standing, people who can think for themselves and think independently. But the worst of it is that the Opposition no longer is in touch with its own past. Now I do not wish to emphasize unduly that the United Party of the present time is the same as the old S.A.Party of the past, but they do sprout from that. They have in any event inherited certain ideas from their predecessors. The idea of co-ordination runs through all their recommendations of commissions appointed by the old S.A. Party or by the Fusion Party—it runs through it like a golden thread, the idea of co-ordination. The hon. the Minister has referred to the Jagger Commission, and I do not want to go into detail. But there for the last time you heard of the idea of centralizing control in the Central Government.They said that conferences for coordination were useless. Then they said that the best way of getting order out of the chaos is to get central control, with administrative decentralization by district councils. They not only wished to abolish provincial councils, but they even wanted to extinguish provincial boundaries. The Hofmeyr Commission in 1924 abandoned the idea of central control. Our Commission now proposes the establishment of an advisory council. In those days, when the Hofmeyr Commission was sitting, they did not call it an advisory council, but they also proposed such a council. The people were not so obsessed with the idea of hanging a label from the neck of the Education Council in order to convince people that in fact it was an advisory council. They simply called it an advisory council. The recommendation was that the Education Council had to prevent the policies of the various provinces being so divergent, and to place them under control. That underlies that legislation. That was in 1924.There was a conference at Durban, and it sheds an interesting light upon the whole matter. The conference was also held in1924. There at Durban again the provincial authority was the fly in the ointment as in so many instances in the past. The whole idea of an advisory council was buried there. But oddly enough, the Natal Administration permitted vocational training and technical education to be placed under the control of the Central Government. Thereby they surrendered their only hope of adapting the system of education in that respect to the needs of their scholars. During the next ten years there was a striving in all four provinces to restore control over vocational and technical training to the Provincial Administrations once again. The agitation became so great that the Government of the time appointed the Van der Horst Commission in 1928 to investigate the whole matter. They found that it was impossible to transfer technical and vocational training to the provincial Administrations, not only for financial reasons, but because even at that date there was so much Union legislation, as e.g.the Apprenticeship Act, that it would be impossible to establish co-ordination between the provinces and the Central Government.

The hon. the Minister has already told us what happened in connection with the Roos Commission. This consultative committee that had been established, was doomed to failure. They in the first place tried to interfere with the great educational problems—financial relations, the apportionment of education between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations differentiated syllabuses, training, certification and conditions of service for teachers, and vocational training. They could get nowhere with those. The result was that they occupied themselves with little unimportant matters, and they died a natural death, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. What is interesting, is that in 1938, four years after the establishment of the consultative committee, we got an annual report from the then Secretary for Education, and he told how he had tried to persuade this consultative committee to establish a co-ordinating council, but in vain.He writes in his report—

I should have liked to say that to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss)where she referred to “co-operation instead of co-ordination”. I suppose her English is somewhat better than mine, but I should just like to point out to her that “co-operation” has the same connotation as voluntary co-ordination.That is what it amounts to. And here the Secretary for Education says that voluntary coordination is dead and buried.

May I ask you a question?

No, there are other ways of doing so. Just leave me alone for the time being. The hon. the Minister has referred to the De Villiers Report. I should like to go in to a little more detail in regard to this report, for to me it is the most comprehensive and authoritative report on education we have ever had in this country. Having exposed all the defects of the system, the Commission discusses two possible solutions: In the first place, central control with administrative decentralization.It says i.a. that that would be the best solution.Centralize all your policy and your control in the hands of the Central Government, and decentralize the administration thereof to the provinces. They say it will be the ideal solution, but it is now too late for that. After half a century of laissez faire—just letting things slide—it is too late now. The province shad dug themselves in the interim, and now they are vaunting an autonomy they have gained. So that is dead and buried. We need not discuss that. It is a pity. I wish we could return to 1910 and see to the matter being put in order there, then we would not have this difficulty to-day.

As second best the establishment of a coordinating authority was recommended—I emphasize the word “authority”—an education council. The recommendation of the commission reads as follows:

Now look, if you were to compare this recommendation with this Bill we are dealing with, you really must conclude that we are asking too little. We are cautious with our requests.The De Villiers Commission had no time for anad visory council that had to come along and supplicate and beg the provinces and other educational organizations. They wanted a council with statutory powers. That is what they asked. We do not ask that. That is how the commission of the United Party in that year 1948 felt about the matter.

Now I should like to dwell for a moment upon the shortcomings, as the De Villiers Commission saw them in 1948 and as we see them to-day, as so many reasons why we should have an advisory council to try to iron out those wrinkles. I should like to mention some of them. The apportionment of secondary education in respect of the cultural aspect of it under the provinces, and vocational training under the Central Government. The apportionment of control was there. In this regard they say that it renders effective differentiation in the secondary schools impossible, with the resultant neglect of thousands of our children.They were thinking particularly of that group of children with an I.Q. of 80 to 95, who are neglected under this system, because they are no one’s responsibility, neither that of the provinces nor that of the Central Government.As regards vocational training, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) will agree with me that it frequently comes too soon without sufficient general basic or cultural education.The Central Government felt so strongly about this matter in the then Department of Union Education that they brought into being the national junior and senior certificates to rectify this shortcoming, and by doing so they in fact poached upon the preserves of the provinces.On the other hand again, the provincial schools were strictly limited in the time they could devote to the so-called technical and vocational subjects. To mention only one example of the ridiculous position in which we placed our selves domestic science, for instance, fell under the Central Government. Then it became a technical subject, and the schools could do nothing about it save to a certain extent. Now just imagine the position of a girl for whom education in domestic science is so essential. Now it is technical education.

Next I would like to mention lack of adequate vocational training services, of vocation selection services and vocational placing services. These shortcomings sometimes place boys and girls in careers for which they are not suited. We get, on a large scale, the kind of thing that is called “square pegs in round holes”. There is the lack of correlation between education and the vocational requirements of the country. We find only too frequently that certain careers are being over fed, while others are experiencing a dire shortage. There is the lack of co-operation between industry, organized labour and the education authorities, not only in regard to the training of the workers, but also with regard to the numbers that are required in the various industries. The neglect of vocational training of deviate scholars—that is one of the most painful shortcomings of our entire system of education. Then the De Villiers Commission complains that vested interests tenaciously defend this unsatisfactory state of affairs, and how true that is. How true it is, even this afternoon too? There is no national teaching policy and there is a disturbing lack of national approach. I am not talking of“Nationalistic” now. I see the hon. member has now left the Chamber, and I just wanted to tell him that I am not referring to a Nationalist point of view now, but of a national point of view or approach. The relationship between general and vocational education is unsound; vocational education is inadequate and ineffective. The training of teachers is in a state of chaos, and these things affect our adolescent youth.

Will anybody now deny that these shortcomings still exist, that the secondary education in the absence of a national policy and effective co-ordination, still does not succeed in providing the country with the trained and skilled labour forces that it requires that it does our children a crying injustice because it does not offer them suitable and adequate opportunities for education. Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances of to-day, the powers asked for here, this legislation, is hardly sufficient. But we shall be pleased if we can agree in this House that such an advisory council is needed and necessary, and if we provide here what its functions and what its duties will be. The Council is merely an advisory and co-ordinating council. It has no power and no authority. It is provided in Clause 7 (4) that the Council has no executive authority or functions, but serves exclusively as a coordinating advisory body.Apart from that, we are still going to alter the title of this Bill—I do not know whether the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp)wants to do so—we are in addition going to suspend a label from the neck of the Bill by saying: Look, you must remember you are an advisory council. All that to ensure that the Opposition will get rid of their inhibitions.

We shall even use “advisory” twice in succession.

Yes. The Council further has to advise the Minister and through the Minister, the Provincial Administrations and other authorities who control education. It will consist of highly qualified persons. I used the word “hand-picked” just now—they will be highly qualified persons who will be responsible to the Minister alone, and not to the bodies they are supposed to represent. There will be consultation between the Minister and the provinces in regard to co-ordination, in regard to legislation, and reference has already been made to that. Instead of compulsion, there will be negotiation and consultation and persuasion.Why then all these fears, this suspicion and these insinuations? I took it very much amiss of the hon. member for Johannesburg North.I did not expect that her disposition is such that on a Bill of this nature she is so full of suspicion against her fellow South Africans.Perhaps they are just following the advice of the newspapers, for a few weeks ago I saw the following remark in the Cape Argus in a leader—

I wonder whether hon. members opposite believe that? Does the hon. member for Johannesburg North believe that? Yes, she believes it. What are we talking about then?Then, oddly enough, they try to scare the dear Natal. I do not know why they had to single out Natal. Perhaps they think Natal is one of the places that is easily scared. That is a possibility.

Mr. Speaker, I want to leave it at that. If the Opposition do not wish to accept our bona fides in regard to this matter, then I shall just say: “The caravan moves on; let the dogs bark.”

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) who has just sat down made some reference to the resolutions which were put forward by this side of the House duringt he meeting of the Select Committee, and here ferred to the hon. member for Kensington(Mr. Moore). But I would like to remind the hon. member for Prieska that the hon. member for Kensington seemed to be in very good company when it came to an allergy to the word “national”. Because I should like toquote from this particular report, from page384, the evidence given by Prof, du Toit of the Stellenbosch University. These are his words, Mr. Speaker—

Sir, on my arrival at this honourable House I had gained an impression throughout the country that there existed a genuine desire for racial harmony and for greater unity. It was said in various circles that the advent of the Republic meant that the climate was right for a greater degree of racial unification. Mr. Speaker, it has taken me just one session to realize that this attitude is a façade on the part of the Government of this country. The Government by its very attitude to the Opposition, by the nature of certain legislation which has appeared before this House this Session and by the nature of the wording of this very Bill, has shown to me that the Government does not practise what it professes to preach. This Bill provides a further example, when it was introduced it was greeted by vigorous protest from a certain section of the population and by hearty approval from the other. It indicated that there was a deep cleavage of opinion throughout the country.I think the decision to appoint a Select Committee was a wise one. Reference has already been made to the fact that the Bill, which apparently was the result of findings of this Select Committee, does not bear a close relationship to the actual evidence, to the vast concens us of opinion of the evidence, which was submitted to the Select Committee.

