Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was replying to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I do not propose to go through the whole of his speech, but there are nevertheless a few statements made by him to which I want to draw attention. He began by saying that he rejected the argument that the Cape Province could no longer afford the expenditure on Coloured education. I want to remind him again of the fact that the Cape Province is responsible for 86 per cent of the total Coloured population of the Republic. They are accommodated in 90 per cent of the schools and served by 80 per cent of the teachers. The Central Government pays a little more than half of the cost. The rest comes out of provincial taxation which in this province is higher than in any other province in the whole of the Republic. The hon. member admits that the Coloureds do not contribute much to the education of their children, and I contend therefore that Coloured education should be a national service and not a provincial service. He compares the service with a purely provincial service such as provincial roads, because amongst other things he asks why we do not also transfer the cost of provincial roads to the Central Government. Does he ask that because of ignorance or wilfullnes or both? I want to ask the hon. member to do his homework; then he will see himself how ridiculous this comparison is. If he cannot qualify as an educationist, and if we doubt his status as a politician, he is always still a good businessman. I want to remind the House of the fact that just recently he exchanged his party consisting of two members for two parliamentary seats from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I call that good business.

His second submission was that the Government was simply extending its apartheid policy further. He then went on to compare the Government’s policy with that of the Opposition and he stated that the Opposition rejected statutory apartheid and also compulsory integration. That is precisely the position. Their policy is a sort of qualified integration cum segregation, segregation for the time being in order to retain the White man’s vote, but then they hold out the prospect of integration for their liberal followers, both White and non-White, until they come into power and thereafter they will be marching to Little Rock, to compulsory school integration. I am just wondering whether the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) will be marching with them or whether there will be a “Natal stand” once again.

Under what clause does that fall?

This is a second-reading debate—or is the hon. member not aware of that? The United Party policy reminds me of what Shakespeare said about his unfaithful sweetheart—

He then goes on to explain to her what I also want to explain to the United Party and that is that they too will land with both feet in the warm place along that road.

I do not suppose that it surprises anybody to find that the United Party opposes this legislation. They have consistently done that whenever we have sought to implement the policy of parallel development and in this respect they have a long list of sins. I want to mention a few: Their opposition to separate voters’ rolls and the separate representation of Coloureds in this House; their opposition to a Coloured Council; their opposition to local government in Coloured towns and Coloured areas; their opposition to the establishment of the Cape Western University College and to the taking over of vocational, technical, commercial and special schools by the Department for Coloured Affairs. Why then should they not also oppose this Bill?

I was waiting to see whether one of them would have the courage to stand up and say, “We, the United Party, are opposed to this Bill because we believe in integration, in the total integration of the Coloureds. We have fought for economic integration and we are now fighting for political integration, and if this eventually results in social and even biological assimilation, we will also accept it. We regard school integration as an essential part of our policy, and that is why we oppose this Bill.” Such a confession would at least have been honest, and that is what I expected from the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), but I do not expect it from the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) because he is too much of a politician. No, they are out to create dissatisfaction in the minds of the Whites with a view to future elections, and as far as the Coloureds are concerned this must lead to disobedience and opposition to the law.

Let us look at the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He began by saying that we were restricting the power of the provinces and lowering the status of the Education Departments. But does the hon. member want to tell me that he is prepared to sacrifice the educational interests of the Coloureds to the so-called status and the powers of the Provincial Administrations? It is a favourite theme of his Leader’s that the National Party Government is inclined to make the interests of individuals subservient to the interests of the State. Now he comes along and he wants to make the educational interests of 1,5000,000 people subservient to the status of the provinces. Surely he cannot be serious.

A third objection is that this will entail unnecessary expense and duplication of administration. To my mind it is an open question as to whether there will really be such a big increase in costs, but if there is, what about it? You will then simply be paying a highter price for a better article. Our object is to make the education of the Coloured more efficient and more useful to him. He says that this will lead to further alienation between the Whites and the Coloureds. I have never known the meting out of justice to result in opposition and alienation; on the contrary, it leads to co-operation and gratitude.

Then the hon. member again comes along with the story—I am sorry that he did so— that we are afraid of the educated Coloured and that we are now going to lower the standard of education for Coloured persons.

When did I say that?

We heard the same argument when the non-White colleges were established and when Bantu education was taken over. At that time that cry was strenuously supported, amongst others by the Black Sash which accused us of wishing to establish “colleges in the bush” and “Education for Slavery ”. The initial success of these institutions has been such that it refutes those accusations. I shall come back to this later on.

