Sir, are you going to put the amendment now? I think the Minister was just dealing with my amendment and the few words I had said when the House adjourned.

I had occasion to consider the amendment of the hon. member. I think the hon. member is quite right and am therefore prepared to accept his amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I rise to move the following amendment—

1. (3) Every inquiry held in terms of this Act shall be held in open court: Provided that where, in the opinion of the presiding officer, special circumstances exist in any particular case, he may order that no person whose presence is not necessary shall be present at the inquiry.

The proposal which is contained in the clause as it stands is that inquiries under the Act should in all circumstances be held in closed session or in camera. This Bill deals with a section of our administration of justice in this country and while it deals with personal relationships it is our belief that the sound principle that legal proceedings should be held in open court should not readily be departed from. We believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings should be held in open court. We have conceded that there may be circumstances in which the presiding officer may decide that no person whose presence is not necessary shall be present at the inquiry. We believe that that is an adequate safeguard. We believe that there are various reasons, which we believe good reasons, why this amendment should be accepted. In the first place it is my firm belief that if parties who are finding it difficult to reach agreement in a maintenance matter know that the inquiry would be held in open court, they might very much more readily agree to come to a sensible settlement and thus avoid unnecessary and unpleasant legal proceedings. In addition, where the matter goes to an open court, a recalcitrant husband, for example, would be very much more ready, we believe, to be sensible about the matter; he might be encouraged to come to a sensible arrangement, and we believe that there would be far fewer contested cases if the proceedings were held in open court. We do not believe that there are good reasons why the very sound rule of our law should be departed from in this case. I move the amendment and I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept it.

I had occasion to consider the amendment of the hon. member and whilst it is perfectly true that that is the general rule of our law, I want to say to-day—and this House has said so before— that we have every reason and for that matter every right to depart from that rule if and when there are children to be considered in the matter. The hon. member will agree with me that in most maintenance cases there are children to be considered. It is for that very reason that, as the hon. member will remember, when we dealt with the Children’s Act in 1960 we inserted a very similar provision to this one and that was approved of unanimously by all members on both sides of the House. I refer the hon. member to Section 8 (3) of the Children’s Act which reads as follows—

We adopted this very same principle in the Children’s Court and if it was right then I submit that it is right that we should adopt it in this Bill since it is a similar provision. I have given serious consideration to the hon. member’s amendment but for that very reason it is not possible to accept it.

I have not recently looked at the Children’s Act, but my impression is that there one deals with questions of adoption and matters of that kind.

No, all matters relating to children.

The number of maintenance matters that come under the Children’s Act are, I would say, relatively limited. And above all I want to stress that in the maintenance matters that will come before this Court of Inquiry, there will be a very few in which there will be a dispute as to the amount that should be paid for a child. The parents are usually willing to agree upon an amount for the child. It is only in respect of the maintenance to be paid to the wife that the husband may feel that he is being bled. Therefore I suggest that there should be a very different approach here. Sir, the fact is that the magistrate still has a discretion where it is an appropriate case. We would be accepting a principle here, against which this legislature has. set its face very resolutely down the ages, for very substantial reasons, if we pass this clause as it stands. It is a good thing that these things should be done in public; that justice should be dispensed in public; that people should be able to clear their name in public. A man may come before this court and it will not be known how the proceedings went and what arrangements were made.

Then he can ask the magistrate for permission to peruse the records.

So few exceptions have been made to this rule of hearing cases in open court, that I do strongly ask the Minister not to make one here. It was not so before, under the previous position which worked well. It is very seldom that one finds in our Press reference to maintenance matters. I believe that our Press, adopting a responsible attitude, do not wish to air people’s affairs unduly in public.

This does not affect the Press at all.

Well, I think that was one of the Minister’s arguments that children were involved and that there would be publicity and so on.

As tar as the general public is concerned, yes.

With respect, this legislature has been careful to protect the interests of children in matters which more intimately concern children, not in mere money matters but. for example, where a crime has been committed by a juvenile or where a juvenile gives evidence. In cases of that description our Code does contain exceptions. But may I remind the hon. the Minister that the Code lays down that, for example, criminal cases shall be held in open court, save in certain circumstances. And as far as civil cases are concerned, there again the rule is that the proceedings must be held in open court. The argument against it is simply that there is this unfortunate publicity particularly affecting children. What great degree of publicity has there been?

If one accepts the principle that maintenance matters are to be heard in camera as a general rule, where will one draw the line? Why in maintenance matters only? Why not matters of divorce; why not adultery cases? Where will one draw the line? I do submit that we are tampering here with something which is very fundamental and a rule which has not given difficulty in practice. I think it is only when we tamper with it that we will realize what forces, which hitherto have been dealt with successfully, we have unleashed.

I suggest that there is no substantial advantage to be gained from this provision as it now reads, and I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment, particularly since the magistrate has the discretion to exclude people whose presence is not necessary. I would say too that it is possible to exclude the Press even in certain circumstances and still leave the proceedings open to the public. If one is going to hold the proceedings in camera, then both the public and the Press are excluded. It is possible for a court to exclude the Press in certain cases and still admit the public; that is another possibility.

The hon. the Minister will remember that when the question of holding a trial in camera was mooted in the Press, there was a big reaction from all sides, and it was pointed out that all kinds of unexpected consequences might follow. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider very seriously the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) and rather to leave this position where it has been, which I again suggest has not been unsatisfactory.

In reply to the hon. member I just want to say that when it comes to the hearing of a case in camera and the avoidance of publicity until such time as the person is found guilty, I think 1 have more people on my side when I adopt that attitude than I have against me, to judge from the reaction which there has been. But that is not relevant at the moment. What is relevant at the moment is whether members of the public should have access when a case is heard in which the intimate and personal affairs of two people are being openly discussed. I am convinced—and the hon. member will not get me to change my mind—that it is not at all necessary, not for the sound administration of justice nor for any other reason whatsoever, for outsiders to be present and to revel in the intimate and personal relationships between a husband and wife and perhaps their children. I think those individuals are the only people concerned and nobody else. That does not mean that cases cannot be published in newspapers, because as the hon. member knows it is very clearly stated here that while the public can be excluded during the hearing of a case, nothing prevents the Press from having sight of the record of the proceedings because the record of a court case is a public document and the Press may publish it with due consideration of the fact that they may not reveal anything which may disclose the identity of a child. The Press, therefore, does not come into the picture either. I want the House to understand clearly what the principle is that is involved and I have exceedingly strong feelings about that principle. I feel so strongly about it that even if the entire House were against me, I would still adhere to it. The principle with which we are concerned here, in my opinion, is that you are dealing with the intimate woes and sorrows of two people and that that is not a case in which the public in general have or ought to have any interest. It has nothing to do with the administration of justice; we are dealing here with a maintenance court. The hon. member said quite rightly that decent newspapers did not report these things but it is for the very reason that there are newspapers which are not decent and which revel in that sort of thing …

The Sunday Times.

… that I am quite determined that this clause must remain unaltered so that, if possible, I can spare those people this unnecessary flocking of strangers to the court who want to revel in the misery of others. Our experience has been that the more spicy a case is the greater the publicity which it receives. I did not insert this provision without any reason. It is a case of conscience and conviction with me that I should spare those people this misery and if I do so I am not violating any principle whatsoever. I cannot be accused of closing the law courts to the public because this is not a court of law in the ordinary sense of the word. We are trying to solve the difficulties between a husband and wife in the way in which provision is made in this Bill. I make bold to say that the public have nothing to do with the problems and difficulties of these people and that is why I adopt this attitude.

I do not think that we doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s motives in this matter, but I do not think that the analysis given by him is really sound. Many cases come before courts in which the personal details of people are disclosed. Even in actions concerning ordinary commercial transactions, and in actions arising out of breach of contract, you have a considerable amount of intimate details of people disclosed in open court. I do appreciate that the hon. the Minister has had certain advice in this matter with regard to what takes place in these maintenance courts. In Johannesburg particularly where a considerable amount of investigation and inquiry takes place in the maintenance court, we possibly have the best example of how lurid details which should not be published are disclosed to the public. All that we are asking for here is that a permissive right should remain in the hands of the presiding magistrate to clear the court when he feels that it is necessary. I do not think that these maintenance cases very often involve any intimate details with regard to children. Most of them are concerned not only with the failure of the husband to provide maintenance for his wife and children but very often a stubborn refusal to do so. In these cases you often get the type of individual who avoids working in order to avoid paying maintenance. The fact that these cases are heard in open court is an important deterrent. I say that the hon. the Minister, who has been advised in this matter, has taken the matter a little too far. In the case of the Children’s Court one can well understand that in cases in which children themselves may be exposed to the public glare, the proceedings should be held in camera.

But why must the poor women be exposed to the glare of publicity?

No, it is not a question of the woman being exposed; the person who is really exposed is the person who fails to pay the maintenance. We who have experience of these cases realize that it is necessary on the rare occasions only to clear a court because the details become a little too intimate and a little too lurid. In general, however, the position is no different from that in any other civil action where an individual claims payment from another.

In what way does it concern the public?

Everything concerns the public. One might as well close all preparatory examinations and all inquiries under the Insolvency Act and all inquiries under the Companies Act to the public. If the Minister wants to argue that way, of what concern are these cases to the public? The whole principle which is at stake here is that justice must be dispensed and be seen to be dispensed. All that the Minister is concerned with is to protect people from the glare of publicity, and in the case of children one can quite understand that. We are not having a controversy with the Minister to score a point against him; after all, he is the Minister of Justice. We are dealing with an important principle in the dispensation of justice, but I do not think that it is. necessary to have this type of case heard in camera unless the magistrate is prepared to admit persons whom the Minister says either of the parties may ask should be admitted. The principle here in my view does not differ from the principle in any other case. If in terms of the amendment the magistrate had the discretionary power to clear the court, then I feel that the difficulty of which the Minister has been advised would be fully met. We are not disputing the motive of the Minister or his sincerity. But we do feel that in this type of case this is a serious intrusion into the important principle of justice that justice must be dispensed openly—to the knowledge and to the view of the public. For that reason, Sir, an appeal is made to the Minister to reconsider this matter and to view it in that light namely that in most cases it will be purely a dispute between two persons, a dispute of a commercial nature, the question of whether the individual can pay, why does he not pay and what penalties the magistrate should impose to oblige him to carry out his duty.

We are dealing here with two apparently conflicting principles. The one is a principle with which the hon. the Minister agrees, a principle which has been the basis of our administration of justice in the Western world for hundreds of years and that is that we are against secret tribunals of any kind and that the courts must perform their functions openly so that justice can be seen to be done. On the other side and apparently opposed to that—I say this advisedly—is the desire of all of us that no child in particular or person should be harmed through adverse publicity or through his affairs being exposed to public gaze when that can be avoided. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that we must try to reconcile those two things in respect of this piece of legislation. I would suggest with great respect that this amendment does that very satisfactorily. Whilst it upholds the first principle, upon which all our courts have functioned for a very long time, namely that justice is seen to be done between parties, it makes provision at the same time for the proceedings to be held in camera where there is a danger of children or parties being injured through their affairs being made public. That is exactly what this amendment is designed to do. I do suggest that you cannot accommodate those two principles better than is done in this particular amendment.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to think back to his own practice. The “spice ”—for want of a better word—which one reads about in regard to matrimonial affairs emerges from proceedings not in the maintenance court but in the divorce court. It is largely matrimonial cases which provide that sort of sensational information. I am sure you will agree, Sir, that the proceedings in a maintenance court usually involve how much is to be paid; not whether there is a liability to pay but simply how much should be paid for the maintenance of the wife. That is not a subject which, in nine cases out of ten, involves any sort of “spicy” evidence at all. It is a simple issue of £. s. d. and what the needs of the parties are. If you look at the type of proceedings with which we are dealing here, you will see that we are not concerned with the more extravagant type of evidence, not with the more spicy type of evidence, but with the more mundane type of evidence in the maintenance court.

As the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) pointed out if one places too much emphasis on this question of protecting people from their affairs being made known, then one must hold in camera a good half of all the cases that appear in court. A great many criminal trials involve this type of evidence; a great many defamation actions do and a great many matrimonial actions do. Even many apparently simple commercial suits involve the court delving into the private affairs of the parties. We cannot do anything about that if we are to maintain the principle of our courts acting on the basis that justice must be seen to be applied. But so far as humanly possible in maintenance actions we have made provision for that by giving to the presiding officer the discretion to exclude the public and the Press where intimate affairs are being discussed and where it will be detrimental for those affairs to be aired abroad.

I would suggest so far as the Minister has suggested that the Press can get to the documents, that there is a practical difficulty involved. We know the principle is that these documents are public documents. But there again, if the hon. the Minister thinks back to his practice he will realize that in many of these courts the evidence is taken down mechanically or in shorthand. I believe the position to be that that evidence is not transcribed unless there is an appeal or a review or some further proceedings.