Nonsense!

I hope to be able to contradict the word “nonsense” which the hon. member has just used, because I have always believed that facts have a very happy way of proving themselves. I hope to be able to prove by figures which are the result of a survey that what has been said on this side of the House is true.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that before we consider the Bill itself, it might be as well to consider some of the bodies which have sat in the past with a view to dealing with the question of education in this country. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) referred to the National Advisory Council for Education and she quoted a reply which she had received and she gave some details of the functions of this Council. Sir, the Council met once on 30 October 1957. I think that its report is very illuminating. It is a brief report and I should like to quote it. It appears in the document U.G. 22 of 1958 and it is headed—National Advisory Council for Education: This is the report—

This is the most significant part of the report—

That is the end of the report. It might be as well at this stage to consider the objects of the committee of heads of the Education Department. One would assume that heads of education would be experts in the educational field and able to advise this body which had been appointed. The objects are as follows.The information was supplied by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question—

The Minister of Education, Arts and Science was the chairman of that committee which was appointed. Apparently he saw no need to summon the committee. There was no need to discuss education at the highest level possible in the terms of the appointment of that committee. Mention has been made of various commissions and I feel that it might be as well to refer briefly to them in their chronological order. In 1916 there was the Jagger Commission, the Hofmeyr Commission in 1924, the van der Horst Commission in1925, the Roos Commission in 1934, the Inter provincial Consultative Commission in 1935, the Nicol Commission in the Transvaal in1937, to which reference has already been made, the Wilks Commission in Natal in 1946, the de Villiers Commission in 1948 and finally the Pretorius Commission in the Free State in1951. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware all these Commissions, with the exception of the Wilks Commission, urged the establishment of a National Council or Board of Education to advise, to co-ordinate and to consult, but, with the exception of the de Villiers Commission and the Inter-Church Commission, with no legislative or administrative powers. So it seems that this particular committee which was appointed in 1957 could have been the outcome of various decisions and recommendations taken by the actual commissions in the past. But unfortunately, Sir, this committee was given no chance to operate, although the chairman, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, was apparently responsible for its formation in the first place. In these circumstances, Sir, it seems that one should look for other reasons for the anxiety to appoint an advisory council as envisaged in this Bill.I should like to refer again to the evidence of one of the witnesses to the Select Committee. Before I quote the actual evidence Iwould, as a point of explanation, say that the commission to which the witness refers is the Schoeman Commission on the relations between the provinces and the Central Government.The question appears on page 191 of the report and it reads as follows—

The answer is given by Prof. Malherbe who was giving evidence—

The great majority of people in Natal feel that the implications of this Bill could be a threat to their way of life and that it is aimed primarily at the people of Natal. Their contention is that already in the other provinces the Government has a majority in the Provincial Councils and is able to determine policy there on the basis of co-ordination and “nasionale beleid”, but the people in Natal feel that their fundamental rights should be respected. Most people see no need for a national policy of rigid uniformity based on the aim sand beliefs of a political party. Mention has already been made by previous speakers of the implied interference with Provincial authorities in Clause 8 of the Bill, and a careful study of Clause 7 indicates that vast powers will be placed in the hands of the Minister by means of a Council which is virtually appointed by himself. Such implications, with a Council of this nature, are repugnant to the people of Natal and to many of the individual bodies who gave evidence. Apart from ideological grounds and the mania for uniformity which is so evident in the Government approach, there appears to be no valid reasons for changing the system in Natal. If one takes as a yard-stick the results of examinations in Natal, and one bears in mind that the four Provinces conduct their own senior certificate or school-leaving examinations which are recognized by the Joint Matriculation Board, despite slight variations in the standard of questions and the standard of marking, the latest statistics available obtainable from the South African Yearbook No. 30 show that the Natal results compare favourably with the other provinces.

Why do you speak of Natal as being separate from the rest of the country?

I am speaking purely on the basis of education. There is another matter which concerns not only the people of Natal, but the Coloured community in general. Clause7 says that the Council will be established to advise the Minister generally in regard to the policy to be applied in connection with education. Clause 8 specifically refers to legislation relating to the education of White persons.But this Council envisaged by the Bill will not have the opportunity to decide whether it is educationally sound to separate, when the purpose of the Bill in Clause 7 (2) is generally to co-ordinate education policy. That position has been prejudged and I would like to refer to the Prime Minister’s address to the Union Council of Coloured Affairs, which took place on 16 December—

But the N.G. Sending kerk has objected to this transfer of Coloured education, and the 43,000 Coloured people of Natal are against it. Responsible elected leaders of the Coloureds in Natal have made it clear that they are satisfied with the position as it exists. Spokes men representing the 400,000 Indian population of Natal, including the 3,000 strong Natal Indian Teachers’ Association, have indicated strong opposition to division or separation of Indian education, and I should like to quote again from the report, this time from the evidence given by Prof. Dingle of the University of Potchefstroom’s Faculty of Education. The question is—

Prof. Dingle’s reply is—

There have been remarks which would indicate that this side of the House maintains that the finding and evidence of the Select Committee do not bear close relation to the Bill as it stands, and I should like to quote certain figures which arise out of this survey from the Select Committee, which has been before us for some time. Actually, 25 bodies gave evidence before the Select Committee, and five were in favour of a council for Whites only, and 12 were against that principle. Under conditions of consultation and mutual agreement, there could be no objection to a council, but the wording of the Bill implies a different intention; it implies control, control mainly, with respect, by the Minister. It is a very short Bill, with 11 clauses, but the word “Minister” appears 23 times, and 18 times it defines various functions. It says the Minister shall, as from time to time the Minister may determine, the Minister shall designate, the Minister may in his discretion appoint, the Minister may in each case determine, in the opinion of the Minister, the Minister after consultation with, with the approval of the Minister, the Minister may after consultation, as the Minister may direct in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and so on ad nauseum. As far as control is concerned, the survey indicated that 24 of the bodies giving evidence were in favour of the Council and one body was against it, but the operative word is “advisory” and the survey indicates that of the 25bodies which gave evidence 21 opinions were expressed, 19 were definite that the functions of the Council should be advisory, two said no, and one said that the decisions should be implemented by negotiation. No, I beg your pardon. As far as negotiation is concerned, there were 11 comments from the various witnesses, 10 of whom said that negotiation should be the final stage, and one was against that. And when the question was put: If there is no agreement, should the decision be enforced?, then 16 witnesses commented, and seven said yes and nine said no. I should like to quote again, and this time from Prof.Burger who gave evidence on behalf of the S.A. Academie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, page111, Question No. 339. The question was—

The answer was—

What a difference there is between the proposals in this Bill and the legislation concerning university education! Apparently, as far as university education is concerned, the powers of the Minister need not be as wide as they are in terms of this Bill. A different system of control prevails. I would like to referbrie fly to Act 61 of 1955, to Consolidate and amend the law relating to Universities. I quote from Section 6 (1). It is laid down that there shall be a committee known as the Committee of University Principals and the composition shall be (a) the principal, or rector, as the case may be, of the university, and (b) in an advisory capacity, such additional members appointed by each council as may be prescribed by joint statute. Section 6 (2) makes provision for the Council to designate another person if the position of principal or rectoris vacant, and sub-sec. (3) allows the principal to nominate an alternate should he be unable to attend a meeting of the Committee. In addition to this, Government Notice No. 822 of 25 May 1962, makes provision for the appointment of further members, and the terms of the appointment are interesting, I think.Firstly, the Registrar of each university shall be an ex officio member in an advisory capacity, and secondly the council of a university may from time to time appoint, in regard to any specific matter, any other person to serve on the Committee in an advisory capacity. Compare this with the clause in the Bill before the House which provides that even in regard to the appointment of sub-committees, the opinion of the Minister must be sought.The powers of this Committee of Principals seem to be reasonably broad. They are defined in Section 18 of the Act, and subject to certain provisions in Sec. 17, the Committee of Principals shall have power to frame (a) joint statutes which shall be common to all universities, for giving effect to the provisions of the Act, and to make provision for all other matters which are of common interest to the universities, and to make joint regulations for the better carrying out of the joint statutes. The provisions of Section 17 specify that any proposed statute shall be submitted to the Minister for approval and subsequently be tabled in Parliament for approval or otherwise.

Returning to the survey, I found that in so far as the appointment of members by the Minister is concerned, of the bodies, which gave evidence 18 commented. Eight felt that the Minister should make the appointment, and nine were against it, and one suggested that the State President should make the appointment. In regard to the question as to whether the members should be nominated by a body, for subsequent approval by the Minister, 17 bodies commented, 15 were in favour of the principle of nomination, and one was against. One body said that some members should be nominated and some should be appointed by the Minister. Past experiences of ministerial appointments convey an impression of ineptitude and of a failure to appoint people who are specifically qualified in certain matters and certain directions, and I should like to quote three examples which have occurred during the last 12 years. In 1950 a Committee of Inquiry was appointed to investigate the training of chemists and druggists.The following were appointed: Senator Dr.Carl Bremer, Prof. A. I. Malan, M.P., Prof.D. G. Steyn, Professor in Pharmacology, Dr.Maria Breyer, Consultant Chemist to the Timber Research Laboratories of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines. Incidentally, to my knowledge, this particular person, who was appointed as a chemist, has never practised as a chemist and druggist in South Africa, but she was the only member of the Committee who was a chemist and who was appointed to investigate the training of chemists and druggists.The fifth member was Dr. Peter Allan, Secretary for Health, and the secretary was the Government Pharmacist. In more recent times we find the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the high costs of medical services and medicines, under the chairmanship of Prof. Snyman. There were ten nominees on the Commission, but the most significant point again is that in this Commission which was to investigate the high cost of medical services and medicines, not a single chemist and druggist was appointed, and surely the pharmaceutical profession has had extensive experience of the sale and distribution of medicines dating back for many years. A third example is in the nomination of a senator. Government Gazette No. 1278 of 29 December 1961 nominated the hon. Alfred Ernest Trollip, and it was alleged that he was appointed—

Did you expect them to appoint a chemist?

I expected them to appoint someone with a knowledge of the problems of the Coloured people of Natal.

But he was Administrator of Natal.

I learn from the leaders of the Coloured community of Natal that the knowledge of this hon. gentleman of the Coloured people was confined to occasional functions in his official capacity.

You are just being silly.

I have not noticed that the Coloured people of Natal have used this channel to forward their objections.

There are already rumours regarding appointments to this body, and I refer to a report which appeared recently in Sondagblad that the Deputy Director of Education in Natal is being considered as a possible nominee to this Council being appointed under this Bill. Sir, there is no need for me to enlarge on the unfavourable reaction such an appointment would evoke from the majority of people in Natal. If changes were made in the principle and the wording of the Bill before the House, many objections would fall away. If cognizance were taken of educational experts, I believe it would be possible to set up such a body to be known as the South African Advisory Council for Education, which could enjoy the confidence and respect of all South Africans. One wonders, however, whether the time is ripe, because re reference has already been made to the Schumann Commission on relations between the provinces and the Central Government, and it has to be remembered that the report of this Commission has not yet been received, and such report may influence the composition of such a Council. Another aspect which should be borne in mind is the fact that of the bodies which gave evidence, six were of the opinion that a commission should be appointed to investigate the desirability of the establishment of this Council. As far as the actual membership of the Commission is concerned, it is interesting to consider the recommendations of the various witnesses. Of the 19 who commented on this aspect, six agreed that the membership should be less than 16, eight favoured a membership of between 16 and 20, three favoured a membership of between 21 and 25, and two favoured a membership of more than 25. Dealing with the question of Provincial representation on the Council, 16 witnesses commented, 13 were in favour of maintaining provincial representation, and only three were against. In regard to Clause 2 (3) (b), the membership of the Council, there seems to be a difference of opinion as far as the witnesses were concerned in regard to the composition. Some witnesses said that the Council should consist solely of educationists, but others felt, as was referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg(North), that the interests of commerce, industry, agriculture, mining, etc., should be included. Of the 25 who commented, 24 expressed an opinion and 15 favoured the inclusion of other interests. Only eight preferred educationists only. One witness was doubtful. In regard to Clause 3 (2), the designation by the Minister of the Executive Committee, it is difficult from the survey to obtain a specific assessment on this aspect. Of the 16 witnesses who commented, 12 felt that some members should form a permanent core and three were against the principle, whill tone body was not sure. There is no doubt about the question of members acting in a full-time or part-time capacity on the Council, because the analysis which was only carried out as far as 15 of the witnesses were concerned, indicated that 11 were against the appointment of full-time members of the Council and three were in favour. One witness favoured some part-time and some full-time.As far as the appointment of committees was concerned, in terms of Clause 5 (1), 15 bodies commented, 11 were of opinion that the Council should appoint independently, and four affirmed that the appointment should be made by the Minister. Concerning Clause5 (2) (a), in regard to the bodies with powers to investigate schools, there was a definite reaction against this suggestion embodied in the clause. Sixteen witnesses expressed an opinion,14 were against, and only two were in favour.One witness referred to the clause as the“Snoopervisor” clause. As far as the Provincial Council was concerned, the powers at present given to the Provincial Council, of the16 who commented 15 were in favour of the power of administration of education remaining in the hands of the Council, and only one was against it. The verbal evidence was tendered on an extremely fair basis; 11 appeared to represent English speaking organizations, 10 represented Afrikaans-speaking organizations, and four were bodies which claimed to represent both sections. I have selected two passages from the evidence which appear tome to be worthy of the consideration of this House, firstly from the evidence of Professor McMillan, and I quote from page 91—

Secondly, I want to quote from the evidence of Professor van Rooy, representing the Afri-kaanse Calvinistiese Beweging, who said on page 353—

I trust that the hon. the Minister will give the assurances which have been asked for by other hon. members that appointments to the Council will be effected with this aspect in mind.

Reference has been made to the membership of bodies giving evidence. The bodies represented many different organizations, ranging from an organization which represented, as the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out, 27,000 teachers, to single eminent educationists. But one fact emerges plainly. In my opinion, the Bill before us does not represent the consensus of opinion of the witnesses. It seems to me that we have a choice before this House. Should we have a Committee appointed ministerially, aimed at uniformity, and at enforcement, if persuasion does not work, or should we take this evidence of one of the witnesses—

Mr. Speaker, the decision lies before this House. May the decision be worthy of our country and its people.

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member for Durban(Berea) (Mr. Wood) correctly, he said that when he came to this House, he looked forward with great anticipation to the racial harmony and co-operation he would find here, but it did not take him long to discover that it is not so. I should just like to tell him that it merely shows that he is in bad company. He and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) said, in their speeches, that the contents of this Bill is in no sense a reflection of the evidence given before the Select Committee. That is far from the truth. Those hon. members, faithful to the attitude of that side of the House, succeeded very well in making the objects of this Act, and the powers that are entrusted to the Minister, suspect with the public. I shall return to that later on in my speech. If we were to analyse objectively the evidence we had before the Select Committee, and ponder it, one fact emerges very clearly to me, and I do not think the Opposition will differ from us in that regard, and that is that the great progress of our country during recent years in the economic field, and the modern demands of the social and constitutional life, have made it necessary that education in our country should be adapted to it.I do not believe there is a difference of opinion between us on that score. A famous educationist, Professor Fourie of the University of the Free State, stated the matter thus to me.He put it very nicely by saying:

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was saying that I think there is agreement between us that the modern exigencies of our education, have made it necessary that we should have a revaluation of our policy of education. In past years, responsible bodies time and again have pleaded for a certain degree of co-ordination of policy in our provinces. It has been shown this afternoon, that many responsible commissions pleaded for it.They not only pleaded for it, Mr. Speaker, but supplications also came from the country. That is strikingly reflected by the memorandum of Professor Bingle where he said:

Now we find the peculiar phenomenon that all the attempts made by this Government to date to try to reform our education system, have been fought tooth and nail; that even the establishment of a National Education Advisory Council has been met with the greatest suspicion. It was really conspicuous, Sir, that even the back benchers had been indoctrinated to a certain extent. We had to experience that here this afternoon. Everything is being done to make this proposed Advisory Council suspect with the public. This afternoon it was painful to experience how the Opposition attributed all kinds of evil motives to the establishment of the National Advisory Council on Education. What was equally painful to me, was the fact that Sunday’s Sunday Times had headlines such as the following: “Mind Control in Schools: Proposed Council to”? push Christian National Education That is merely sowing suspicion in respect of this Act. It is a pity that the education of the child, the holiest heritage of any nation, and the greatest responsibility of any Government, time and again is dragged into the political arena by the Opposition, and to seek political motives in it which are very far-fetched. Just listen to what the hon. member for Hill brow (Dr. Steenkamp) said, not to-day, but at the beginning of the year when this Bill was introduced. I am reading from Hansard, Col. 21:

But this opportunity we have to-day, once again affords us an opportunity to raise our objections to the contents of this Bill—toi ts inclinations and to the plans the Government has up its sleeve in regard to the system of education in South Africa.

Then he continues and says—

I should like now to tell the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood), and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs.Weiss) that they were not original this afternoon when they came along with this sowing of suspicion. The hon. member for Hillbrow already did so at the commencement of this Session. But, Mr. Speaker, even educationists in our country who apparently support the Opposition, have not hesitated to look for politics in this Act. Listen to what Professor McMillan wrote in his memorandum. He said—

That is why I am now welcoming it that the Government is taking the bull by the horns, and is going to provide once and for all for the establishment of a National Education Advisory Council, a Council which, as the hon.the Minister announced this afternoon, will be of lofty integrity, which will approach education objectively from the point of view of a pedagogue, so that control of education and the application of policy in our education will be above party political differences in our country. Then I believe we shall have a truly national approach in respect of the education and training of the child. Then people such has Professor Cilliers will not have to complain and say:

This Act which establishes a National Education Advisory Council will, through the good work done by that Council, eliminate all the causes that have had an impeding effect on the application of the ideal system of education. In passing, I should just like to refer to the underlying cause as to why we have not yet had a National Education System in our country. The underlying reason is racial fear and political fear. That was revealed in1910 at the time of Union. Then Natal advocated a federal system, because they were afraid that they would lose their identity and their nationality. They wanted to secure the continued existence of that by pleading for the preservation of the federal system in our Constitution. Since that time the provincial system has developed to such an extent in our country that it has become a traditional system and we cannot think of touching that system to-day. The Opposition have no cause to fear that. We know that any Government that would dare to interfere with our provincial council system, would foment a revolution among all sections of the population of the country. What is strange to me, Sir, is that the English-speaking people see their rights entrenched behind the so-called autonomy of the Provincial Councils. That was so in those days. And it is interesting to see that that fear for their continued existence continues to exist to-day. It appeared very clearly in the evidence and the memoranda we had before us. Just listen to what the following had to say:

The Action Committee for Freedom in Education said—

It is odd to me that an association such as The Mothers’ Union in South Africa, expressed the following—and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) faithfully sided with it—

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to this Christian National Education idea again just now, reference has been made here to the Christian National Education policy. I cannot understand why the Opposition become so panic-stricken when one merely mentions Christian National Education. The Action Committee for Freedom in Education writes—

Now we ask: Why the suspicion against Christian National Education in this country? For the sake of interest, I shall just refer to a question put by the hon. member for Kensington(Mr. Moore) to a witness, the Rev. Snyders, who appeared before us. The following was the question—

When we want to practise Christian National Education, it is regarded with suspicion, but in their private English school’s Christian National Education is being practised.