That is only in the regional courts.

But I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the tendency is to increase the artificial taking down of evidence in the magistrates’ courts because it saves so much time. If that is done, Sir, the Press, although it has access to those documents, will not in fact have access to them. That is a minor point, Sir; I merely add it as a pebble on the pile. But I do suggest that if the Minister reconsiders this amendment he will come to the conclusion that it is a very happy reconciliation of these two apparently conflicting principles.

It is perfectly true what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has said, namely that the principle of the case is merely how much is to be paid. Let us take this honourable House as an example. The principle of a Bill is very often very minor and easy but hon. members discuss that very minor principle for days and days on end and bring in all sorts of extraneous arguments. That is exactly what is happening in every maintenance case. Let me give the hon. member an example. He will remember there was a maintenance case involving a university professor in the Western Cape last year. For days and days it was frontpage news in all the newspapers in Cape Town. It all depends on the amount of spice that can be had out of any case.

*My argument is that I am not closing the door. Those people who want to have their affairs broadcast are at liberty to do so. They can ask the presiding magistrate whether the public can come and listen to the case. If they direct that request to the presiding official I do not believe for one moment that he will refuse it. But I do believe that as a general principle—and I feel very strongly about this —it is not necessary, as far as these intimate matters are concerned, that there should be other people as witnesses. To say the honest truth, Sir, I am more and more inclined to think that the difficulties and problems of the whole world which confront us to-day are due to the fact that the one person is too inclined to poke his nose into the affairs of the other person. If everybody would attend more to his own affairs and less to somebody else’s I believe it would be much better. I notice the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) agrees fully with me. He is a man of the world; he knows what this is all about. For those reasons which I have given it is my considered opinion that I cannot accept this amendment.

I appreciate the Minister’s position and that he will not budge from it; that he himself mentioned a point which, I think, shows how necessary it is. He said that the public and the Press had access to affidavits and those documents. It is in those very documents that you get the most scandalous statements made about people which they can then refute in an open court. The court weighs up the evidence, finds those statements entirely without foundation and that fact then becomes well known. If on the other hand you give access to affidavits and documents which can be completely false, as I have said, that will get into the Press and the person concerned will have no opportunity of refuting them. That is just the kind of unexpected result which may flow from this course upon which we are embarking in this Bill.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The proposal in the amendment is to widen slightly the operation of sub-clause (a). As the Bill stands at the moment any maintenance money which a husband has to pay in respect of his wife has to be paid to an officer, an organization or an institution as ordered by the magistrate. As I understood the hon. the Minister he pointed out at an earlier stage that one of the difficulties which arose as far as paying the money to the wife herself was concerned, was that it was sometimes difficult to prove that the money had or had not been paid. I can understand that as a difficulty in certain cases. The proposal here is to include the word “person” in addition to the words “officer, organization or institution” so that in a special case, in the magistrate’s discretion, he can order the money to be paid to the wife personally rather than to some institution which will in turn account to her for that money. I have in mind the position of a woman living in the country remote from any suitable organization in which case it would be more desirable for the money to be paid to her direct. I think it is right that the magistrate should have the discretion to make an order that the money be paid to her direct in that kind of case. Where, of course, there is an institution near by who can receive the money on her behalf he will no doubt make an order that that institution should be the recipient of the money concerned. But it is not difficult to visualize a case where it would be inconvenient and difficult for the woman were the money to be paid to an institution. I want to emphasize that the magistrate should have a discretion. Should difficulties arise in connection with the payment of the money direct to the woman then, of course, a change can always be made. It might involve in any one instance both expense and inconvenience for the woman concerned and this amendment will make it easier for the odd case where an order made in terms of the Bill as it stands may be inconvenient.

There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. member has said. The position is, however, that we have received so many complaints in the past that those people who know much more about these things than the hon. member and myself, have advised us to word the clause as it is worded here as an experiment. If it appears that it does not work in practice, that we experience any difficulties or problems, I shall not hesitate to return to this House and to ask that we insert “person ”. But experience has taught us that if you insert it the persons to whom the maintenance is payable will on every occasion ask that the maintenance be paid to them. Welfare organizations and other people who know much more about these matters and the Department which has had years of experience, feel—and I share that feeling—that with a view to the difficulties which we have had in the past we should leave the clause as it is worded at the moment. Hon. members have not the vaguest idea of the amount of correspondence which has been conducted on this subject, the number of court cases which have followed and that is why it was very deliberately inserted in this clause that in future the money must not be paid over to the individual but that it must be paid to an organization. As it says here, “official, organization or institution ”. If a person lives in a distant part of the country and it is paid to an organization it can easily be paid over by way of a cheque. Let us leave it at that for the moment. Let us see how it works in practice. We have been asked to do this by people who have much more experience of these matters than hon. members and myself. If we find that it does not work the way they told us it would, we can make the change. The hon. member knows that very often these people who receive the maintenance are the very people who have to be guided and advised by the welfare organization. If we can give them the opportunity by means of this to give guidance and advice to those people I think much more of that money will be saved. Hon. members on both sides of the House continually receive complaints from a husband who says: “I am paying maintenance to my wife and she is spending the money on totally different things; my children do not get the money; the money is not spent correctly.” It is as a result of representations made to us that the clause provides what it does.

Before I move the amendment which stands in my name I would like to say to the hon. the Minister in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that what seems to stand between us is the question of children.

Not only children; grown-ups as well.

Oh, then I am not correct in my assumption, Sir, because I was going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the precedent which he quoted as relevant, namely the Children’s Act, would be a proper precedent had this clause been confined to children. If the hon. the Minister were to confine this clause “to such circumstances where children were concerned” then the rule should be no open court.

Then there should be no Press publicity; it says that in the Bill.

If the clause said only where children were involved, then the rule will be that where children are involved no one will be allowed in, and it would have been a different matter. If it said that in other cases the magistrate had a discretion, it would have baan a different matter. But it does not say that. Sir. As the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said, what happened between a husband and wife in a maintenance case is no different from what happened between a husband and wife in a divorce case. As the hon. the Minister said the sort of publicity you would get would depend on what spice there was. It is very difficult, Sir, to conceive of any cases, except criminal cases which is a matter between the State and the individual and in which everyone has an interest, which do not fall in the category mentioned by the Minister, namely cases which concern only the parties before the court. Most civil cases certainly fall within that category; you may find an exception in cases where a principle is involved, such as insurance or hire-purchase cases. So I do ask the Minister to reconsider the position even if he only does so before this Bill goes to the Other Place.

Before I move the amendment standing in my name there is one matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister.

If you move it quickly I will accept it.

Very well, Sir, I move the amendment which stands in my name—

I do not think it needs much elucidation. The clause is in any event an extraordinary clause; without the provisions of this clause it would not be possible to do these things. My amendment is merely to insert the words “prima facie ” which I think was the intention in any event.

Before my time expires I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect of this clause. The hon. the Minister has already pointed this out in his second-reading speech. I refer to the fact that the magistrate’s court would be able to act as a court of review in respect of a Supreme Court order. In this respect one appreciates the difficulty which is involved and, as the Minister put it in the second reading, it is a question of balancing the one up against the other. I think the balance falls, as the Minister has suggested, in favour of having such a situation. There is a situation which could arise and which disturbs one. One very often finds that a wife will agree to divorce her husband—it is not a connived divorce; she has proper grounds for divorce—if she is properly provided for. It may well be that her husband will make all sorts of promises. He may sign an agreement; they then go to court and the court orders that he pays so much maintenance, an amount which he cannot really afford, but he has promised that to her for the purpose of getting the divorce. That agreement is then made an order of court. After a month or two he goes to one of these maintenance courts and says: “My circumstances are such that I cannot really afford to pay this amount.” There is really nothing that can be done. I want to mention this difficulty to the hon. the Minister so that his Department will have cognizance of this sort of thing. It may well be that something can be done within the Department.

We shall watch the position carefully.

I am accepting the hon. member’s amendment. As far as the last portion of his argument is concerned I raised that matter myself and it is perfectly true what the hon. member said. This being an experiment we will see how it works and I will not have any hesitation in coming back to the House if it does not work out the way we think it is going to work.

It is quite obvious, Sir, that we are not able to convince the Minister on the question of the principle. I am very glad that he has accepted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). I had hoped that he would also have accepted the other amendment and insert the word “person ”. This is of course experimental legislation. I must say that there are other points which the Minister might consider further. If he will look at line 6 on page 4 he will find that it almost appears as if the court has a right to make an order against a person who is not before it. I think the wording is a little unfortunate. It reads that the court can make an order against “any person”. In parenthesis, if there are two ex-husbands. the court may come to the conclusion that the one who is appearing before it is not the one who is liable to pay maintenance. I think the wording might be looked at by the hon. Minister. I know we can trust our magistrates …

The court can only make an order against a person who is absent if he has signed what is the equivalent of an admission of guilt.

That is so, Sir, but the court is given the right here to make an order against “any person ”.

Look al Clause 5 (7).

Thank you, that is the answer to the point and I am grateful to the hon. the Minister.

The point of principle involved in my amendment is one of considerable importance. I do hope that although the hon. the Minister is going to insist upon it here, he will at least agree that this is a departure from a well-known principle.

I said so myself.

Yes. I hope there will not be other circumstances in which legislation will be brought before this House in which this Bill is quoted as a precedent for a course of action which might be even more objectionable than the provisions of this clause.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cadman put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and agreed to.

I move the following amendment—

This deals with the appeal to the Bantu Appeal Court. Hon. members will remember that we had an argument about this at an earlier stage under another Bill where I conceded that. I simply wish to restore the status quo namely that the appeal should lie to the Supreme Court instead of to the Bantu Appeal Court. In other words, I merely wish to leave the position as it is at present.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

The present position is that it is usually the position of the husband that changes. As things stand, where there is a maintenance order issued, for example by the Cape Court, any variation must be referred to that court. The law is now being altered, and where the wife who is being maintained has moved to Durban, for instance, the inquiry will occur in Durban. I am very glad to see that in Clause 8 some consideration is given to the position of the husband. He will be entitled to be paid on the basis that a witness for the accused in the case of criminal proceedings is paid. As I understand the position under this Bill, it will not be possible for that husband to be tendered his travelling expenses, for example, from Cape Town to Durban. It is clearly in the interests of justice that he should be heard. I do not intend moving any amendment, but I do hope that some arrangements will be made, at any rate administratively, whereby such a person can have some comparable allowance tendered to him so that he may be able to go to Durban to attend the inquiry.

Is that the defendant?

Yes, the defendant in this case. The person, as it says in Clause 8 (2), against whom an order may be made. The clause says—

At the moment he gets nothing; he is an ordinary accused.

The position at the present moment is that any variation of a Supreme Court Order shall be made in the court in which it was issued. Consequently if a wife moves to Durban and she wants an increase in her maintenance, she has got to come to Cape Town where presumably the husband is. As a result of this law the husband will be placed in a less favourable position. I am very glad that thought has been given to that point.

He is in a better position now than he was.

Not as far as answering the claim for increased maintenance, for example, is concerned. He has got to make his way from Cape Town to Durban, whereas at present if he is living and working in Cape Town, his wife has got to institute the action in Cape Town where he can easily answer the charge; he just goes to court from his work here. I appreciate the thought that has gone into it, which has in fact made provision for his getting a certain payment, but it must be noted that that payment is subject to this provision, “the officer presiding at such inquiry may direct … that that allowance be paid In other words, the matter must be over and done with virtually, before that allowance can be paid Consequently a chap who is hard up and is not paying his maintenance is unlikely to be able to find the money to travel all the way up to Durban, and therefore I think you will find that you will not get the husband’s case, shall I say, put adequately, unless some thought is given to this particular aspect. I am not able to say precisely what should be given. Very often in the case of witnesses in Supreme Court trials, and so forth, the travelling expenses of the witness are tendered in most cases so that they may attend the court. And I simply draw attention to this aspect so that something may be done, probably administratively, or perhaps by way of an amendment at a subsequent stage, which will take account of this difficulty. Otherwise I think you will have the position that a lot of defendants will not appear in court and you will probably therefore get a lot of unwise maintenance orders made because it will all go the wife’s way—I am using the case of a wife as an example.

The hon. member will know that under the Women’s and Children’s Act, even if a wife deserts her husband here in Cape Town and she goes to Durban and lives there, and he does not maintain the children, then she can lodge a complaint in Durban, and then he must come all the way from Cape Town to Durban. If he does not go, he is arrested here and brought there under escort. That has been the position all the time since Union. So now we alleviate the position by giving the Commissioner the discretion, to pay that man as if he were a witness in that case where necessary. Up to now it was impossible to pay him anything at all, even if he was found not guilty. When he was an ordinary accused, no witness fees or any money could be paid to him. So in fact we are making the position better for the defendant under this Bill.

I must say that the ordinary position is that where a man is charged, he is brought before the court in the district in which he resides. It may well be, as the hon. the Minister says, that so far as the Deserted Wives and Children Protection Act is concerned, the position is different.

The offence is committed where the child lives.

I am thinking more particularly of the case where the wife is not perhaps paid maintenance. Where is the offence committed then?

Where he is liable to maintain her.

That of course we can easily solve by looking at the books. But even assuming that the hon. the Minister is correct. we still have got a new class of case, and I suggest that this is the main class of case where these matters arise, namely, a variation of a maintenance order previously made by the court. That type of order in my opinion will much more occupy this new inquiry system than any approach to the courts under the Deserted Wives and Children Protection Act. because under the Deserted Wives and Children Protection Act it was not possible to change an order of maintenance. Under this new arrangement we are going to be able to vary a maintenance order made by the Supreme Court following a divorce action, which will be the main type of case, and in such cases it was essential for anybody seeking to vary that order to go to the court in which the order was made. Now, because of this Bill, that inquiry need not be held in that court but wherever the person being maintained resides. And so that situation will remain requiring attention, and I hope that some further thought will be given to it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15

I move as an amendment—

The amendment seeks to delete these words in Clause 15 (a). As the clause stands, the Minister will have power by notice in the Gazette to make rules prescribing the procedure and rules of evidence to be followed at an inquiry under this Act. We are perfectly content that he shall have power to prescribe the procedure, but my amendment seeks to deprive him of the power to make rules of evidence. We feel that it is a new advance to make rules of evidence. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept this amendment, but since he may not be, I might perhaps advance my arguments in favour of the amendment. I have here two Acts which I just looked at at random; the one is the Railway and Harbours Service Act, No. 22 of 1960, and in Section 32 (1) (f) the Administration, subject to the approval of the Governor-General, may make regulations (f) “regarding the procedure to be observed in dealing with charges of inefficiency or disciplinary contraventions … ”. No right there to make rules of evidence. Again I glanced at the Factories. Machinery and Building Work Act, No. 22 of 1941, and there too, in Section 51 (m), we see that there is the power given to the Governor-General to make regulations dealing with the procedure to be followed, but again nothing in regard to evidence. These were the two Acts that just came to my mind where inquiries involving evidence are held. It is conceivable that there are cases where the power to make rules of evidence is granted, but I doubt it very much, because that would mean that by ministerial order you would be changing what is the substantive law of this country, and I suggest that that is the principle against which this House would have set its face. I may say upon this point that there are in the present Bill before us certain alterations in the law of evidence. They are quite far-reaching and we have not hesitated to support them. But what we feel is that if the Minister has certain things in mind, let him come and bring them before this House by way of amendment so that they can be approved. But simply to delegate powers to alter the substantive law of our country by way of rules is. I suggest, something that we should not embrace, and I hope therefore very much that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to agree to an amendment.

As a lawyer I naturally agree with every word the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has said. I do not like this clause myself. But I am told by the law advisers, and I must accept that position, that this is in fact a hybrid Bill. It does not deal with the civil trial and it does not deal with the criminal trial. It is a bit of both, as the hon. member will readily understand. That being the position, I am told by the law advisers that we must expect to run into quite a few snags as the Bill is put into practice. I know the usual practice is that you say in your Bill, as you have it in the Children’s Act and in the Act quoted by the hon. member, that you can make regulations as to procedure. I am told, however, and I must accept that notwithstanding what the hon. member has said, that we are going to run into some snags if we have not got that provision in the Bill, and until such time as this new court, which is a hybrid court, has worked in practice, I am told that we must have this provision, and therefore unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

May I ask whether the hon. Minister can give us any example of what he has in mind?

Yes, Sir, one example comes to mind and that is Clause 4 (1) where it says that a statement of earnings will be admissible on mere production and will afford prima facie proof of the facts stated therein. The hon. member knows—this is the one example that was given to me off hand when I myself asked for examples—that the mere production of a statement of earnings is not evidence, but in this case it will have to be accepted as prima facie evidence, and I am told that we are going to run into that sort of snag, and it is for that purpose that this was inserted in this clause.

I am sorry that I cannot find myself in agreement with the hon. Minister’s legal advisers in this regard. Surely rules of evidence are rules of evidence. I do appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said that this is a hybrid court inasmuch as it deals with civil cases and criminal cases. It may very well be that the person who appears before the court at an inquiry may be facing both a criminal and a civil charge, or one rolled up into the other. But in seeking to prove the case against the person whom it is alleged is liable to pay maintenance, evidence must be adduced, and the manner for the adduction of that evidence surely must be the rules of evidence which our law and the English law have known for centuries. In other words, if a man disappears, and he will be represented, there must be some limitation to the sort of evidence that can be brought forward, there must be some rules prescribing how it is that one can prove or disprove any fact. Otherwise one would not know where one was.

Naturally the regulations will be published. A court cannot make rules as it goes along.

I appreciate that, but, as the hon. member for Pinelands has suggested, it will involve a change of the common law by proclamation in the Gazette.

You do not know what you are saying.

I am trying to address myself to a problem which the hon. the Minister has put up and himself has difficulty with, a difficult problem on law, and now the hon. member for Heilbron tells me that I do not know what I am saying. If he can explain to this Committee what it is that the law advisers have in mind, I wish he would get up instead of making these extraordinary remarks from the back here. The fact of the matter is that rules of evidence are required and it is true that the hon. Minister will publish them in advance. But rules of evidence applying in criminal and civil cases are of the greatest importance, and with due respect to the hon. Minister, no Minister should have these powers.

I know.

I realize that the hon. Minister does not like it either, but my difficulty is that the hon. Minister has not indicated to me how it is that the substantive rules of evidence are going to be affected in the adduction of evidence in any cases arising in this respect.

The previous speaker has asked me to repeat what I said by way of interjection, namely that the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. He has held a long dissertation and nobody on earth could follow what he wanted to say. What the hon. the Minister told him was perfectly clear, namely that this court would have two functions, it would be a court which would require certain rules of evidence to be applied to criminal cases but that there was also a civil element in this court and our rules of evidence applicable to civil cases would come into operation. It has to be decided which rules of evidence will apply, because not all the rules of evidence applicable to civil cases are applicable to criminal cases and the court is faced with this difficult dilemma: Which set of rules should be applied in a certain case? That being the position the Minister is being empowered to make regulations and those regulations will lay down which rules of evidence will be applicable. The hon. the Minister told him by way of interjection that the court could not, as it went along, lay down rules of evidence. It will be done by way of regulation. No, I think the hon. member should sometimes think before he speaks but he is so addicted to speaking that he does not know what he says.

The hon. member who has just sat down made some rude personal remarks, but I want to address the hon. Minister. I do not think the hon. the Minister has made out a case at all. Our rules of evidence are of long standing. Now the worst that could happen is in a case which has both civil and criminal consequences, and the most serious of those is of course the criminal case; then quite obviously the laws relating to the position under our criminal law will have to apply. If it is a question whether the measure of proof is sufficient, and if it is to be for a criminal case, it would be utterly wrong if whatever is required for proof of the matter is left to be dealt with in terms of a regulation on a matter which does not measure up to the very high standard which applies under our criminal law.

I agree with you.

I do think that this is a very serious inroad. The hon. the Minister has only been able to give us one example.

A probationer officer’s report is another case.

Will the hon. Minister not consider what the circumstances are and try and deal with them more specifically in Another Place? We on this side do not know fully what the difficulties are, but on the other hand this is a provision which as far as I know has no parallel in the statute law of this country.

I know.

I do not believe that the difficulty can be so great that we can depart from what has always been the practice without the fullest reason having been given. The hon. the Minister concedes that he does not like the clause, and I do hope that he will be prepared to go into it further. I am fairly certain that he will be able by quite a simple provision to cover any difficulties that may exist, and I hope he will be prepared to do so in Another Place.

I cannot very well take it much further than I have done already. I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) understands my problem. This is a new court that is being created, and either I must say in this Bill that the rules of evidence of our criminal courts shall apply, or I must say that the rules of evidence in civil cases shall apply. I cannot come along and say in this Bill, as the hon. member wants me to do, that the rules of evidence in criminal and civil cases applicable in South Africa shall apply to this court. Then I have absolute chaos, because it is a hybrid court, and this is a hybrid Bill dealing with both civil and criminal matters. Therefore I must leave this back door open. Candidly, I do not think that we will use it very much, because it stands to reason that the rules of the magistrate’s court as the hon. member knows will be applicable in cases of this kind in 95 out of 100 cases. I am very candid with hon. members when I say that I am not in love with this clause myself, but that is my advice that it is necessary and I cannot possibly go beyond that.

The Minister has admitted quite candidly that he is not enamoured of this clause, and his attitude is that he only introduces it on the advice of his law advisers. We on this side of the House feel strongly about the rules of evidence to be applied in these courts, and we feel that the hon. the Minister should first put this court into practice and if he has any difficulties he can then come to the House and have the Act amended to allow him to provide rules of evidence.

If I find that it cannot work at all?

But the Minister himself has said that the rules of the magistrate's court would apply.

Yes.

Then it can work, and I submit that before we can give the Minister this power, we must be satisfied by examples that the ordinary rules of evidence cannot apply in this new court that he is establishing.

But which set of rules must apply?

I understand what the hon. Minister says. I submit that the rules of best evidence must always apply.

But you can only have the one set or the other.

The hon. Minister has given us one example as to the snags he expects to run into, the proof of earnings. I must say I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that a husband should be allowed merely to submit a statement as to his earnings. There I definitely submit that he should prove what his earnings are. Otherwise how is a wife or anybody else who is interested in a child to disprove what the husband says?

Suppose a man works for you. He must appear in court and he comes along to you and says: “Mr. Hughes, I must appear in court to-morrow and must prove to the court that you pay me R90 a month.” You give him a certificate to that effect. If you do not want this to be sufficient, then you will have to be subpoenaed and go to court to tell the court what you pay this man.

The hon. Minister mentions the case of a man who has a certificate from his employer. Now in a criminal case the prosecutor can agree to accept the certificate, and in a civil case the person representing the other party, or the party himself, can agree to accept the certificate, and in maintenance cases there is going to be somebody representing the other side, either the wife herself or somebody representing the child. I submit there again that the person representing the other party can say “I am prepared to accept that certificate ”. But if the other party is not satisfied with the certificate, they can say “No, I am not prepared to accept the certificate, I want the employer here himself”. Therefore I feel that the ordinary rule should apply of best evidence, and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment now, and if he finds that this court is having difficulties, he can come next year and tell us exactly what his troubles are so that we then can give him the power to make these rules if necessary.

Would the hon. Minister not consider amending this clause so as to add after the word “Act” in line 56, words such as “where no provision is made in the common law”, Then I think it will be limited to the circumstances where the law does not already provide the procedure or the rule of evidence. Then I think we would have no objection.

I cannot agree to that now, but if necessary I will move an amendment in the Other Place.

It does not seem to me that hon. members realize the dilemma of the hon. Minister. Let me take this position: Supposing the civil aspect of a case crops up but if it is a criminal case there is a rule which lays down that in a criminal case the proof must be such that it is completely conclusive, it has to be absolute proof. In a civil case it is the balance of probabilities which counts. Which rule should apply. If it is the civil aspect the balance of probabilities must be the deciding factor but if you apply the rules applicable to criminal cases, the proof must be conclusive. Which set of rules must be applied in such a case? Or you can reverse the position. Let it be a criminal case. Must the civil rules of evidence apply, namely must the balance of probabilities count? There are many complicated difficulties which hon. members cannot anticipate. Even the amendment which has been suggested will not offer a solution. You will have to draw up a separate set of rules, Sir. I can well imagine that neither the hon. the Minister nor hon. members like this but from the nature of the case we must simply reconcile ourselves to the fact that it is a sort of dilemma which we will only be able to overcome in this way.

The hon. the Minister admits that he is introducing legislation here which is really an innovation in the method of determining rules of evidence for a specialized court. He has indicated that he himself is not very happy about the matter and that he can see that there are difficulties ahead. Under those circumstances I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider, at the Report Stage, or if necessary in the Other Place, introducing some safeguard such as laying down that the rules and regulations made in terms of this clause will be laid on the Table of this House and will cease to be effective unless by resolution of this House they are approved.

All regulations are laid on the Table.

I know, but I am adding the proviso that such regulations shall not continue to be in force after, say, six months if Parliament does not pass a resolution approving of the regulations. There are safeguards of this nature in much of our legislation. It is one of the safeguards which Parliament uses when difficulties of this nature arise. Here is an experiment and it seems to me an appropriate type of safeguard to introduce. Firstly it will ensure that regulations are made with great care, and secondly, it gives this House an opportunity to debate what has been done.