Unfortunately the party political division in our country has followed a racial pattern in recent years. Our two political parties are demarcated, one predominantly Afrikaans speaking and the other predominantly English-speaking. Now it is being stated erroneously by the English-speaking people that this Government will abuse its powers to control training and education in such a way that by the indoctrination of the youth they will become so Afrikaans that the cultural heritage of the English-speaking people will be endangered. This suspicion is completely unfounded. If words have any meaning, then the hon.the Minister replied to that conclusively this afternoon. He gave the assurance that the language rights of no language group would be touched. He gave the assurance that the powers of the provincial councils would not be interfered with. So the political motives that are being read into this Act are very far fetched in my opinion. Together with Mr.C. M. Booysen, ex-director of education in Natal, I should like to say—

That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that racial and political fear are the main reasons why we, in this country, to this day have not acquired a national approach to the training and education of our youth. It is not to the credit of the people of the Republic of South Africa that racial and political fear should have played such a role in our national economy that after 52 years of Union we still have no national education policy. That is why we welcome it that the Prime Minister on 8 April1959 at Innesdal adumbrated the establishment of a National Education Advisory Council.To-day we see the realization of what was promised in that statement at the time, and we are on the threshold of a new order in the education of our country. We expect great things from the National Education Advisory Council and we know that they will eliminate the shortcomings and deficiencies in our education system. Permit me to point out that we welcome this Bill because it will serve the purpose of raising education standards in our country to the highest possible levels. Education is dynamic, as the hon. the Minister said this afternoon. New methods and techniques have constantly to be sought to adapt education to the exigencies of the times. Regard should be had to the progress made in other parts of the world. We cannot say that our educational system in this country has keptpace with the developments in other parts of the world. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have reason to be concerned.

Prof. McMillan, who at first condemned this Bill, in his evidence before the Select Committee expressed himself as follows—

Then he quotes a number of examples some of which have already been quoted there this afternoon, in respect of which our system of education can be improved. I do not wish to repeat it. The results of these investigations can easily be correlated and turned out to all educational institutions in our country when there is a central advisory council, which can also effect the necessary co-ordination. This study and research will also reveal the shortcomings in the training and certification of our teaching personnel, and may lead to better planning and co-ordination in this connection, so that the general training and education of teachers will also keep pace with the development in this field.

This also involves the requirement that greater status should be accorded to our teaching profession, with such conditions of service that there will not be a temptation to exchange the teaching profession for something else.What is the position in our country? The training of our teachers is done largely by the Provincial Administrations. Accordingly the standards of education vary and there is no proper co-ordination between the various provinces as regards conditions of service. In this connection several witnesses expressed their views. I want to quote one, namely prof. Bingle. He said—

The South African Association for Technical and Vocational Education said as follows—

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are merely some of the small things that can be done to elevate the system of education and the standards of education in our country.

Finally I should like to point out that owing to the incredible development in the technological and scientific fields it has become necessary for us to have a revaluation of our systems and methods of education. In the rural areas education has been mainly geared to making provision for academic subjects and many scholars have been provided with a syllabus which, under their inherent aptitude, is beyond their capacity, and in the other directions very little if any provision has been made. The circumstances of the times require that more attention should be given to differentiated education. So the Pretorius Commission found—

But this idea of differentiated education is impracticable in our country as long as we have divided control of secondary education. Here the National Education Advisory Council can serve a useful purpose to realize this idea land to do what the South African Association for Technical and Vocational Education advocates. This is what they advocate—

That then brings me to the idea of a national education policy. Can we, as is said here, harness all the horses and go in the direction indicated by the driver? I believe that the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in our country are moving closer to each other. In spite of the sowing of suspicion by the English Press and by the Opposition over there, that process of rapprochement will be accelerated. With the Republic coming into being, further differences and dividing factors have been removed. Then I should like to quote what a historian wrote. He said this—

And it is the birth of that greater nation that is to-day ousting those dividing factors; we are now growing together and we shall have a common education policy. We are now bound together by the common bond of loyalty, love and allegiance to our fatherland, the Republic of South Africa. So there are the things we have in common, and so we can, in respect of education, get an education policy which is synonymous with our love, loyalty and allegiance to our fatherland.

It is significant to me, Mr. Speaker, that a man such as prof. McMillan, one of the greatest opponents of this Act, testified as follows: (page 90, question 283)—

It was a man such as prof. McMillan of the Natal University who used these words. We do have those common objects in spite of party political differences.

Now one is surprised that so much emphasis is laid by hon. members opposite on the political motives behind this Bill. We cannot get away from it that our nation is politically minded. Politics will always play a role in our national economy. Why run away from something just because political motives may be read into it? I should like to ask those who attribute political motives to this Bill, to view this matter soberly for a while, to think soberly about the matter, at least just as soberly as the editor of the Transvaal Educational News considered it when in March 1961 he wrote as follows about it:

This Act rings in a new era in the educational economy of our country and the coming generations will for ever be thankful to the Government when they pick the fruits of that which this National Education Advisory Council is going to bring about.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) has convinced this side of the House that the intention behind this Bill is to develop political control of our education. The hon. member accused this side of the House of ascribingbad motives to the Bill. We on this side of the House fear centralization of our education. It will be a special disadvantage to ourprovincial system. We believe that this Government favours the direction and co-ordination of all primary and secondary education. To establish that point I should like to read a paragraph out of the Select Committee’s report on this particular Bill. I read here that on 8 August 1959 at Innesdale, Pretoria, the hon. the Prime Minister is reported to have said—

That is Government control, Mr. Speaker. In another statement made at Pretoria on 16May 1961 at the opening of the new headquarters of the Transvaal Provincial Administration the hon. the Prime Minister said this—

But he added—

That is the dictatorial type of control which we fear and which we see in this Bill. It is evident in this clause which says that this advisory council will co-ordinate our educational policies in general. How far the word “coordinate” will go is difficult to say. But it can mean a certain amount of compulsion.This evidence was given by the Home and School Council and they said—

I would like to read some further extracts, but I do not want to delay the House unduly. We on this side of the House object to the powers which the provisions of this Bill confer upon the Minister to interfere in education generally, thereby jeopardizing it squality and its value to the peoples, of this Republic. This will end in political intrusion into our entire educational system. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that during the past 40 years various conferences and commissions of inquiry of various bodies had advocated that there should be a greater measure of co-ordination in education on a national basis. Then he said nothing took place. Well, nothing did take place, Sir. We fear that the control of education by the provincial administrations will come under that of the Central Government. I think the hon. Minister quoted the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr.Well, the late Mr. Hofmeyr actually advocated centralized control of all education. And he was wrong, Mr. Speaker, as he often was.[Interjections.] There is nothing wrong in saying that his opinion was not correct. The hon. J. H. Hofmeyr did not realize, I am sure, that if the control of primary and secondary education were centralized and controlled by the Central Government that that would mean the end of the provincial council system in this country. Our provincial council system is one of the most prized democratic systems which we have. It brings our Government right into our homes. We have our school boards controlling the education of our children. We do not want in anyway to risk changing the domestic nature of our educational system of to-day. Centralization can only lead to dictatorial control.We on this side of the House believe in absolute academic freedom. Representing an area where we have some of the most important private schools in the country, I would like to say something about our private schools and say that those sections of our population who have developed our private schools at considerable cost and sacrifice look upon this Bill as one containing the seeds of restriction to the development of those schools and colleges in particular. It may lead to the restriction of all these schools stand for and it is a destructive threat to the traditions these schools and colleges have established.Mr. Speaker, these private schools and colleges have created a traditional brotherhood, a pride in the maintenance of the honour of their respective schools and colleges, and they have established a healthy rivalry which is all to the good and which is less in evidences an our modern schools. Whenever I speak at a prize-giving at one of our Government schools I advocate the development of pride in their school, and the tradition of their school, in building up a tradition. This creates a national responsibility in the minds of the youth at the early times of their lives when it is most needed, and I find that this does not seem to exist to the extent it should in Government schools. I think this healthy rivalry in private schools is most essential to our educational system. I also want to say that those who established these private schools have saved the taxpayers of this country millions of or and. Not only that, but these private schools in many cases initiated our present educational system; they actually established the roots of education as we understand it to-day. The private schools and colleges offer much more to the students than those controlled by the provinces, simply because the provinces cannot afford it. We do feel that there is a certain amount of jealousy because of what the students, who attend the private schools, can afford to pay for their education. I have heard the opinion expressed by members who support this Government that that is not fair, that they all should be relegated to similar circumstances. Mr.Speaker, I would say that that is the background of Communism.

Order! The hon. member is now drifting too far away from the Bill.

I am sorry, Sir, but I will not say anything more than that. I am, however, speaking in opposition to Clause 7 (4), which says “the council shall have no executive power or function, but shall serve exclusively as a co-ordinating and advisory body”.I am objecting to this council having the power to co-ordinate the educational systems of private schools, because I believe in absolute liberty. I see the advantage that has been attained overseas. We all know, although we are citizens of the Republic and our country is regarded to be distinguished in the field of education, that our children are a year behind in the standard of education in comparison with children in Great Britain and Europe. That has been proved by children who have gone overseas from this country, and also by children who have come from overseas and entered our schools.

MNonsense!