But the House has that opportunity.

It never has the opportunity if regulations are just laid on the Table of the House.

Why not?

Can the hon. Minister tell me when the opportunity has ever arisen in this House?

It can be done by substantive motion at any time?

From your side of the Houses, but not from this side of the House.

Of course.

I have still to learn of any provision by which that can be done by a substantive motion from this side of the House. If I am wrong, I will only be too glad if the hon. Minister tells me where I am wrong. But that is why these safeguards are put into the legislation itself. I am only at the present moment asking the hon. Minister whether he will give consideration to a safeguard of that nature to overcome the difficulty which a clause of this nature introduces now into legislation affecting courts. It is an innovation, it is an experiment, and it seems to me that this is an appropriate case for some form of safeguard being provided by the legislature itself. My inquiry at present is simply: Will the hon. Minister give consideration to a safeguard of that nature?

Of course I will, but I do not think it is feasible.

I am sorry to take up more time of the House, but I am encouraged by the hon. Minister himself, and also by the fact that he has said that he will look into it when the Bill goes to the Other Place. But I want to say that I do believe that the hon. Minister may possibly be relying on what I think is a misconception. It seems to me that this Bill does not really create a hybrid court in any way. In all these clauses, except Clause 11, it creates a court to hear civil matters. In Clause 11 it deals with the criminal aspects, and the only point at all where there is overlapping as far as evidence is concerned is in Clause 13 where you may have a normal criminal charge, as it were, converted into an inquiry. Only in such a case could there be any question of hybridness as far as the evidence is concerned. Consequently you would have quite clearly on the civil side the civil rules of evidence applying, and on the criminal side the criminal rules, and that being so I suggest that there is nothing to be frightened of and therefore to make a special reservation such as Clause 15 contains. I say further that this Bill has been carefully thought out, I think, and the Department has not in fact suggested to the Minister any other changes in the rules of evidence beyond these already incorporated, notwithstanding that they went into it carefully.

I am very glad that the Minister is reluctant to do so and I therefore suggest that he would do well, before departing from such a sound attitude, to take the advice also of his other advisers, the Law Societies and the General Bar Council, who are particularly experienced in questions of evidence. One has to be a practitioner in the courts to have a full knowledge of the rules of evidence and I suggest that people less well placed may not always be the best advisers. So I will not take it any further beyond saying that since the Minister has said that he will look into the position and come forward with an amendment, if necessary, in the Other Place, I will not press this amendment.

I just want to express the hope that the Minister will find an amendment because we will then be much happier about it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

I want to move an amendment here—

The reason for moving this amendment is to give effect to the decision in the case of Rex v. Rantsoane (1952 (3) S.A., page 281). That is the position of a father and child as far as the Bantu are concerned. If we do not put this into schedule we will be disturbing the status quo in accordance with that decision, and that is why I move the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I had stated that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) had based his arguments almost entirely on the financial position of the provinces. He put the case as if without money it would be impossible to implement any of these promises which the Minister makes in the Bill. I said last night, and I repeat, that the financial position of our country remains the same, whether the provinces or the Government pay for the education of the Coloureds, and to me this legislation is nothing else than pure apartheid legislation. The effort that the Government is. making to separate the races one from the other is brought out again in this piece of legislation, but more forcibly than ever because the Coloured people to us on this side of the House should be kept together with the: White people.

In the schools, too?

There are two groups affected by this Bill, firstly the provinces and secondly the Coloured people. If this Bill is passed it will be another form of erosion of the powers of the provinces. It will make their powers less than they are now, and especially in the Cape where the province plays such a terrific part in the education of both the White and the Coloured people. Because of the large numbers of Coloureds in the Cape, this province will feel it more than any other province. Then it would seem to me that in the very near future the whole of the educational activities of the province will be taken out of their hands. The sign is that to-day we take away Coloured education from the provinces but in the near future we will take away White education. It means that the provincial council will become less and less effective.

Now, what about the Coloured people? Is there any evidence that the Minister has given us, is there any evidence from any of the men on the Government side, that the Coloured people have asked for this? The very best that can be said for the Minister is that one or two groups of Coloured people have said that they would agree to it under certain conditions. But what is the position of the Coloured people? Can they resist this Bill? I feel sure that if they were represented in this House themselves they would stand up and fight this Bill.

They have their representatives, you know.

Well, let us see what their representatives have done. They have done exactly the same as the Coloured people would have to do. They will accept this Bill only under certain conditions, which are laid down in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula. Those are the conditions which the Coloured people will have to accept; they have no alternative. What do we expect them to do? To stop teaching in the schools and go on strike? Do we expect the little Coloured children to remain away from school? No, these people will go there and try to compromise, against their wishes. There is no reason in the world why the provincial councils should not continue the good work they are doing now. The groups of people who have said that they would agree to this Bill under certain conditions are only two in number. They are the Union Council for Coloured Affairs and the Coloured People’s National Union. The T.E.P.A. have stated categorically this morning that it is not true that the proposal for the transfer has the support of the Coloured people. Why give the House the impression that this Bill is going to be accepted with open arms by the Coloured people?

According to you, T.E.P.A. speaks on behalf of them all.

They say they speak on behalf of the Coloured people. They say it is not true that the Coloured people are going to accept it, and if it is true that they will accept it and that they have asked for this Bill, I want the Minister to tell us where and how and when they did it.

This follows the natural apartheid pattern that has been carried out over the past 15 years, and here we must remember one very important statement that hits the nail on the head. It was made by the Prime Minister in Pretoria on 16 August 1961 when he said that when he speaks of the nation of South Africa he speaks of the White people of South Africa. We on this side say that the Coloured people belong with the White people of South Africa and they must not be separated from the White people.

Also in so far as the schools are concerned?

I will come to that in a moment. The White people have been partners in the formation of the Coloured race, and they cannot and shall not ever be able to get away from that. That is going to be with us always. We are responsible for them and we must carry out our obligations to them.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, that remark from the hon. member, a Whip of the party, is one which I think he should withdraw even without your request. It is unbecoming either from a Whip or from any other member. I am sure he regrets having made it, even as a joke.

This is then my question. Are we going to take the Coloured people along with us on the road to our united South African future, or are we going to leave them on a by-pass, as the Minister intends doing? That is the position. It is not a main road; it is a by-pass, and that is where they will be left to fend for themselves. I say the time has come where every single person who can be educated should be educated as well as possible and I do not think that this is the best way of doing it. The reason for it is that we have a tried system. It is efficient. It has been accepted in South Africa. It has proved over and over again that it is an efficient system and one which should be nurtured and encouraged and not one which should be destroyed, and by this type of legislation only one thing can happen, that education as a whole will be taken away from the province. Can the Minister give me one example of why his Department will be able to do better than the province?

Why not?

When the Minister replies he must tell us why and how he can do better.

You tell us why not.

I will tell the hon. member for Ceres. It is because of the experience of the Provincial Councils and their ability to do a job of work apart from apartheid. That is why they can do it better, and this can only be a failure because of the changeover, if nothing else. This changeover may be very serious.

Do the provinces apply apartheid in the schools? And do you want it changed?

The Minister wants to know whether the provinces practise apartheid. I say I want the provinces to be left in charge and I do not want the Department of Coloured Affairs to take it over, because if that happens we can only expect failure.

The Minister wants to imply that this side of the House are against segregation. He wants to imply that we want mixed schools.

No, I am only asking the question because you are against apartheid.

But the implications are quite obvious. Did I ever say at any time that I was against segregation, against social segregation? Did any member on this side say so? [Interjections.] If that is the way the Minister is going to conduct the affairs of the Coloured Affairs Department, we are in for a very sorry time.

But you are fighting the Bill on the basis of apartheid.

What possible good can come to the Coloured people that cannot be given to them now if we remain as we are but only increase the Government subsidies to the provinces? The whole argument of the hon. member for Parow was based on finance, and it became quite obvious that if the Government improved the financial position of the provinces this Bill would be redundant; it would be of no value at all. Why then does not the Government do it the easy way and leave the machinery functioning, and give the money that is needed to the provinces? No, rather than that they will take it away from the provinces and give it over into another little sphere so that the country can use its old manoeuvre of divide and rule.

Is it a good thing for the Coloured people to be separated entirely from the White people in South Africa, where we have such a growing necessity to increase the population that can take part in our development? I feel that with the machinery the provinces have and with the access from the provincial schools to the universities the time has come for us to encourage through the easiest of channels every single person irrespective of his colour to go to a university to fill our needs which are growing day by day.

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

The whole future of the country depends on the education of its people. The whole future of the Coloureds depends on their education now, and if any process should be introduced at any stage, now or later, which will prevent the Coloured people from fulfilling the duty they have to this country and for us to prevent them from taking the opportunities that are offering, it is pertinent to this Bill. I feel we are going backwards instead of forwards, and that the time has come to educate every single Coloured person we possibly can so that they can fill these vacancies in the ranks of the higher educated people, in the professions and in technology and commerce. Now is the time for us to help them along in their growth and all that we are doing is to change horses in midstream and we are going to set back this clock of progress.

Another thing is this. We have been hearing so much about the cost. Will it be cheaper to have a duplication of services, to have education under three headings, Bantu Education, Coloured Education and White Education? Is that economical? The Minister must tell us how he will save on it and how he will perform the duties the provinces have been doing. But what is much more important, the Minister must be honest and tell us why he is doing this. I do not think these promises which the Minister made will be carried out in the near future. I do not think there will be a sudden rise in salaries for every Coloured teacher, or a sudden uplifting and up-grading of the Coloured teachers so that they will all suddenly become inspectors of schools. The changes will have to be very gradual indeed and I think those Coloured people who are going to accept this Bill as a gift from the Gods will be very disappointed. They will soon find that they will be treated as civil servants and that their movements will be restricted and that their jobs and their positions will be changed from place to place without their having a say in it and that the Minister will be the one to decide whether a man who has lived all his life in the Cape shall not be transferred to the Transvaal. It will be the Minister who will decide whether or not a teacher shall be made an official in the Department. Those are the things which will happen and which do not happen now. The difference is this, that in the future someone from Natal may be shifted to the Cape. At present a Natalian can only be moved to some other part of Natal, and the same in the Transvaal, but now he will be able to be taken from one province and sent to another province. The Minister smiles as if that does not mean anything, but to those people who have lived their lives in one province, this sort of thing can be almost tragic.

Another thing is that I do not know where the Minister will get his personnel from, unless he takes it from the provinces, and there will be a shortage either in the new Department or in the provinces, because it is known to us that the people who are working in the provinces to-day look after both sections of the population, the Whites and the Coloureds. But here a totally new Department will arise and a whole new set-up and a whole new staff will have to be found, and if the Minister can tell me that he has sufficient people to duplicate this service throughout the country I say he has no cause at all to talk about financial difficulties. We on this side of the House are a little tired …

So are we.

… of all the barriers that are put up, of all the separation that is going on, of all the control boards that are being set up, and this is another form of control. That is all it is, another form of control, so that one body shall control the destinies of another body and teach them and control them and indoctrinate them slowly but surely to accept apartheid and to accept an inferior position to the White man, and to let them feel that for ever and ever they have a place here in the country that is always just a little bit below the best.

In this debate we have the remarkable phenomenon—I would almost say the “anomaly ”—that the representatives of the Coloureds, the legal representatives of the Coloured population, the people who are the mouthpieces for the Coloureds, support and subscribe to the broad principles of this legislation, but the measure is opposed by the official Opposition. The people who have the interests of the Coloureds and of their children very much at heart are the official representatives of the Coloureds. It is true that they have come along with requests that certain assurances be given and they have come forward with certain demands, but nevertheless as far as broad principles are concerned they support this Bill. I was struck particularly by the fact that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who has just sat down, made an attack yesterday evening on the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) because the latter had given his support to the motion of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. (Bloomberg). The hon. member for Karoo, who knows the Coloureds particularly well, who knows the circumstances under which they live and who also knows the circumstances connected with their schools, spoke with approval of the work which has already been done by the Department of Coloured Affairs, and in the light of what has already been done he anticipates that this new venture will be crowned with success. That was how he put it, but the hon. member for Rosettenville reproached him and said, “If he wanted to approach the subject in the manner in which he did he had no right to second the amendment of his Leader.”

What can the official Opposition gain by opposing this legislation in this way? Their only object is to make political capital out of it. I regard none of the arguments which have been advanced from the other side as valid arguments, as arguments which convince me that the status quo of divided education as far as the Coloureds are concerned should be maintained. I think the arguments advanced by the Opposition impel me even more to believe that it is a good step to place education for the Coloureds under the Department of Coloured Affairs.

I should like to refer to certain observations which the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) made on Thursday evening when he was discussing his amendment. The hon. member talked about duplication; he said that this whole venture would lead to duplication. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present but I should have liked to have heard from him what he means by duplication. This Department is going to control approximately 298,000 Coloured pupils who will be transferred from the various provinces if this legislation goes through, and in addition to that it will also control the other pupils at the various schools which have already been placed under the jurisdiction of this Department. I cannot see how there is going to be duplication. This will be a big Department. One need only think of the small Department of Education in the O.F.S. and the still smaller department in South West Africa, where there are far fewer pupils, and then ask oneself whether there is any duplication in the case of these smaller departments. In addition to that, the hon. member for Hillbrow also stated, amongst other things, that there would be four or five directors. Surely the whole idea is to consolidate and to obtain uniformity. The argument has also been advanced, more or less along the same lines, by the hon. member who has just sat down that there are not enough officials to cope with the administration of this Department. But surely it is obvious that some of our most capable officials will be drawn to this Department to take over the control—officials who in due course will be replaced by capable Coloureds. We heard here yesterday from the hon. member for Karoo that there is not a single Coloured occupying an administrative post in the Cape Education Department, in the section which controls Coloured education. After all, it is the intention to appoint Coloureds in due course to those administrative posts. Let us accept that there will be a transition period, but surely the idea to work along those lines is the right one.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), in discussing this Bill on Thursday evening said: “It is not a matter for figures”. That is what the Opposition want to do; they continually want to run away from facts which are supported by statistics and they refuse to take those statistics into consideration. Hon. members on this side, and even the hon. member for Peninsula, have disclosed statistics here which are significant and very revealing. Then the hon. member for South Coast also talked about “generalities ”. That is precisely what the Opposition are doing; they are generalizing in connection with this whole matter.

May I go on to deal with the observations made a moment ago by the hon. member for Rosettenville. Amongst other things he said, “The Coloured people should be kept together with the White people ”. Again we ask him: Are they to be kept together in the same schools? The hon. member who moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition went into the history of this matter and pointed out that separate schools existed in the Cape in the previous century already and also in the Transvaal. That arrangement was confirmed in the Transvaal by Ordinance No. 7 of 1903 by none other than Lord Milner. It was also followed and confirmed later on by General Smuts. It is perfectly clear therefore that this separation at school was introduced a very long time ago, and under this Bill that separation will continue to be maintained.

Just as in our approach to our national problems, so too in connection with this attempt to place Coloured Education under the Department of Coloured Affairs, the Government is guided by sound judgment, by a sense of fairness, a sense of balance and a sense of justice and above all it is guided by its conscience. As against that the Opposition’s attitude is stimulated by the desire to gain cheap popularity, temporary advantage; it is motivated by political opportunism and the hope to make political capital out of a particular situation and also out of this situation. I shall not be surprised if one of these days the member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) goes along to one of his meetings and talks about this Government, in pursuance of this legislation, as a Government of “Kleurling-boeties ”. The Opposition have always opposed the obvious, positive developmental pattern of the Government’s policy. The opposition, the obstruction, on the part of the Opposition in respect of this legislation has once again revealed …

Order! The hon. member may not accuse hon. members of obstruction.

I withdraw that, but I say that this opposition on the part of the Opposition in respect of this legislation is a manifestation once again of its obsession to oppose all positive and all constructive legislation which is designed for the benefit of a particular group. I want to emphasize at once too that this legislation is in no way discriminatory; it rather seeks to differentiate and to consolidate.

The Opposition have never in the past done anything positive and constructive for the Coloured with a view to uplifting him in the social and economic spheres. They have always been so obsessed with their policy of integration that the Opposition have never adopted a positive policy; they have never had a real programme of upliftment of the Coloured in the sphere of education and in the social and economic spheres. The attitude that the Opposition adopts reminds me very much of the story of the White missionary who was serving a congregation of Coloureds and who did very little in the way of visiting the homes of members of his congregation but who preached at great length on Sundays. When the missionary left, one of the Coloured elders said, “dear members of the congregation, our parson was a very good person but in the course of the week he neglected his sheep; he did not look after the scab-infected sheep and on Sundays he killed them by overdipping.” That is precisely what the Opposition are doing now. They neglected the Coloureds and now they come along with long speeches and try to give the impression that they are overflowing with goodwill towards the Coloureds.

As against that, the Government drew up a clear programme and, step by step, after very careful consultation, the whole of that programme is being implemented. The hon. member for Hillbrow, in the course of his speech, reproached the Government for not having given sufficient subsidies to the provinces in order to be able to place Coloured education at a sufficiently high level. That argument has already been refuted in a very capable way by previous speakers on this side. I do not want to repeat the data and the statistics which have already been used, but I just want to refer to a period of five years under the rule of the Opposition, from 1940 to 1945. In those years the number of Coloured pupils did not increase at the same rate at which the population increased as was the case in the five years during which the National Party ruled from 1950 to 1955. On a percentage basis, the increase during this period of five years under United Party rule in the Cape Province was 23 per cent, and under the National Party Government the increase was 28 per cent—and that was in the initial years of the National Party rule. The State subsidies, which increased proportionately of course, increased more during the period when the National Party was in power.

In view of the fact that the Transvaal has the second largest number of Coloured pupils, I should like to mention a few facts in connection with this province. The background in connection with Coloured education has already been given by other speakers and I do not want to weary the House with further facts in this connection. There is one aspect that I should like to emphasize. In spite of the fact that there have been separate schools for Indians in the Transvaal since 1911, there are still mixed schools to-day for Indians and Coloureds. In 1962 there were 42 schools for Coloureds only in the Transvaal and 38 mixed schools where Coloureds and Indians receive their education together. In the 42 Coloured schools there were something like 18,849 pupils; in the mixed schools there were 12,810. The latest statistics in connection with the number of pupils in schools which are for Coloureds only and in mixed schools show there are 31,659. If the Indians are not added, the number will be considerably smaller. At the moment the educational institutions in the Transvaal are divided as follows: One teachers’ college, two secondary schools and 77 primary schools, a total of 80 institutions. The Transvaal Department, as we know, has full control over all these schools since there are no State-aided Coloured schools in the Transvaal.

Why can’t you do better?

The instruction in the schools in question is not inferior; it is equal instruction. What I should like to emphasize here is the fact that in spite of the good services which are being rendered by the Transvaal Education Department, the Coloured group, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, constitutes a small percentage of a very large number of White and non-White pupils. In June 1962 there were about 220,000 pupils in Transvaal primary schools and 105,500 in the secondary schools, a total therefore of 325,500. Of this number, the Coloureds, both in the schools for Coloureds only and in the mixed schools, constitute 9.6 per cent, and when it is borne in mind that a large number of those pupils are Indians, then the percentage of Coloured pupils is possibly even as low as 7 per cent. The point that I want to drive home here is that under this divided system of control with the best will in the world full justice cannot be done to the Coloured pupils, constituting as they do such a small percentage of the total number of pupils. Their curriculum and methods of instruction are fashioned on the same pattern as that applying to the vast majority, that is, the White pupils, and that pattern is one which not suited to the character and the requirements of the Coloureds.

In certain secondary schools in the Transvaal, instruction is only given by White teachers, and generally speaking the instruction of the child must surely be purposeful and have a definite object in view. That is an axiom which is accepted in education. This object can best be achieved if the education of Coloured children is provided by Coloureds to Coloured, because the Coloured teacher is best able to reach the soul of the Coloured child. This ideal cannot be achieved sooner and better under the system of divided control of education; it can best be achieved when there is no longer divided control of education. Under this new legislation there will be greater opportunities for adaptation to the requirements of the pupils; to take into consideration the individual aptitude and capability of the pupil and to offer, in addition to the academic courses, a more practical course, the object of which is to prepare the child for a calling; to send out into the world a better equipped and more balanced individual and to guide him in the direction for which he is best equipped so that he can become a great asset to his community. Mr. Speaker, who are the people who are most strenuously opposed to this legislation? They are persons who are protesting because their minds have been poisoned politically, on the one hand by certain newspapers and on the other hand by liberals who in season and out of season oppose the idea of transferring Coloured Education. One can well understand that the attitude of the official Opposition as such adds grist to their mill. Then there are those individuals who attribute the wrong motives to the Department in its praiseworthy attempt to take over Coloured Education. There are certain persons who refuse to co-operate because in their particular areas they would like to pose as heroes. Then there are also those persons, amongst whom there are also teachers, who try to obstruct this measure because they personally do not like certain clauses contained in it.

By means of this legislation the Government seeks to lay a sound basis for Coloured education, even better than in the past, so that in due course the Coloured will be able to make his contribution in the professional, the commercial and the industrial spheres. In this way the Coloured, in his own way, will be able to make a positive contribution to his own development and therefore to the development of the Coloured community in general. Moreover, in due course the Coloureds will be given the opportunity also, as a section of the population, to make their contribution in various spheres to the Republic’s further development. It will also provide the greatest incentive to patriotism and the Coloured will continue to feel that he can make his contribution on an equal basis with the White man.

Finally, this Bill provides for the central administration of all educational institutions —universities, training colleges, secondary and primary schools, vocational and special schools. I maintain that this is a far-reaching improvement on the fragmentation that we have heard so much about that exists under the provincial systems of control and even under the systems of State-aided schools. It is even an improvement—and I say this as an educationist—on the existing system of divided control of White education in the various provinces and under the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

The reasons which I am going to give for opposing this Bill are not the reasons which have been mentioned by the hon. member who has just sat down. I am going to quote some other reasons given by another hon. member on a different occasion. That hon. member at that time said—

That is one good reason why I am opposed to this Bill. The other reason is this: The hon. member at that time said—

The hon. member went on to say—

The hon. member who gave those very cogent reasons for leaving education under the control of the existing authorities for not dividing education, for not making education the scientific instrument for turning children out the way the State want to turn them out, was none other than the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) when he spoke in 1953 and made what I consider to be by far the best speech on the Bantu Education Bill when it was introduced in this House.

I said yesterday that it was indivisible.

The hon. member said it was indivisible; but he also said yesterday that Coloured Education should go to the Department of Coloured Affairs and Bantu Education to the Department of Bantu Education rather than continuing to stay with the provinces, which in 1953 he said should continue to control education until all education was taken away from the provinces. Sir, in 1953 the hon. member for Fort Beaufort spoke like an educationist; yesterday he spoke like a Nationalist politician.

No, in those days he spoke like a United Party man, which he was.

I agree 100 per cent with what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said in 1953 when he was still talking as an educationist, and for those major, cogent reasons which he advanced in opposing the take-over of Bantu education from the provinces and handing over Bantu education to the Bantu Administration Department (now the Bantu Education Department) I oppose the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces to the Coloured Affairs Department. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Coloured people, the Coloured teachers or the Dutch Reformed Mission Church, which controls more Coloured schools in fact than the State, want this transfer, despite the statement made by the hon. Minister when he introduced this Bill. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that they opposed any such transfer, and they only accepted it finally because it was a fait accompli. As far as they are concerned they know that this transfer is going to take place. They know that despite any arguments that are advanced in this House this is going to happen, and therefore they have decided to make the best of a bad job. Thus the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Mission Church at its meeting in October last year, by a large majority, re-affirmed the decision which was taken by a previous Synod against the transfer of Coloured education to the Coloured Affairs Department. The Moderator on that occasion reiterated the unanimous view of the people with whom the matter has been discussed, and that is that the Coloured people did not support this transfer. It was made clear that—

That is to say, in view of the fact that they knew that it was going to be a fait accompli. The Teachers Educational and Professional association, which has been referred to on several occasions during this debate, also made it clear in its statement that it was opposed to the transfer as such but that it simply had to accept the transfer because they knew it was going to come about, and it stated—

In this morning’s Cape Times there was a reiteration of the opposition of the T.E.P.A. to the transfer of education and they stated—

It then goes on to quote a whole list of organizations and associations which are dead against the transfer of Coloured education. Sir, the Coloured Affairs Council was prepared to accept the transfer under certain very specific conditions and the first of those conditions was that Coloured Education should be made compulsory; also, that the school leaving age and the standard should be raised; that Coloured teachers should be paid on the same basis as White teachers; that Coloured parents should be given the right to decide on the language medium, and that parallel-medium education should be adopted in all Coloured schools. Those are the conditions which the Coloured Affairs Council laid down prior to their accepting this transfer of education. I maintain that this Bill in no way fulfils any of those conditions, nor, incidentally, does the Bill reflect the undertakings and the assurances that were actually given by officials of the Coloured Affairs Department when consultation with Coloured teachers took place—the assurance given, for instance, by the Director of Education in the Department of Coloured Affairs who said—

If we look at Clause 14 of the Bill we find that after the Bill becomes law, teachers may be transferred from any post to any other post at any other school whether or not such is a transfer to a post of a lower grade; so not even the assurance that the conditions of service at least would remain the same, is in fact being carried out in this Bill. Clause 14 (4) (a) of this Bill lays down that the teachers may be moved to non-teaching posts anywhere within the Republic or South West Africa in the service of the State.