They are a year in advance of our children of the same age, and that is due to the system of education where they have absolute liberty, where teachers are allowed to develop their own initiative and where there is a much better understanding between the pupil and the instructor. I claim too that the private schools are not a “remskoen” as the hon. member for Prieska (Mr.Stander) indicated, but they advocate a free educational system and endeavour to encourage children to attain the highest educational achievement, which is not our experience in regard to our Government schools. Our experience is that we are having great difficulty in promoting adult education because our children leave school too early before their education has put them in a position to develop the gifts which they naturally have.Education teaches one now more to learn than what it actually instructs you to do, and it does develop ability to obtain higher education. When speaking of our private schools, I want to repeat that our schools do not run in antagonism to the Government, they run in co-operation; we have the most friendly relations and I think that our various schools, both Government schools and private schools, the various schools in our part of the country are setting an example to the rest of the country. I have no doubt that the P. J.Olivier School at Grahamstown is teaching a standard of English which anyone could be proud of and our English language schools are also endeavouring to see that their students are thoroughly bilingual. I believe that in the private school there is even a greater urge to acquire bilingualism than there is actually in the Government schools. This is because the standard of English among the Afrikaans speaking people is definitely deteriorating. Itis not as good as it was. And there are many Afrikaans-speaking children to-day who cannot speak English, whereas in the years gone by I did not know of a single Afrikaner who did not speak English. I always admired them for that and always myself felt guilty that I had not attained the same measure of bilingualism as my Afrikaans-speaking bretheren had. But I do not want them to think that in any way the private schools are not carrying out the principles of South African nationalism and developing national Christian schools which serve every section of our community. At those schools you will find people of both home language groups. All these schools in Grahamstown whether Afri kaans medium schools or English medium schools have students of both home language groups.

Would you say that all the Government schools should become private schools?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay must not ask silly questions. I want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay that the private schools did lead the way in education in this country; they were our first schools; and we must admire them for having maintained themselves without Government assistance.

As regards this advisory council, I claim that we have a co-ordinating inter-provincial committee for the purpose of dealing with administrative difficulties in the field of education, and I claim that it has not had an opportunity to prove its worth. It has only been recently established, but I imagine that the co-ordination of education should be developed through this inter-provincial commtittee. I think they could establish a system of education which would be a more co-ordinated one, much more so than a council established by a Minister, designated to generally co-ordinateeducation and policy.

I myself say that I dare not prophesy what will be the outcome of this Bill and what it is going to lead to. I fear that it may be a threat to our liberty in the field of education, and not only a threat to our liberty, but it may lead to a system that will lay down how and what we must learn. Those are the fears which we on this side of the House have as regards this measure. We do not want centralized education because centralization means a system of dictatorial control, it means the promotion of a policy which does not keep pace with development.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he been educatedin a private school or in a Government school?

I was educated in both, first in a Government school and then in a private school, and I want to tell the hon. member that I finished off my education at a private school and there I made my greatest friends. I found people who had time to learn to understand me and to take an interest actually in my life, and there an inducement to further my education was created. You know at a certain stage of life, say at 16 or 17, one is in a hurry to get away to work; you want to do something; you feel that you have got to help your parents; and there is no doubt that the private schools in a certain way minimize that urge, and by intimate contact with their pupils and a better understanding of their outlook, they bring much more to our children than our government schools are able to do to-day. Generally speaking, our government schools are run by teachers who are more or less ambitious people and they have not only the interests of their children at heart but also their own interests.

While I listened to the previous speaker, I experienced a heartfelt need to reassure him emphatically and to tell him that if the position was as he depicted it and if that was the object of this Bill, everyone of us on this side of the House would have been the first to vote against it. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the can go to sleep to-night without any qualms whatsoever and he can even consider whether he should not support this Bill wholeheartedly because I can assure him that there has never been any intention of establishing a sort of educational dictatorship; there has never been any intention of having any central control, and there has never been any intention of killing the private schools which are dear to his heart. I want to tell the previous speaker that I reproach the younger members on his side for possibly having made him believe these things, but that what he has mentioned is not to be found in this Bill.

He was still discussing the sabotage Bill.

I want to tell the House that to-day we are seeing the fullfilment of a very great ideal cherished by the educationists of our country, an ideal which they have cherished for many years past, but it is also a very great day for the future education of our youth who often during their formative years in the past have been the victims of defective educational systems and defective planning in education. It is not that we did not have the men, the brainpower and the talents to work out a proper system for us, but they have always been restricted, and the legislation now before us can make it possible for the educationists of the Republic of South Africa to come in to their own.

Unfortunately the only discordant note we have had to-day has been the attitude of the United Party. Allow me just to refer briefly to what certain members have said. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North)(Mrs. Weiss) has alleged, and what she has said has been affirmed by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood), that all the voluminous evidence we heard before the Select Committee is not given due recognition in this Bill. She had said that the mass of information provided has not been used. I now want to say with very great emphasis that that is an absolute misrepresentation. We shall be able to prove to the House with chapter and verse that every one of the various clauses of this Bill can be motivated by reference to the best evidence given by the best educationists who appeared before that Select Committee.

No.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has expressed great disappointment at the fact that we have come forward with this advisory council, because, she said, the witnesses were in favour of an advisory council but the council should not have any executive powers. She has said that this was the evidence given by all important persons who appeared before that Select Committee.

The majority.

In the first place it is not clear what she means by “executive power If she means that the evidence was to the effect that the council should not be autonomous, but should merely act in an advisory capacity, then I want to refer her tothe memorandum by the Interkerklike Komi-tee, of which the hon. member for Hillbrow(Dr. Steenkamp) has made such a great fuss.He has referred specially to that memorandum and that Interkerklike Komitee adopteda very definite attitude in respect of this matter. They said clearly that the Education Advisory Council should act autonomously in all respects under the Minister and the House of Assembly. That is therefore sufficient proof that she was incorrect. If she meant that the council should only give advice and that it should sit there in an inactive capacity, that it should never take the initiative and should never act with any vigour, then I want to refer to the evidence given on behalf of the “Aka-demie vir Kuns en Wetenskap” by Prof. Burger who emphasized precisely the dynamic character of this council. And if she meant that the council should not have an executive committee, and it seems to us that this is what she meant, then I want to refer her to the evidence of the Federal Council of Teachers Associations of South Africa which represent all the important teachers’ associations in the four provinces. They said: “The Federal Council is in favour of a full-time chairman and a full-time secretariat in order to ensur econtinuity of the work of the council”. No, the hon. member has brought the House underan incorrect impression. Thus I could continue dealing with each of the clauses of this Bill and showing that it is based on the evidence given by our most eminent experts in this field.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has also tried to sow suspicion. He as well as the hon. member for Johannesburg(North) has revealed their fear that political motives underlie the legislation. He has said clearly that Natal feels that this legislation is aimed at it. I now want to tell the House that this hon. member heard evidence from persons who adopted an objective attitude and who gave us the very best evidence, and he of all people should know that there was never even a thought amongst the members on this side of the House of sinking so low as to consider Natal’s political complexes. We are dealing with an important matter, something for which we have waited for more than 50 years.We therefore, say that these statements which have been made do not do their cause any good and that it will only mean that damage will be done to a very good cause. But he has gone further and said that Clause 8 proves that this Government only has the Whites in mind and that it is doing nothing for the non-Whites who also require guidance. That is an extremely unfair allegation to make. Does the hon. member remember that originally the Bill as first submitted to us provided in Clause7 that the education policy should be applied in respect of Whites and that on the initiative of the Chairman of the Select Committee and with the support of the Government side that word “Whites” was omitted from the clause and we said that we wanted to throw open the doors so that a watchful eye could also be kept over and advice given to the non-Whites if they come and require advice. I think that is a most unreasonable representation of the matter.

What about Clause 8?

Why did the hon. member not give the correct facts and say how sympathetic the Committee was towards the interests of the non-Whites?

When we turn to the legislation, I want to say that this is legislation for which we have had to wait a very long time. But we also want to tell the House that this is legislation which has been recommended, as has repeatedly been indicated already, by everyone of the various committees which sat in the past.Every one of these important commissions and committees which went into this matter and which undertook research, emphasized the necessity for the establishment of such a council. More than sufficient reference has been made to the various commissions, but I just want to refer to one or two of the memoranda.There is for example the memorandum of the South African Teachers Association in which they said: “Through its membership of the Federal Council of Teachers Associations in South Africa and in other ways, the South African Teachers Association has for a number of years past stressed its belief that a useful purpose could be served by an advisory council which could consider the educational problems of South Africa on a Union-wide basis and make recommendations as to possible improvements.” Years ago this important association emphasized the necessity for the establishment of such a council. There is also the Council of School Committees of the Cape. This Council of School Commmit-tees of the Cape is a council consisting of representatives of a large number of school committees in the Cape Peninsula. What did they tell us? With reference to the former Bill (not this one which meets the requirements they laid down) they said—

This is what the Council of School Committees of the Cape has said. But there is also the Transvaal Teachers Association which said the following—

The same point is emphasized by the “Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Kuns en Weten-skap”. I do not want to weary the House by reading what they said. But prominent individuals also emphasized the same principle. Reference has already been made to-nightto what a former Director of Education in Natal, Mr. C. M. Booysen has said namely—

In reply to a question put to the Education Panel, Prof. Macmillan replied on behalf of the Education Panel. The question was—

He replied—

This all proves to us the necessity for our establishing such a council, and the Bill now before us must give us what we have been striving for. Now the question arises: Does this Bill meet this requirement? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said: “Yes, this is all very well, but it must be a council which must be solely co-ordinating and advisory” I now want to refer to Clause 7 (4) which provides—

It is therefore quite clear that this is the object of the council. The council will be a very important and balanced council, because it will be a council which will be representative of all educational bodies in our country. Clause2 says that there may be not less than 15 members, and the Minister can appoint more; he can draw upon the best talents of our country to whatever extent he wishes, but he may not appoint less than 15. And hon. members must note the qualifications. They are clearly emphasized in Clause 2. In Clause 2 (3) (a) we find for example the following—

People recommended by the Administrators must have those qualifications. In other words, the provincial councils will be represented on this council through the people who are best qualified to do so. But we then come to the other members who will be appointed to the council. Clause 2 (3) (c) provides—

It is surely obvious that the Minister will not be such a fool as to appoint someone who is in charge for example of the Railways if he does not have anything to do with the matter of which the council will concentrate, namely education.

In the opinion of the Minister.

The hon. member need not fear that the Minister will appoint him to the council. But let us go further. We have already seen that the provincial councils will be represented, and the members of the council will not all be full-time members. Only the nucleus will be full-time. The remainder will be part-time. In other words, we can draw leaders and other persons from the universities, busy people who will not be able to serve full-time on the council, but their knowledge will be available precisely because they can be appointed on a part-time basis. In other words, this clause makes it possible for us to have a council which will be very flexible and which will be able to draw upon to the greatest possible extent the talents available to South Africa in the educational field. This Bill makes that possible.

Then we come to Clause 5. Here we find that the committees to be established will fulfill a very important function, because they will prepare the way to meeting the long-felt need for research. This is the one great weakness which we have found in the past in the educational sphere. There was not sufficient scope for research. As a result of the committee system which is now to be introduced, we can proceed to undertake research. When we examine these committees, we find that the clause provides that as many committees as the council may consider necessary can be appointed, and it further provides that they need not consist exclusively of members of the council. In other words, in addition to this council consisting of 15 or more members, we can make use of other people who can serve on various committees and who can undertake research projects, but as regards every one of them it is provided they must have particular knowledge or experience in one or other aspect of the council’s work. For that reason hon. members can rest assured that we shall have people who will be very well qualified to undertake research into education. The committees can undertake research into the large number of projects which should still be investigated. We need committees which can for example undertake research into the latest educational methods used in other countries. We need committees which can undertake research regarding what we can do to give greater attention in our syllabuses and our methods to the talented child whose talents often rust to-day because he is held back in a group, while he could make much greater progress. They can investigate how a particular type of brain power can be developed in a particular way. We can appoint a committee which can undertake research for us into the latest methods of approach towards the handicapped child, the child who if he could be made productive could be of tremendous value to the country and its development. We can appoint a committee which can undertake research into the treatment of the mentally handicapped child, as for example is being done at the Rudolph Steiner School in Hermanus and the Jannie Brink Centre in Kimberley, and which can investigate what can be done for handicapped children. In this field a great deal can still be done. This has not yet been included in our educational programme. Another project which requires very urgent attention is the improved presentation of vocational guidance. The training and handling of the preschool child, in other words the infant, should also be incorporated into our educational system, the same applies to an improved co-ordination of syllabuses and the work of the various educational authorities, and furthermore a committee …

You are condemning your own Department of Education.

… which can also investigate why that hon. member has become what he is and makes statements such as he has just made! It is essential that a committee should be appointed to investigate the large number of failures which we have at our universities amongst first year students and also the shortage of technicians—a matter which is of the utmost importance. These matters can only be dealt with properly by educationists and I am glad to say chat it will be possible under this Bill to undertake all these projects.

The council will also make it possible for the general basic principles of sound education to be formulated. As a matter of fact, this will be the main task of the council. We find this in Clause 7 (2) of the Bill. Finally it will be the task of the council gradually to develop a typically South African education philosophy. These are important tasks which will be entrusted to the council. The result will not be revolutionary ideas because the same clause also provides that this must be done in co-operation with the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the provincial departments of education, educational bodies and organizations, and persons interested in this matter. All these authorities will be recognized and will therefore be able to make a contribution to the development of a South African educational philosophy. Another important principle to which the council will have to give its attention is that of co-operation in the educational field with the object of co-ordinating and furthering such co-operation. If hon. members had listened to the witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee and to what they said in this regard, they would agree when I say that our educational system to-day looks like a patchwork blanket—it is fragmented from one end to the other. In other words, there is no coordination. All this can be remedied with the assistance of this legislation.

A further important object of the council will be that indicated in Clause 7 (3), namely the raising of the prestige of the teaching profession. Hon. members would be surprised if they knew how many married women to-day have to teach as a result of a shortage of teachers. Why is this and why must our school-going youth be harmed in this way? We say that this proposed council will be able to undertake research into all these matters. It will be able to reveal the causes underlying the shortage of teachers with which we are struggling and the consequent harm to the education of the child.

We are aware of the fact that various points of criticism against the proposed council have been submitted. The main criticism is that which as we have heard, appeared in the Sunday Times, namely that the object is subtly to indoctrinate the public. But I ask hon. members opposite who were members of the Select Committee why they have not said that we were dealing with bodies such as the “Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysersunie” and the South African Teachers’ Association, that is to say educational bodies of whom we felt it would be beneath them to indoctrinate people? Such a thought has never entered the mind of the Government. Must this project, for which educationists have waited for 50 years, now be sabotaged and polluted by unfounded statements and insinuations by an irresponsible Opposition?

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. The same accusations of indoctrination and the same attitude which have been revealed here to-night were also seen when the Government established a central department for Bantu education, despite the fact that overseas educationists of repute today congratulate us on this step. I challenge hon. members opposite, now that this department has already been functioning for ten years, to submit one instance of indoctrination. There is no such thing, but they nevertheless are now putting forward those same accusations and insinuations with the object of inciting and frightening the public. If they have nothing else to say, they grasp the word “indoctrination” as an epithet and as soon as they mention it, everyone starts holding parades, lighting fires, sending up smoke and inciting feelings—and this in opposition to a sound piece of legislation.

Another point of criticism which has been submitted is that there will be undue uniformity; this council will bring about undue uniformity in the educational field. Well, if that is so, then it will be a very unfortunate day for the Republic of South Africa. But the S.A.O.U. does not see the matter in this light, because on page 48 of the Select Committee’s Report, we find the following question (No. 164) was put to representatives of that organization—

Mr. Olivier, one of the representatives of the S.A.O.U., replied as follows—

Dr. Pauw then added the following—

These persons, that is to say persons who are in fact equipped to judge, therefore are not afraid that uniformity would be the result. Why then should members opposite frighten the country with such irresponsible submissions and remarks?

Another point of criticism is that provincial education will be eliminated. But anyone who makes that allegation has not yet read the Bill. In Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provision is made that the Administrators will recommend as their representatives on the council persons of high standing in the educational world. Furthermore there are the investigations which will be instituted at schools. In this regard we must not think that such an investigation will have a negative object, because an investigation can be instituted at a school because the authorities want to learn from the methods used at that school. But even then the council cannot simply interfere because in Clause 5 (2) (a) and (b) it is emphasized that the authority of the provincial authorities must be recognized. Furthermore the provincial education departments are recognized in the process of co-ordination—that is clear from the provisions of Clause 7 (1) and (2).

Another point of criticism is that the council will destroy the private schools. But in Clause 7 (2) it is in fact emphasized that the education policy of the country must be drawn up taking into account the advisability of maintaining such diversity as circumstances may demand. It has never been the intention of any responsible authority to smother private schools or private enterprise in the educational field.

I therefore say that it is an unhappy day for the United Party seeing that it is opposing this legislation. The United Party has let many opportunities slip in the past—opportunities to support some of the finest and greatest steps taken in our country. Whenever something fine and great has been achieved in the constitutional or cultural spheres, it has always adopted a negative attitude by trying to frustrate and oppose such a step. Now it has this opportunity for which educationists, and educationists in the ranks of the United Party as well, have had to wait for 50 years, but here once again that party has adopted a negative attitude towards this measure. History will bless us for this step but the United Party will be cursed and vilified for the attitude which it has adopted towards this step.

While I was listening to the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) I said to myself: “The dead body of the Union of South Africa is barely cold, and a colossal disaster in the form of this Bill has already struck this young Republic”. I wish to quote a few remarks he has made. The hon. member said, amongst other things, that this would be a National Education Advisory Council and that we need not be afraaid of it. He said in the same breath, however, that he would like a council which must be dynamic and active. Well, as soon as an advisory council becomes dynamic and active it will start interfering with the sacred possessions of the country.

He spoke about Natal and said that Natal need not be afraid at all and he never even thought about Natal when the Bill was before the Select Committee. Did the hon. member not read Clause 8 of the Bill? There it is stated that all the education ordinances of all the provinces—this including Natal—would first have to be considered by the advisory council. This obviously means interfering with the powers of the provinces! The hon. member also maintained that organizations such as the South African Teachers’ Association had pleaded for this proposed advisory council. But nothing is further from the truth than this claim, because it is not true that this specific organization pleaded for a council which differs completely from this advisory council provided for in the Bill? The members of the council which that organization advocated were to be appointed by the various Teachers’ associations. On page 32 of the report of the Select Committee the following question (102) which was put by Dr. Steenkamp to the S.A.T.A., appears—

To this one of the representatives of the S.A.T.A., Mr. Wahl, replied as follows—

This would result in a council which is completely different to the one pleaded for by the members opposite.

The speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) is nothing but a motion of no confidence in the Department of Education, Arts and Science; it is nothing but a motion of no confidence in the four provincial education departments and a motion of no confidence in the faculties of education at our universities because these bodies can handle these matters which the hon. member wishes to be investigated far better than the council proposed under this Bill will be able to.

The country is struck by this far-reaching Bill which will sacrifice the parent, the child and the school on the altar of a bewilderingly narrow political selfishness. So all the prophesies which have been made of what will happen during the first year of this new system, have therefore come true. This is not a Bill which introduces an advisory council for education but a Bill which introduces an educational cabal to be a dictator over education and the child. This is definitely not a council which will advise but one which will dance to the tune of the Minister. The 15 members which will be appointed, will be 15 “little Sir Echo’s” of the hon. the Minister! The day the hon. the Minister has a cold they will sneeze!

This is not a council which will regard education as a search for the truth but one which will believe that the truth has already been discovered and that it is in the dark brain cells of the minions of Christian National Education. This is not an advisory council because if one want an advisory council would one provide such a council with a permanent, fully paid staff which will have to work full time? This is therefore not an advisory council but something more than an advisory council. Members of the advisory council will, to crown everything, be appointed by the Minister himself. If one seeks advice from someone else then one goes to him and ask him for advice but one does not appoint someone for the purpose and then dismiss him if one is not satisfied with his advice! That is not the way advice is obtained! If hon. members will read the evidence given by Prof. Burger on behalf of the “S.A. Akademie” before the Select Committee they will find that the Akademie is of the opinion that “the different education organizations must say whom they consider as their best men who can serve on the council”. The Teachers’ associations, therefore, and not the hon. the Minister!