The hand of Helen Suzman and the voice of van der Ross.

Well, Sir, I have the greatest respect for Dr. van der Ross’ knowledge of Coloured education. I dare say there are very few people in this country who know more about it than Dr. van der Ross. I would be prepared to receive any assistance which he would be prepared to give me. Unfortunately no contribution has been forthcoming in this debate. I make a public announcement that all contributions will be gratefully received in future.

Under Clause 15 any person may be discharged from a school if, in the opinion of the Minister, his discharge will promote economy in the school in question. The Director of Coloured Education in the Coloured Affairs Department also gave another assurance. He said that present rights and privileges would be secured. He also stated that appointments would be based solely on academic merit. If a teacher was anti-C.A.D., he said that was his business. I have the quotation here if the hon. the Minister wants it. If you look under the misconduct clause, Clause 16, you will find that a teacher may not be a member of a political party, may not take any active part in party political matters, may not belong to any organization to which the Minister decides he may not belong, may not publicly criticize the administration of any department, office or institution of State. This is great freedom of action and freedom of thought on the part of the teachers! [Interjections.] I would have thought that after all the speeches I have made in this House over the past ten years it would have been obvious to the hon. member that I dislike emphatically any control of an individual from above. I dislike this interference in every single facet of one’s life. I like individual freedom. I hope that sums up what I stand for.

Then we had another assurance and this time it came from the hon. the Minister. I might say that it is not a reassuring statement; it has a sinister undertone. This is what he said. When the Minister was addressing a Nationalist Party Congress at East London last year, he is reported to have said that when the education of the Coloured people was taken over by the Government, measures would be available for dealing with certain undesirable elements in the Coloured teaching profession.

Hear, hear!

Of course. In other words, anybody who politically opposes the hon. the Minister in anything that he wants to do …

Why don’t you stick to the facts? why draw your own conclusions?

But these are the facts. The Government is hardly tolerant of people whose political opinions happen to differ from its own. The Government is particularly intolerant of non-White people whose political opinion happens to differ from its own. We have quite enough examples of people losing their jobs, of Bantu teachers being dismissed without pension rights, of people being banished all over the country without the right of trial, to know exactly where we stand.

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

The hon. Minister has asked me to draw my own conclusions and I wanted to tell him why I have drawn those conclusions, but I will not take that matter any further.

The other assurance that was given was that the syllabus would not be changed nor the examination system; it was said that these would remain under the existing authorities and that they would only be changed if those authorities decided on a change for everyone, Whites included. If you look at Clause 21 of this Bill you will find that these are matters entirely for the Minister to decide, and only until the Minister otherwise determines, will the existing authorities remain in control. So once again the Minister has taken complete power in this respect and the assurance given that existing conditions would be maintained has gone by the board if one looks at the actual wording of the Bill.

The Director of Education gave another specific assurance. He said that Church schools would certainly not be compelled to transfer to the Department. He said that the Department was grateful to the Churches for what they had done in the field of education—and so they should be, Sir—and did not want to interfere with bodies which had done such outstanding work. But Clause 5 of this Bill gives the Minister the power to transfer the management and control of any school to the Department. He need not have their agreement or their consent. He only needs to consult them. He does not have to have the consent of the governing body. The Director also told the representatives of the Married Teachers’ Association that when Coloured education was transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs he expected provision to be made for the appointment of married women teachers for a few years. There is no such provision in this Bill. The Minister has complete power to discharge a female teacher if she marries. All I can say is that such support which has been forthcoming for this Bill —it was support based entirely on the knowledge that the transfer of Coloured education was in fact a fait accompli, whether anybody accepted it or not—and it was obtained largely under false pretences. Because the assurances given prior to the introduction of this Bill into this House have not been carried out in the language of the Bill.

We have other experiences which lead us to draw unhappy conclusions and one obvious and glaring experience is the experience of Bantu education. All of us know what that has done to the education of Bantu children. It has sacrificed quality for quantity.

The hon. member cannot discuss Bantu education now.

I do not intend to, Sir, but I think you will agree that this is at least an analogy since Bantu education which used to fall under the ordinary Department of Education was transferred to the Bantu Education Department. The same sort of thing is happening as far as the Coloured children are concerned. The hon. Minister when introducing this Bill said that to the extent to which progress was made with the quality of socio-economic uplift—a favourite term of the Government’s—“the Coloured people would in an ever-increasing measure make a direct contribution towards their own education and towards the expenditure involved ”. The same thing happened in the case of Bantu education. In the case of Bantu education the amount was pinned at R13,000,000 per annum from State Revenue and the balance the Bantu people had to find themselves. If this is the sort of thing which the Minister envisages in view of the statement which he has made as far as the financing of Coloured education is concerned, I cannot protest strongly enough. I want to point out the basic fallacy in this statement that the Bantu and Coloured people do not pay for their own education whereas White people do. The non-White people pay taxes according to their capacity to pay and in that respect they finance their education to their best possible financial ability. It is utterly unfair that additional taxation should be levied on these people to pay for their education whereas White children are educated free. There are poor Whites to-day who also do not contribute much to the revenue of the country but nobody will expect the children of those people not to be educated on an equal basis with the children of tax-paying White citizens of this country. Nobody would expect the parents of those children, because they did not contribute to general revenue by virtue of the fact that they did not have a taxable income, to pay a special levy for the education of their children. Why should we expect the parents of non-White children to pay additional amounts towards the education of their children? It is utterly unequitable that this should be demanded of the poorest section of the community.

The Director did give the assurance that the Coloured people would not be taxed specifically to pay for their education. But in view of the fact that none of the other assurances which were given have been translated into this Bill, one is again entitled to draw one’s own conclusions—and I admit they are very ugly conclusions. In view of the Minister’s own statement that Coloured people would be called upon to make a greater financial contribution to their own education, I think one is fully entitled to expect that the time will come that, despite the assurance given by the Director of Coloured Education, that will be implemented by this Government.

I want to say a word or two about the sort of syllabuses that one can expect. Again I want to start off with a statement made by the Minister when he addressed the Namaqua-land Regional Development Association in November last year. In connection with the transfer of Coloured education he stated the following—

Don’t you want them to work?

I want job reservation to be removed, Sir, that is what I want. I do not want academic education to result in a frustrated human being simply because another Minister imposes job reservation which is stopping intelligent and educated people from carrying out skilled jobs by virtue of the colour of their skin. So I say, Sir, that education is indivisible; that everybody should be educated to the fullest possible capacity of his natural ability and that he should not thereafter be restrained from his complete and utmost productivity by virtue of job reservation. And that, Sir, is my reply to the hon. the Minister.

We have had similar statements made by other people when the Bantu Education Act was introduced. There was the famous statement by the hon. the Prime Minister who was then Minister of Bantu Affairs. When he introduced the Bantu Education Bill he also made that famous statement about not wanting the Bantu children to be educated above the level and the status which they could expect to occupy in later life. We are getting the same sort of statement from the Minister of Coloured Affairs in regard to the sort of status which the Coloureds must be expected to occupy later on in life. As I say, Sir. there are very good reasons for one to harbour fears about this particular Bill. The Minister has asked us to accept that this Bill is a great step forward. Well, with the best will in the world —and I must admit that I did not start off scrutinizing this Bill with a very good will— but with all the good will that I could possibly muster in examining this Bill, I cannot see it as the tiniest little toddle forward, let alone a great step. The provisions governing compulsory school attendance, for instance, which are supposed to be part of the bargain to the Coloured people, if they would accept this transfer, do not differ at all from the existing position under which for nearly 20 years it has been possible for provinces to make attendance of Coloured children compulsory. In fact that was never done in practice and I make bold to suggest that when this Bill becomes law, Coloured education will equally not be made compulsory. The provisions of Section 25 relating to the payment of school fees, if any, seem to me to leave the door wide open. That is a retrograde step and not a step forward at all, from the existing position of free education for Coloured children. Another retrogressive step is that the existing say which parents have through their committees over the appointment of those who will teach their children are now severely curtailed by the provisions under which the Department will be able to transfer teachers from post to post and from school to school without any consultation with those school committees.

Finally, Sir, I want to sum up by saying that it is the policy of the party which I represent to have free compulsory education available to all children as far and as fast as financial resources will permit, in order that those children may develop to the fullest of their capacity and that all restrictions on employment on those children thereafter should be completely removed. I am completely against any splitting of administration of education in this country on the basis of race. I am against this control and the basing of education on colour lines. That is wrong. I think that the splitting of education—the control and administration of education—on colour lines, will lead to a dangerous sort of separate nationalism. The Government is trying to turn every Coloured child into a sort of Coloured nationalist—I do not mean Nationalist Party supporter—but a nationalist in the accepted meaning of that word, instead of developing the Coloured child as an ordinary South African patriot which should, of course, be the aim of this Government. For these reasons I view this whole idea of transferring Coloured education with the gravest misgivings not only because of the effect which it will have on the Coloured children themselves and the Coloured people themselves but on the whole of South Africa. I shall vote against the Bill.

In so far as our large Coloured population is concerned, we now have a totally new set-up. A dispensation which will ensure a greater and a richer future for the Coloured community. It is this Minister and this Government and this Department who are in the first place responsible for this new dispensation—this new future pattern towards which our large Coloured community is developing. Viewed against this background, the standpoints we have had from the Opposition—I leave the hon. member who has just resumed her seat aside for a moment; she really stands alone; she is quite a likeable member and she is at least honest in her standpoint in so far as the Coloureds are concerned, although her standpoint is a dangerous one—are really not important any more in the present dispensation. I say so for two reasons. This is not a statement I just take out of the air. The first reason is that the ignominious past of the United Party in the days when they governed this country and also thereafter vis-à-vis our Coloured population will always stand on record against them. It is an ignominious past. The interest of that party in the Coloured population then only came to the fore during elections. That was the time when hon. members of the Opposition also crept into hovels and slums to catch the Coloured vote and to use it against their White opponents. That was where their interest ended. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) laughs, but from time to time during elections and also during by-elections he picked up lice whilst searching for Coloured votes.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

I shall withdraw it, Sir.

I think the hon. member ought to apologize.

He must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I have already withdrawn it. The fact is that the interest displayed by those people in the Coloureds ended there. They showed interest only periodically during elections, and thereafter the weal and woe of our large Coloured population did not matter to those people. I say it is the ignominious past of that party which renders the arguments they advance in this debate really worthless.

In regard to the future also, the United Party's outlook is equally sterile, because that party wants to keep the Coloured in a shadowy and equivocal position on the edge of the White community. It does not visualize any rights for the Coloured; it does not visualize for the Coloured his own inalienable residential areas; it does not grant the Coloured his own mouthpieces; it does not grant him his own local Government, or his own education system. On the one hand this ignominious past of that party in respect of the Coloured, and on the other hand this sterile conception of the future of the Coloured renders the arguments advanced by that Party to-day really worthless. If there is a party which is really obsolete to-day in South African politics in regard to its Coloured policy, it is the United Party, the official Opposition.

The arguments in regard to the transfer of Coloured education deal with two aspects. The one was very thoroughly expounded last night by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), namely the financial aspect. This financial aspect was of particularly great importance until 1957; it was of decisive importance. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), the other evening painted a very clear picture of the period up to 1957. He told us how voices were raised, particularly in the Cape Province, asking for a new pattern for the Coloureds. The argument has been advanced that the hon. the Minister has in mind only the financial aspect in regard to this transfer. That is not so. The hon. the Minister has never said that the financial aspect is the most important aspect of this whole matter. I will concede that judged from the narrow financial aspect one would be able to argue that if the Government now has to grant the funds, what difference will it really make how they are given? It has to be paid for; the Coloureds must be educated. If the Government were to subsidize everything through the Treasury or spend the money directly through the Department of Coloured Affairs, what difference would it make? But the matter is not as simple as that.

This brings me to my really important argument, next to the financial aspect which in my opinion at this stage is not necessarily the most weighty argument in regard to this transfer. As I said in the beginning, in regard to our Coloured population, we are standing on the eve of a completely new dispensation. I do not think even any hon. member of the Opposition, or any Coloured Representative, will deny it if I say that the last few years will one day be characterized as one of the most important periods in the development of our Coloured people. Just look at the legislation passed during recent weeks; look at the legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister, the Development Corporation, the Coloured Rural, Areas Bill, and take the Provincial Council which sat last week and passed an ordinance to grant local Government to Coloureds, and take the other legislation which will still be passed this Session. All this indicates that in so far as the Coloureds are concerned, we are moving towards a totally new dispensation. I say that the last few years, particularly under this Minister and his Department, will one day be regarded as historical in the development of our Coloured people. to-day, at a totally pew tempo and in a dynamic forward movement, numerous bodies are shaping the future of our Coloured people. In the Coloured townships which are being established and in the Coloured communities we already see in every respect the fruit which is being plucked as the result of this new dispensation which is leading the large Coloured community to a greater future.