If you read the whole report, as I did, you will form a different opinion.

I read the whole report. Furthermore, I was for a time, as the hon. the Minister will remember, a member of the Select Committee which was appointed on this matter last year. I could unfortunately not continue to serve on it because I was appointed on a second Select Committee. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have only seen the hon. member for Vereeniging really enthusiastic on two occasions, namely now in his support of this Bill, and the times in the past when he attacked Christian National Education. This Bill empowers the Minister to dismiss members of the council if he feels that they are not performing their duties properly. The Minister can therefore decide when a member is not performing his duties properly and can then dismiss him. The final decision on this matter rests with the Minister. Seek advice from such “yes-men”! They will be people who will say “B” when the Minister says “A”. No, this is more than an advisory council—it is a council with dark powers; that is evident from this Bill.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this council can appoint sub-committees which can investigate and can snoop around at will in any school in the country? The hon. member for Kimberley (South) said that this could only happen with the approval of certain other bodies but when he looks at Clause 5 he will see that when such a committee wishes to set out on such a “snooping” campaign the committee must get the approval of … guess who? The Secretary for Education—in other words, the Minister! This is nothing but a shopping committee, the Special Branch of the advisory council. We of course know what will be examined and what will not be examined. I know of a certain school in the Transvaal which will not be examined, namely a school where the teacher one day entered the class to teach English. He stood at his table, opened his book and said: “Come, let us now study the language of the enemy”! I am convinced that this particular school will not be examined. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister asked me to read the whole report but let me ask him to refer to what Prof. Burger said on behalf of the “S.A. Akademie”. He—a leading educationist—said—

It is therefore wrong that the council should snoop around at private and other schools. Why does he say this? Because if such an investigation must be held at a school it is the duty of professional people to do so, i.e. of inspectors. We have no objection to their inspecting schools but this is not the case with this crowd of snoopers who will be appointed under this legislation.

One asks oneself whether this legislation is actually necessary. I concede that a purely advisory council, one which will only advise, has much to commend it. Such a council can examine such matters as school hours, training facilities, salaries of teachers, etc. In other words such matters as are referred to in the report as “external” to education. What is known as the “interna” of education must however be kept outside its activities. From where does this sudden desire to effect unity in education come? There is already more than sufficient unity in the field of education in South Africa; as a matter of fact, there is already far too much, according to some people.

If the hon. the Minister read the evidence of Dr. E. G. Malherbe he would have noticed that a commission has already been appointed to investigate the relationship between the provinces and the Central Government. According to Dr. Malherbe, who serves on that commission, one of the tasks of the commission is to devote attention to education matters as well. This commission was appointed by the Minister of Finance but now the hon. the Minister of Education is appointing a council of his own, which will undermine the work of the commission. Why must this happen? What is wrong with the commission appointed by the Minister of Finance that the Minister of Education must appoint a council which will interfere in the work of that commission? Read the evidence of Dr. Malherbe if you wish to see how this advisory council will interfere with the work of the commission.

In my opinion all this talk about centralization is unnecessary and undesirable. Let us once again refer to the evidence of Dr. Malherbe in this respect. Dr. Malherbe is an eminent educationist—I wonder whether he will serve on that council! On page 179 of the report he says the following—

Procustes was a pirate who adapted his victims to the bed which he had. When they were too short for the bed he stretched them until they were the same length as the bed; if they were too tall for the bed he cut a piece off. It is the same with this type of legislation—we want to bring about a deadly uniformity and we want to force this on the child.

It has repeatedly been maintained in this debate that this legislation will not interfere with the powers of the provinces. The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) for example, became quite lyrical in his assurances in this regard. But when I read this report and I look at what the Government proposes to do, I am afraid I cannot become lyrical. Let us read what Dr. Bingle, the representative of the Potchefstroom University, said in this respect. Incidentally Dr. Bingle is professor in education at that University. On page 120 he states, amongst other things—

A professor from Potchefstroom therefore admits that this legislation will interfere with the powers of the universities. We have had fine promises from hon. members opposite in the past. Amongst others, we had the assurance from the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert), who in April, 1960, said in this House—

Can the hon. member repeat that to-night with a clear conscience with regard to this Bill? Will he be prepared to move an amendment in the Committee Stage to assure this? I wonder.

We must not allow ourselves to be bluffed by assurances that the members of this council will not be appointed on political lines. Professor Bingle is an honest man and let us therefore read what he said on this point. On page 120 he also said—

If in other words this council should become a political council, it will, according to Professor Bingle, be nothing exceptional. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have quoted Professor Bingle on a number of occasions. I do so because he is a professor at Potchefstroom University. I wonder whether you know who the manager, the leader and the chancellor of that university is? It is none other than the hon. the Minister himself!

However, if this is not going to be a political council but such a wonderful and innocent council as is claimed, then I want to issue a friendly challenge to the Minister. It is that he must tell us who will be the five permanent members whom he is going to appoint on the council. If he does so we shall perhaps get an indication of to what extent this council will be exalted above politics. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to give the names of these five men to the nation before this Bill is passed? Why can this council not elect its own chairman? Why must the Minister say who the chairman is to be? The council has not even been given this right. Let us keep in mind the fact that political appointments can in fact be made to the council.

In fact, this was admitted by one of the important witnesses before the Select Committee and he spoke for the Government.

Against this background I think we are entitled to ask what kind of education such a council will recommend? What kind of education policy will such a council recommend under Clause 7? To this question there is only one possible answer namely Christian National Education which is neither Christian nor national nor education. I am sure that this will be the policy which this council is going to propagate. Many documents dealing with this policy have been published. I have one here issued by the “Instituut vir Christelike Nasionale Onderwys” of which, amongst others, a certain Dr. Dönges and a certain Professor J. Chris Coetsee were members. Is the latter perhaps going to be one of the members of the council? But let us read what is meant by “C.N.O.”—

It is, in other words, a policy based only on the articles of faith of the three Afrikaans churches. The Afrikaners in South Africa, however belong to more than the three churches—there are many other denominations to which they also belong. But these Afrikaners are excluded by the “C.N.O.” policy. What does the policy of the “C.N.O.” for example say about the child of South Africa—about the future therefore? It says the following—

Order! We are not discussing “C.N.O.”!

I am referring to Clause 7 (2) where it is stated that one of the duties of the council will be to determine the principles for sound education.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot accept that there will be a certain policy and then enlarge on it. The hon. member may ask whether this will be the policy but there he must stop. He cannot enlarge on that.

Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that the following words will not apply to our teachers—

Is this the type of policy which is going to be applied? When we think about some of the educationists of our country and their writings and we think that they can be appointed to the council then we wonder what will happen to the education of our country! I have here a paragraph the meaning of which I cannot understand. I shall read it so that you, Mr. Speaker, can say what it actually means.

Just scare them!

No, I only want to know what it means. It reads as follows—

Order! That has nothing to do with this measure.

I am pleased to hear it. As I said, I myself was not sure of its meaning. These are, by the way, the words of a person who, in the eyes of the hon. members opposite, is a great educationist—so great that he was made chairman of the Radio Board, namely Dr. Meyer.

We are told that under this Bill a dictatorship will not be established in education. The Minister is very innocent if he gives us this assurance and possibly it will be so under this hon. Minister but we do not know what will happen when there is another Minister. What would happen if, for example, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs became the Minister of Education?

It is denied that this advisory council is aimed at private schools but we were not born yesterday. We have known the Nationalist Party and its policy for years. If this Bill is not aimed at the private schools, why does the hon. the Minister refuse to exclude private schools, from his definition of “schools”? According to the definition a school is any educational institution. The Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses of the private schools sent a deputation to the Minister and made a reasonable proposal. They said that they received State funds but the vast majority of the money spent by their schools was donated by the parents themselves. On the average only 15 per cent of the money they spend is received from the authorities. Would it not be possible to exclude all private schools which receive less than 50 per cent of their funds from the State? One reason for this is that parents not only have to maintain their private schools but they also pay with the other taxpayers for the maintenance of the ordinary Government schools. They are usually also well-to-do people and therefore pay more tax than that hon. member or I. [Interjections.]

I believe that this Bill is also aimed at Natal. It is not only aimed at private schools but also at Natal because in Natal parents still have the choice as to which language they wish their children to be educated in. One of the things which this council will lay down, is compulsory mother-tongue education. In other words, to force Natal into the same narrow cage in which the rest of the Republic already finds itself to-day. [Interjections.] Dr. E. G. Malherbe explained the position in Natal. I just want to quote briefly from his evidence. He says—

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is now not even interjecting from his own seat. He is now standing in the passage and interjecting.

Dr. Malherbe goes on to say that there are certain regulations regarding the children in Natal, which are complied with and if the child wants to study in a strange language and is finding difficulty, the principal may go to the parents and explain to them exactly what the position is, and recommend that they take the child out of that school. But this sticks in the gizzard of hon. members opposite and they therefore do not want it.

If uniform syllabuses and text books are drawn up it will also be possible to introduce a uniform system of religious instruction. This is one of the basic principles of the policy which I am not permitted to name but it is reasonable to ask: If something of that nature is done, what effect will it have on the Roman Catholic and Jewish schools?

Order! The hon. member cannot accept certain things.

I am dealing with Clause 7 (c) concerning the policy.

The hon. member may not accept certain matters which are not in the provision.

On a point of order, the Government has stated that it is its object to introduce a uniform system of education. I ask whether we are not entitled to deduce that that policy will be applied in other ways as well?

My ruling is that hon. members cannot deduce certain things which do not appear in the Bill and then discuss them.

On a point of order, this is after all a second reading debate and we can discuss everything.

Yes, but the hon. member must remain more or less within the limits of the Bill.

On a point of order, this Bill makes provision for an advisory council. There is no limit in the Bill as to the advice that council can give to the Minister. It can provide the Minister with any advice with regard to Jewish or private schools, etc.

The hon. member cannot simply assume that such advice will be given.