I say that it is this new set-up which demands of us now that we should also use this mighty weapon of education to take our Coloureds further along this road.

The fact is that we are dealing here with a mainly under-developed community, a community with its own problems. I just want to mention two of them in passing. The first is the question of the tremendous increase in our Coloured population. This situation results in the fact that 45 per cent of what we devote to-day in the socio-economic sphere to the upliftment of the Coloured community is absorbed by their increasing numbers instead of being enjoyed in the form of a higher standard of living. This is a deep human problem, and it is a problem for which a solution will not easily be found. You see what is taking place in the Eastern countries. Take a country like Japan. We recently saw the reports of the Chairman of the World Bank in which he referred to the assistance given by the developed countries to the undeveloped countries and points to this problem. It is a problem which is unique to our Coloured population at this stage. It is a problem which we can only tackle if we are prepared to take in hand the education of our Coloured with more purposefulness and greater adaptation, as well as to apply it with greater differentiation.

There is the other problem I want to mention, namely that the Coloured communities from place to place have their own troubles, and that is clearly reflected in their examination results. Just in passing I want to deal with the results for the past ten or 12 years in regard to Coloured children I refer to the results of the Senior Certificate examination. In 1950 258 candidates sat for the Senior Certificate; only 4 per cent passed in the first class, 55 per cent in the second class and 41 per cent failed. After we had done everything we could in the way of granting educational facilities, such as increased salaries, we had the position at the end of 1950 that 41 per cent failed. In 1951 4 per cent passed in the first class, 49 per cent in the second class, and 48 per cent failed. In 1952 .5 per cent passed in the first class, 49 per cent in the second class and 50.5 per cent failed. In 1953 4 per cent passed in the first class, 56 per cent in the second class and 40 per cent failed. In 1954 42 per cent failed, in 1955 43 per cent, in 1956 43 per cent, in 1957 42 per cent, in 1955 45 per cent, in 1959 39 per cent, in 1960 37 per cent, and in 1961 45.3 per cent, and in 1962 52 per cent failed. I do not want to weary the House with further figures, but if we compare it with the figures for the last few years in regard to the Whites we see that in the year 1960 6,210 White candidates wrote their Senior Certificate examination. I am talking now of the Cape Province only. That is approximately seven times the number of Coloured candidates in the same year. Of the Whites, 15.2 per cent failed, whereas in the case of the Coloureds 38.3 per cent failed. In 1961 6,920 White candidates sat and 14.8 per cent failed, as against 962 Coloured candidates of whom 45.3 per cent failed.

If we look at other standards, we find, for example, that in regard to the Junior Certificate in 1960 there were 13 per cent of failures amongst the Whites, and amongst the Coloureds there were 36 per cent of failures; in 1961, amongst the Whites, it was 14 per cent, as against 38 per cent for the Coloureds. Where can one find a better indication or a stronger argument that there should be more purposefulness and greater differentiation, and that the Coloureds have certain problems which we will have to bear in mind? Therefore we will have to differentiate to a greater extent in the education of the Coloureds. Otherwise the results will remain the same as those I have just given.

Better salaries and better teachers.

No, if one analyses the position further, one finds that there were certain schools (I do not wish to mention the names) where there were up to 62.2 per cent of failures in the Senior Certificate examination. that is a clear indication that we are still dealing here with problems which we will have to face, and we shall have to adapt education to it to lend greater force to this mighty medium which we can take in hand in respect of this almost under-developed group, the Coloureds.

To this I want to add the following argument: It has been said that we should retain the provincial authorities as administrative bodies because they have the knowledge and the experience. One has respect for the pioneering work done by the Provincial Administrations, but the fact remains that we are faced here with the position that we practically have two channels under one administration, or one body, viz. the provincial bodies, education which has to be given in one direction to a highly developed White community, as compared with the education which has to be given to an under-developed community. Now it is a fact that we all want to have better race relations in the country. But what is happening now? These two channels of education are constantly being compared—that of the Whites as against that of the Coloureds. This has just one result, viz. greater racial friction because comparisons are made from time to time. It is further said that the Provincial Administrations have all the facilities and all the knowhow. As I say, no one wants to insult the Provincial Administrations, but I want to say that one can talk all day about the specific problems of this under-developed Coloured group, and the question then arises which body is the best able to judge of the problems and the difficulties of the Coloureds. I maintain it is the Department of Coloured Affairs. That Department has in recent years won the confidence of the Coloureds in a fantastic way. The Coloureds to-day trust that Department, and where can one find a better body to guide Coloured education and to advance it than the Department of Coloured Affairs?

Another argument advanced here was in respect of consultation. The impression was created that this Government is just haphazardly forcing the poor Coloureds into a certain course. It was said that not enough attention was given to the teachers’ associations. If we look at the pattern which was followed to get co-operation and to give information to the large Coloured community, then I want to say that we can only take off our hats to the officials concerned and to the Department for what has been achieved in this direction. I have here a list of what was done to contact these people, to put this whole matter of transfer to the people. The interest evinced by the Coloureds was remarkable. I refer to a town like Malmesbury, where 150 teachers were present at a conference. I am mentioning round figures only. At Stellenbosch there were 200, Paarl 300, Caledon 120, Vredendal 200, Clanwilliam 190, Riversdale 300, George 400, East London 120, Beaufort West 300, Calvinia 150, Springbok 250, Upington 220, De Aar 190, just to mention a few. What willingness existed on the part of the Department in making contact with these people! If we analyse the picture further and look at the six areas in which these people met and the results which were achieved, we find that in the Cape Peninsula 2,285 of the 3,100 teachers attended the conferences. In the Boland, out of the 1,800 teachers no fewer than 1,500 attended, and in the whole of the rest of the Cape Province there are approximately 4,100 teachers, of whom 2,410 travelled long distances to attend these conferences. In the Free State 135 out of 155 teachers attended the conferences. The only province in which the reaction was weak was in Natal, probably as the result of the bad influence of the hon. member for South Coast, and there out of 489 Coloured teachers only 35 attended the meetings. In the Transvaal 460 out of the 1,086 teachers attended. If we take the picture in the Cape we see that of the 9,000 teachers 6,195 attended these meetings. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister consulted any teachers’ associations, but viewed in the light of this picture, would it have made any difference? Here we have a wonderful picture of the interest taken where the Department took the initiative in meeting these people.

I want to conclude by making two statements. The one is that the Minister in his speech thanked the various Provincial Administrations for what they had done over the years, for the pioneering work they had done in the sphere of Coloured education. But I want to put it more widely, and in the first place I also want to pay tribute to the large corps of White taxpayers who throughout the years accepted that great responsibility in regard to Coloured education in this province. I think it is a splendid thing, something which came from the White people and which they did for the large Coloured population in this province, so much so that in many cases the education of their own children had to suffer because of what they were prepared to give to the large Coloured population. Even in these times we still find that many of our White children attend school in prefabricated buildings, whilst in the new Coloured communities permanent buildings are being erected. What a picture of what the Whites were prepared to do for Coloured education by way of paying extra taxation! I think it is a pity, from the point of view of good race relations, that we have the position that in recent years there has not been greater recognition by Coloured leaders and Coloured teachers for what the White man was prepared to do for the Coloured in this respect.

The last aspect I would just like to touch on is the subject of the new facilities which are now being given to the Coloureds under this new dispensation. In this regard I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should not be too hasty. It is good for the human spirit to have to adapt, for it to learn to adapt itself, and sometimes to be tempered by difficult circumstances. I am one of the youngest members of this House and it seems only the other day that I was still at school, and every day I had to walk three miles to school, and three miles back in the afternoon, and very often there was no water to drink at the school on the farm. But I maintain that was a good thing. As far as the educational facilities of the Whites are concerned, we also had to start in a small way and develop to the position in which we are to-day. Whereas in the future the financial aspect here will disappear and whereas we are nor embarking upon a new dispensation, I nevertheless want to ask the Minister, as far as the provision of educational facilities for these people is concerned, that they should not be given everything at once, that we should not allow them suddenly to find themselves in a new elysium, but that we should have due regard for the above factors.

When we have done all that, then as I said at the beginning of my speech, a completely new dispensation awaits the Coloured people, and I want to conclude with a quotation from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Coloured Education, to which reference has also been made in the interim report, namely these words—

If these are our ideals and if we have the cooperation of the great education corps of the Coloured people towards attaining these ideals, towards this vision as far as the future of the Coloured people are concerned, then I believe there is an even greater future awaiting them.

Nobody has illustrated the difference between the two sides of the House in regard to White-Brown relations better than the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In 1943 I was a candidate for the House of Assembly in the constituency now represented by that hon. member. At that time the Coloureds were still on the Common Voters’ Roll. I was prepared to advance their interests also; I was prepared to represent them also, and it was an honour for me to have enjoyed the confidence of those people and that they voted for me. But what is the outlook of the hon. member who to-day is the hon. member for Moorreesburg now? His outlook was that the man who went out to get Coloured votes went to pick up lice. That is the great difference in outlook between the two sides, and let me tell that young member that as long as that is his outlook, which he reveals repeatedly, and as long as that is the spirit of members on the Government side, all their talk about a new dispensation will not help and we cannot take them seriously.

It is obvious that I am not going to try to talk as an educationist here. Just like the hon. the Minister, I am talking as a political representative, and I apologize to nobody for that, because in its origin this Bill really has little to do with education and everything to do with political ideology and the relationship between White and Brown. The hon. the Minister and the speaker who followed him based their support for this Bill on four arguments, as I summed it up. The first is that Coloured education is a burden on the Cape Province which financially it cannot continue to bear. The second argument is that those who are interested in it were properly consulted. The third argument is that the measure grants benefits to the Coloureds and is in their interest, and the fourth argument is that the Government party was always in favour of it and that this is a further essential step in implementing the Government’s policy of apartheid.

The task of the Opposition is consequently simple. It must decide for itself to what extent these arguments justify the Bill, and on that basis it must determine its attitude towards the Bill. Now, of all the arguments advanced by the Minister I think the first one, viz. that it is an intolerable burden on the Cape Province, is the weakest; and therefore I am surprised and disappointed that the hon. the Minister made this his main argument, as it were. He quoted, inter alia, with approval from the report of the Schumann Commission. Now I do not know whether he noticed that the two quotations he used were in conflict with each other. He quoted from page 91 of the report—

It will be eased “considerably ”. Then he quoted from page 89—

Somewhat.

I was referring to the other three provinces. Do not put your own interpretation on my quotation.

Very well, I accept that. In any case, I had not intended making a debating point of it. I use it just to indicate that the argument of its being a financial burden weighed so heavily with the Minister that he even relied on the Schumann Commission for assistance. What surprises me is that the Minister used this argument at all. Surely it is obvious that if one takes a service, of whatever nature, away from a province it reduces the expenditure of that province to some extent. But that does not apply to Coloured education only; it applies to everything, also for White education, hospitalization, roads and divisional councils. So what sort of argument is this now really? If Coloured education is to be taken away from the province because it is a financial burden on the province, must White education not be taken away also because it is an even greater burden? And must the Government then not be consistent and carry on until nothing remains of the whole idea of provincial government? The first argument advanced by the hon. the Minister is therefore one which should not be brought into the picture at all, for the simple reason that it applies to everything which falls under the provincial administrations. If the Cape Province as a province finds it difficult to finance its services on the existing basis, the solution is obvious: Then a more effective basis of subsidy by the Central Government must be found (which I think is the answer), or it must increase its taxation, or else it must simply curtail all its services and not make a scapegoat of one particular service and just try to blame that one only.

Where do you get all that from?

When once the Cape Province accepts the principle that for financial reasons it must hand over its services and powers to the Central Government, the provincial government as such becomes a farce and it becomes time to review the whole provincial system.

But let me say that there is a deeper reason why I as a White man felt disappointed because the Minister advanced this argument in the way he did. Was it really necessary again to drag in colour antipathy here? Why should Coloured education be singled out and be stigmatized as a financial burden? Why only Coloured education? Why is hospitalization not treated in that way? Why not roads? Why not the education of the Whites? Why must Coloured education be singled out and be stigmatized as a burden? The whole argument is unfortunate and unnecessary, and for that reason the Synod of the N.G. Mission Church totally rejected this particular argument in 1958. It hurts the Coloureds, it makes a painful impression on them, the more so because it is always accompanied by the reproach, which was again made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, “that the White man has to carry the Coloured”, This statement that the White man carries the Coloured is based on the fact that it so happens that the Whites as a group pay more in taxation than the Coloureds as a group. But do you know how the Coloureds react to that? They say that this is a completely misleading argument. The Coloured admits that as a group he is poorer than the White man and that in this respect he occupies an inferior position to the White man, but he blames the White man for it! He points out that the White man managed to get all the political power into his hands and kept the Coloured away from all effective influence and participation in the political machinery of the country, and that one Government after another used that political power in such a way that for generations already there has been compulsory education for the White child but not for the non-White child, and that therefore the Whites as a group could advance, but not the Coloureds as a group; that the Public Service is reserved for the White child, but closed to the Coloured child, and that he therefore never had the opportunities that the White child had and still has; that in the services of the State in general the Coloureds have had no opportunities, and that the Coloured teacher, e.g. receives a considerably smaller salary than the White teacher, even though he has the same qualifications and has the same work.

Do you agree with that?

Those are facts. And what conclusions does the Coloured draw now? He says that as the result of the unequal opportunities enforced on him, and still being enforced, his standard of living, his growth as a community and his capacity to earn and therefore to pay taxes have been artificially restricted, and that the White man derives the benefit from it. And his further conclusion is that it is therefore not the White man who carries him, but really he who, at least to a large extent, carries the White man and subsidizes the prosperity of the Whites.

I do not want to base my own arguments in regard to this Bill on this conclusion, but what I want to object to is the spirit and the outlook revealed here, which marks Coloured education as a burden on the province, and the reproachful way in which it is said that the Whites have to carry the Coloureds. Apart from the fact that this is a faulty proposition, I think it is in bad taste continually to remind people, and in fact to reproach them with the fact, that they belong to the poorer classes. Nobody does that in respect of the poorer sections of the Whites; and this argument that we carry the Coloureds gives rise on the part of the Coloureds to the most bitter reproaches and ill feeling against the White man because he feels that the White man should really bear much of the responsibility for the conditions in which he finds himself. Therefore I want to ask that we should get away from this attitude as soon as possible, and the hon. the Minister ought to give the lead to his side in this respect. A year or two ago he held a meeting at Sea Point and said the following—

There the Minister sounded a good note, and the same applies in respect of Coloured education, that we should not stigmatize it as a burden to the province or to the White man.

We therefore totally reject the Government’s first reason for this Bill, viz. that Coloured education only should be selected and stigmatized as a burden on the provinces which they cannot bear, and that for this reason the provinces should transfer to the Central Government the governmental powers they have.

The second proposition relied on by the Government side is that the Government had the broadest consultation possible with the Coloured teachers in every part of the country. For years this side of the House has been pleading that before legislation is introduced affecting the interests of any Coloured group which is not represented here, or which is only indirectly represented here, it should be preceded by the greatest possible measure of consultation for those people, firstly in regard to the desirability of the measure and then in regard to the details of the step envisaged. Now the hon. the Minister in this case has moved in that direction, and I think he should be given credit for having gone so far, perhaps as far as it was possible for him to go, in his consultation in respect of certain details with regard to this measure. I just want to add that I think he should congratulate himself on the fact that in performing this task he had services at his disposal of a man like Mr. Kobus Louw, who is an excellent negotiator. In fact, I should like to say that the Department of Coloured Affairs, under the leadership of Dr. I. D. du Plessis, has a number of senior officials who have succeeded wonderfully, in spite of the destructive effect the Government’s policy of apartheid has day after day on the relations between the White man and the Coloured in keeping alive the hope that sometime in the future ordinary civilized and human relations will be established between White and Brown in South Africa. Mr. Louw is one of these men, and I want to tell the Minister that I do not think he could have made a better choice to fill the post of Director of Coloured Education than him.

But there is one overriding reason why the consultation the Minister and his Department had with the Coloured teachers cannot serve as a recommendation for the acceptance of this Bill, and that is that the consultation did not cover the point which it should really in the first place have covered. It did not cover the principle of this Bill; it did not cover the desirability for the transfer. After the Nationalist Party majority in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province decided in 1957 as a matter of policy that Coloured education should be transferred to the Central Government, it was obviously just a question of time and organization before this step would be taken, and the result was—in the consultations with the Coloured teachers, the teachers knew all the time that they were faced with a fait accompli and that their opinion was merely being asked in connection with the supplementary details and general circumstances. In fact, the Minister himself in his speech pointed out that already during last year’s parliamentary session he officially announced that Coloured education would be taken over, and as he himself explained in his speech, the main conference of Coloured teachers took place only between that time and 14 December last year. The Director of Coloured Education, Mr. Kobus Louw, according to the report of this final two-day conference which was held in Bellville, which was published in the Cape Times of 2 October 1962, told the meeting of teachers—

His consultation therefore was not in regard to the desirability of this Bill and its principle, and therefore it cannot be used as an argument in favour of the second reading. The Minister himself was also quite honest in regard to the matter. Nowhere in his speech did he even pretend that the Coloured community as a group approved the principle of transfer, or that they were keen to have it. Therefore the argument in regard to consultation falls away, because the consultation was not in regard to the question which is the main principle on which we have to decide here.

The third argument of hon. members opposite is that transfer creates new opportunities for the Coloureds and is therefore to their best interests. Undoubtedly Coloured education is in the position that certain changes have to be made, which changes must necessarily be improvements. My own attitude has always been that the Coloureds in general have the same desire to go forward in life as any other normal person, but that they lack the opportunities, and that it is our duty as the group which is at the head of affairs, in our own interest and his, to grant him all the opportunities we claim for ourselves as White people. If this was not done 20 or 30 years ago, it was due to neglect, and it does not matter which Government was in power then; although the simple explanation is that times have changed radically, not only in respect of race and colour, but also in respect of the State’s social responsibilities. We are simply living in different times. But I cannot support the contention that the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government is an essential prerequisite for the creation of such new opportunities and for the improvement of his education. I repeat that new opportunities have to be created for the Coloureds, but there is no reason why new opportunities are only possible when coupled with the transfer of his education to the Central Government. They can be created if the will is there, and if the intention honestly is only to create new opportunities. If that is the honest intention, it can be done without transfer.

But whatever we here think about the matter, our outlook is that of Whites, and I think the real test as to whether this Bill is in the interest of the Coloureds is what the Coloureds themselves think of it. None of us can judge the matter as well as the Coloured can himself. Now what is the evidence before us about how the Coloured himself feels about this transfer? In the first place, we have it that the hon. the Minister himself, after all the consultation he and his Department had, did not in the least pretend that the Coloured himself was in favour of the transfer, and that by itself is an indication of how the wind is blowing amongst the Coloureds. I want to say this in passing: I am glad the Minister did not come along with that musty old argument that it is due to agitators that the Coloureds are not enthusiastic about this Bill. We are all agitators in some or other respect….

You are one also.

I do agitate for the things I strongly believe in. Any man who strongly advocates a matter is an agitator in that sense. But the agitator attains little success if he does not interpret the deeper feelings of the masses from which he comes. In the second place, there is no available evidence that the Coloureds as a group voluntarily asked for this transfer. We know the Coloureds. They are very quick to promote their own interests and to ask for what they think is due to them. If they think something is in their interest, they ask for it, and if they really thought that the transfer of their education was in their interest they would of their own volition have asked for it years ago already.

But in the third place there is enough positive evidence that they are opposed to it. Listen to this, for example—

This was reported in the Burger of 25 October 1962. Who is in closer touch with the inner feeling of the Coloured community than the church? But church opposition went much further than this. I read the following from the Cape Argus of 27 March 1962—

I have no doubt that the Moslems feel the same about it, because apartheid is in direct conflict with their faith. I can give numerous further quotations to show how prominent Coloured leaders and teachers spoke against it. Where people did promise their co-operation, they did so on the basis that they were faced with au fait accompli and only certain details would still be discussed. And they have already learnt that when once the Government is busy with party politics, the wishes and feelings of those for whom it legislates are simply pushed aside. It sits in an elevated position and knows what is good for all the people under it! Even the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, the majority of the members of which were appointed by the Government, evaded the crucial point and adopted a conditional resolution without approving the principle of transfer. And what were their conditions? It was that they wanted the immediate implementation of compulsory education for Coloured children from six to 16 years, or until they have passed the Junior Certificate; that Coloured parents should have the right to decide on the language medium, and that the salaries should be the same as those of White teachers.

Judging from the reports of the deliberations of the Coloured Council, they also regarded transfer as au fait accompli and then tried to negotiate the best possible conditions.

As I understood the Minister’s speech, he did not give a decision on any of these matters and a reassurance to the Coloureds. Therefore on the basis of all the evidence we can come to no other conclusion than this, that, however good the intentions of the Minister might be, the Coloureds as a group, and certainly the majority of them, are not well disposed towards this measure. If the Coloureds themselves then do not want the transfer, nor accept that it is in their interests, how can we be expected to accept it?

Therefore there remains only the fourth argument of the Government members, and that is a political one, viz. that the transfer is a further step in the Government’s policy of separatism, of segregation, of the greatest measure of separation from top to bottom, but not below the level where the Coloured is allowed to work for the Whites. Viewed from the Government’s angle, this is the only real reason for this measure. It is in line with its policy and with its conception of a shadow state within a state, whatever that might mean. But that being so, this reason, which is the main reason given by hon. members opposite, in fact becomes the main reason why the Opposition must oppose the measure.

When it comes to minor details in the Bill, the Opposition is on different terrain. But here, in the initial stage, it must oppose the Bill. We on this side follow a policy of closer association with the Coloureds, a policy of building up contacts as far as possible. The Government, on the other hand, believes in ever-decreasing association and the breaking down of existing contacts. That is the basis of the difference between us. The hon. the Minister likes to talk about “good neighbourliness” with strong fences, but that is a misleading description. A good neighbour does not erect notices prohibiting his neighbour from entering his front gate. I think we stand much nearer to the concept of “the partnership of White and Coloured”, as the Burger put it in a leading article on 13 December 1961 on the basis of the view it expressed in a leading article on 30 November 1959 that—

In regard to this Bill, we therefore have a fundamental contrast between the two parties. The Government believes in legally enforced apartheid in everything. We reject it. We also reject enforced integration, because the one is as unnatural as the other. We stand for the ordinary, natural human relations between White and Coloured, and the recognition of each other’s full human dignity. And we believe that only when we recognize each other’s full human dignity—which can only take place when we have removed the humiliating basis of enforced apartheid—and when on that basis we have created normal human relations, will the tensions and the suspicion disappear and the White man and the Coloured man, as man to man and as group to group, be able to decide how matters should be regulated administratively in order to promote to the fullest extent the welfare of both groups.

There is no doubt but that the Government will use its majority in this House to force through this measure. In so far as the Minister’s good intentions are concerned, I do not doubt them. He has already made great improvements, but he is part of a machine and must act accordingly. Therefore I would like to bring this to the notice of the Minister: In his attempt to make this transfer acceptable to the Coloureds, he has raised high expectations on their part. Recently the Government, owing to pressure both internally and externally, has started to adopt the slogan of “separate but equal”, and of “in your sphere you can have everything that I have in my sphere ”. That aroused great expectations on the part of the Coloureds, particularly when this Bill was submitted to them during the consultations. In particular the pamphlet issued by the Department of Information saying that transfer opens the way to improvements like compulsory education, transfer leads to positive results because the salary scales of teachers will be increased, and that parents will have a say in regard to the education of their children, created very high expectations on the part of the Coloureds. The two chief expectations created are compulsory education for Coloured children and the same pay for the same qualifications as White teachers. These things were also greatly stressed by the Union Coloured Council. I believe that the first obligation we have in South Africa towards ourselves is to educate everybody as fast as possible, so that whatever happens to the history of South Africa our standards of civilization will be retained. to-day there is no single reason why the Government cannot grant these requests.

I want to conclude by telling the Coloured community this: We know that the Coloured is in a serious dilemma. As things are administered to-day, there is continual pressure on him to accept apartheid as the price for material concessions. Our advice to him is to distinguish between principles and a practice which may be changed. We think that he should grasp every weapon possible and use every channel of expression available materially to improve his position and politically to state and to promote his cause, whatever might have been the motives for the provision of such weapons or channels. He can do that without abandoning his principles. Every nation experiences times of difficulty and obstacles. The Coloureds at the moment are passing through such a stage. But there is clearly a revolution taking place in the mind of the White man in regard to the position of the Coloured as a citizen in his own country. This revolution has already received significant support from the Government side, even though it is still largely a revolution of individuals. But on this side of the House, which represents 50 per cent of the White voters, that revolution has already completed the full cycle and the Opposition will do everything in its power and keep on fighting so that the Coloured will be given his freedom as a citizen in his own country, whose human dignity will be recognized by the State to the same extent as that of the White man.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) commenced by saying that he was a politician and not an educationist. Well, his speech has proved that he is no educationist, but unfortunately his speech did not prove he was a politician. But perhaps it is not necessary for his speech to prove it, because his unique record speaks loudly as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 6 o’clock reminds one of other things, I should like to move—

I second.