On a point of order, may I submit that we are not prohibited from assuming anything. In this debate we can discuss any aspect with regard to the advice this council can give because this council can give any advice and we are therefore entitled to say in this debate that there should be certain limits to what the council can do. I submit that the hon. member is quite entitled to make certain inferences.

My ruling is that hon. members may put questions to the Minister and the Minister can reply to them.

Then I can put a series of questions but I shall not do so.

The hon. member may ask questions but he may not make certain inferences and then proceed to discuss them, at length.

But the Minister cannot reply to questions regarding the functions of the council. How can the Minister do so? We are now examining the position of the council and how far the council can go. The whole case of this side of the House is that the council can give the Minister any advice. I suggest that this Bill can be interpreted in the widest terms and that we should discuss the whole matter before the Committee Stage.

I shall not be long. We ask ourselves what is going to be the general form of this council and how will it function? Then I want to ask the Minister whether one of the first plans he has in mind for this council is not the introduction of a National Education Act. If that is so, we hope he will tell us more about it. Mr. Speaker, do you know what this system is? It is a system which has been introduced by legislation in this House in 1953, not for Whites but for Bantu. This Act will be nothing but an Act which is based on the Bantu Education Act. The same principles of Bantu education will now be applied to Whites. The same regimentation which we find in Bantu education will be introduced under this legislation. It was put to the Select Committee in the following terms by Professor Bingle. He praised Bantu education and said that in Bantu education there was much which we as Whites could envy them. He said the Government had taken Bantu education out of the hands of the provincial education departments and the missionary societies and had made it a national matter, and he urged that the same should be done in respect of White education. He said—

He praised it and asked for the same for the Whites. This is a Bantu Education Act for Whites! That education has its own syllabuses and text books which are prescribed by the Central Bantu Education Council. Now an Education Advisory Council is being established for the Whites. [Interjections.]

The more we examine this Bill, the more I become convinced that it is a dangerous, undesirable, incorrect measure, and something which cannot do our country any good, something which is against the interests of our parents who must send their children to school to receive a sound education, something which is against the interests of the teachers of South Africa, who would like to educate our children without interference of this kind, and—most important of all—it is something which is against the interests of future generations of children in South Africa who will be handicapped by a Bill of this nature, for which future generations one day will reproach us so that we shall have to hang our heads in shame.

The introduction to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was as follows, “When I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) I said to myself, ‘There goes one of the …’”. The rest of the sentence I could not hear clearly, but I take it that he meant that one of the last things worth possessing was being buried in the grave dugged by the National Party. But when I listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) I could not help thinking “Have you forgotten the case where the angel said to Hagar at the well in the desert, ‘Thou shalt bear a son, but he will be a wild man; his hands will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him ’”? The hon. member for Kimberley (South) has simply proved again in the course of his speech that this side of the House is not blind to the defects that may exist in our own Government and that we have the courage to bring about the necessary reforms. We do not adhere to what is wrong, and nobody would allege that there is nothing wrong under this Government. But the hon. member is looking in vain for political consolation from that fact. I want to ask the hon. member why he did not curtail his speech and why he did not simply say the following things that he wanted to say, and that is that under the proposed Council all those who do not use Afrikaans as language medium, who do not adhere to the Calvinistic faith and who do not support the Government, will be wiped off the face of the Republic. But I want to refer to a passage where the hon. member made a very desperate attempt to set out Prof. Bingle’s opinion for us against the right perspective. I take it that it is very difficult for a man like the hon. member over there to see a person like Prof. Bingle in the correct light. I am also going to quote from page 120 of the report of the Select Committee—

That is where the hon. member stopped, but in order to see Prof. Bingle’s attitude in the correct light one must read further. This quotation comes from objections that Prof. Bingle mentioned—not objections that he has but objections which have been raised throughout the years to the institution of a National education Advisory Council. But he goes on to say—

That is the essence of the whole problem. It must be remembered that it is not Prof. Bingle’s desire to deprive the provinces of all their powers, just as little as it is my deisre to do so; that is not the case—

These are not his words; they are contained in this memorandum dealing with objections which emanate from another source and which were placed on record and presented here by the professor—

Here I want to leave the hon. member and come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I shall have to do so in his absence, and if he does not turn up I shall award him a degree in absentia. When he introduced his amendment the hon. member said that this was his last effort to bring about something good. But a good patriot does not throw in the towel so quickly. Why should it be the last effort of the hon. member for Hillbrow? He says his amendment is his last effort. I want to give him the assurance at this stage already that that effort will fail because a good patriot does not stop fighting for what he considers to be right and proper. The second effort that the hon. member can make is to support the hon. the Minister to have this Advisory Council instituted. Can it be, the hon. member asked, that the Minister has no confidence in the teachers’ associations? But having regard to what continually happens in this House, I should like to put this counter question to him: Can it be that the Opposition has no faith at all in any of our Cabinet Ministers? Think of what happened this week and last week and what happened again today. The Opposition always talk about the so-called unbridled powers which are given to the Ministers and which they can very easily misuse. We have heard the same language in connection with the Bill which is now before the House. We are often told by hon. members opposite that in principle they would like to have such a Council but… and then they oppose it. They say that in principle they too would like to combat Communism but then they proceed to oppose every measure that we take to combat Communism. [Interjections.]

I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). She also quoted Prof. Bingle, and I want to try to help her to see this matter in the correct light. This refers to the autonomy of the Provincial Councils. Let me quote Question 380 on page 137—

That is in line with what is stated in the memorandum, namely that this sort of objection is raised to the institution of a national council. Now Question 383—

This throws a slightly different light on the opinion of the esteemed professor. I am going to quote one or two more questions and answers and I shall end with the same one which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) read out, and that will be the climax then. I should like to read out Question 390 on page 139—

Then eventually we come to page 141; this is the question and answer which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also quoted partially. Question 402 reads—

And then the last question that I want to read out—

Here the policy is advocated that some portion of the autonomy of the provinces will have to be relinquished, but there is no truth in this statement that they will be deprived entirely of their autonomy so that they will no longer have control over education.

As far as education is concerned, we have the following elements: The State, the parents and the teachers. The State has a say in the education of the nation because it wants to see its youth growing up into good citizens. The parents would like to see their children educated in such a way that they will be good bearers of the culture that they inherit from their parents and their forebears. The teacher wants the sort of system that will best enable him to carry out the mandate that he receives from the State and the parent, that is, to equip the child as a whole, intellectually and physically for life. In pleading for the establishment of an advisory council, which is being opposed so strenuously, I should like to say that we must adopt the attitude that we cannot always cling to the past. We should build on it for the future, but no system should stand in the way of effective education. If there are such systems they should disappear in the interests of the child; the child’s interests cannot be allowed to suffer because we want to retain a certain system.

What does history teach us? Section 85 of the South Africa Act provides for a “federal” educational policy, namely higher education under the control of the Central Government and primary and secondary education under the control of the provincial government. It is specifically stated that this will apply for five years, and thereafter until such time as parliament determines otherwise. In other words, even at that time provision was made in principle for the possibility of bringing about a change in the system of education that we have to-day, and in order to give effect to what is laid down here, the Jagger Commission was appointed only five years later in 1915. The Commission brought out its report in 1916, and even at that time the majority report advocated uniformity, with some measure of co-ordination in the diversity that was to exist. Many members still find it difficult to grasp that there can be co-ordination in the midst of diversity. Subsequently numerous commissions in their reports all pleaded for greater co-ordination. That is the historical development which the Minister outlined here this afternoon. But what underlies all this opposition here is fear of the violation of identity, fear of the violation of the autonomy of the provinces, fear of the violation of the rights of certain language and cultural groups, without any basis for it, and fear for certain church schools. There is political fear, cultural fear and religious fear. But these fears are all unnecessary and unfounded. Certain reforms are called for, it has been mentioned by various speakers here this evening that we want to go in the direction of the Bantu educational system, in which many defects, which are still to be found in our system, have been eliminated. The world recognizes the importance of education and the fact of the matter is that no nation in the world can rely on being able effectively to preserve its health, to take care of its defence, to build up its arts, to guide its politic along the right lines, to build up its agriculture, in all its phases so that it can contribute to the economic health of the country unless it has a sound educational system.

We will be on the right path once we realize that education ought to be the most important State activity. Here I should like to refer to the memorandum of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association at page 423, under the heading “Necessity for a National Education Advisory Council”, where we read the following—

What follows now is very important, and I expect that when I read it out there will be exlamations from the other side that this is a motion of no-confidence in the Government’s educational policy, as we heard a little while ago with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (South). Here it is stated—

That, amongst other things, is what is contemplated with the establishment of this Advisory Council. We do not only want to give the child knowledge; we are trying to equip him for life. I repeat that our aim is not simply to give the child knowledge so that in later life his resourcefulness will enable him to meet his problems; our aim is also that our youth, through education, should be predestined not to accept challenges in life but to act as challenger. That is what we want. With this National Advisory Council therefore, with experts of the highest order …

On a point of order. When I spoke a little while ago, I talked about the sort of educational policy that we might get under this Bill, and the Speaker who was then in the Chair told me that I was not allowed to discuss it. Is the hon. member in order in discussing details which do not appear in the Bill?

The hon. member may proceed.

This advisory council will receive its instructions in broad outline and then its defined task will gradually unfold. It is not advisable or possible to define and to demarcate it at this moment. That is perfectly clear from the measure before us. This will be an advisory council, and its advice will be of a professional and national character—not according to any narrow national concept, just as the word “Christian”, when we talk about Christian national education, must not be interpreted as meaning Calvinistically orientated. Nobody ever said so. But hon. members also say that if the education is of a national character, it will only be of a national character to suit the National Party and the Government, which is just as far from the truth. It will be an advisory council which will in fact remove the fear of those hon. members in this connection. They harbour political, religious and language fears; we do not want a council which will perpetuate those fears. The child must be educated to become a useful citizen—and on a national basis. I am not going to refer to Clause 7, because that has been done repeatedly already.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.