The Opposition admit that Coloured education under the control of the provinces is everything but satisfactory, but they say that all that is needed is more money; that the Administrations should simply be given bigger allowances and then everything in the garden will be rosy, money buys everything. I wish the position were as simple as that. But I want to say in parenthesis that the National Party Government has not done so badly in comparison with the United Party as far as contributions to Coloured education are concerned. Here I have a few figures. In 1925-6 the cost per Coloured pupil was R8 per annum. In 1947-8 it was R26. That was the year in which the National Party took over. Seven years later, in 1954-5 it rose to R44, and in 1962-3 it rose to R66. The argument that Coloured education has been starved is one which does not hold water. The question is whether the solution will be to give more money to the province. My reply is “No” and I say that for the following reasons: Under the provinces there will still always be divided control; there will be five Departments of Education, each with its own policy, and a situation similar to that which exists to-day in the case of White education. Hon. members will recall how we had to struggle in this House last year to establish an Advisory Council to undo some of the harm caused by this divided control. Under the provinces the curriculum for Coloured schools will still be an appendage of the curriculum for Whites. All educationists are agreed that a curriculum should do the following things: Firstly, it should be adapted to the socio-economic requirements of the pupil; secondly it should make provision for vocational, commercial and technical training, and in the third place it should make provision for academic training which leads to education at university level. Because of the fact that education forms one integrated whole, these requirements can only be complied with effectively if education is placed under one and the same control, and that is precisely what this Bill has in view. As the result of the taking over of all other Coloured education—vocational, technical and commercial education and university institutions—we have now reached the same position in the case of Coloured education that we have in the case of White education, and that is that primary and secondary education falls under the provinces and technical and higher education under the Department of Coloured Affairs. What the United Party is now asking is that as in the case of White education we should leave this divided control undisturbed, not because it is educationally sound but for the sake of the status of the provinces. Divided control over secondary education has bedevilled the position in the case of White education, and my plea to this House is to see to it that Coloured education is spared this.

One of the problems which will have to be tackled immediately by Coloured Affairs is adequate provision for vocational commercial and technical training for Coloureds. In this connection I should like to refer to an inquiry that was undertaken in 1954 by the Coloured Education Commission which was appointed by the Cape Provincial Administration. It went into the distribution of Coloured labourers over the various occupations. Their finding was as follows: As far as male employees were concerned, there were 36 per cent in industry, 36 per cent in agriculture, 9 per cent in transport, 4 per cent in personal services, 2 per cent in commerce, 2 per cent in the professions, 1 per cent in the mines and 10 per cent in what were described as other occupations. As far as women were concerned, 17 per cent were employed in industry, 6 per cent in agriculture, 64 per cent in personal service, 1 per cent in commerce, 3 per cent in the professions and 9 per cent in other occupations. It will be seen therefore that 72 per cent of the male Coloured workers were employed in industry and in agriculture, and 81 per cent of the female workers in industry and in personal service. The question may be asked what training these people had for their work and what facilities existed for their training. Hon. members will agree with me that we did not educate these people for their life-work. Here I probably have the support of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), who in an agricultural debate the other day spoke feelingly about the need to give the labourer the necessary training for his work. He was thinking particularly of farm labour. I just want to ask him not to echo the sentiments expressed by the rest of the United Party in the future when they talk again of “Education for Slavery ”. In the professions there were 2 per cent to 3 per cent, and they undoubtedly benefited by this academic training, but the interests of the other pupil were sacrificed in order to accommodate them. More work has become available in the clerical and professional spheres in recent years as the result of the Government’s policy of parallel development and service to one’s own people, but the fact of the matter is that there is still a great scarcity of white-collar jobs. I should like to see similar comparative figures drawn up with regard to the distribution of White workers over the various occupations. One would then be able to determine whether the curricula for Whites, at this stage of the development of Coloureds, will meet the requirements of Coloureds in every respect. Let hon. members determine for themselves whether we on this side of the House are only obsessed with the colour of people. The other day when the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) expressed the opinion that the curriculum should be adapted to the requirements of the pupils, the hon. member for South Coast jumped down his throat boots and all. I want to say to the hon. member for South Coast this afternoon that that is a commonplace which in education is as old as Plato, but I should say that the hon. member is not a disciple of Plato’s: I would rather regard him as a disciple of Machiavelli’s. The Opposition admit that under the provinces Coloured education is anything but satisfactory, but they say that all that is needed is more money for that purpose. I shall come back to that later on.

I want to come now to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). This amendment flows from the discussions between the Coloured leaders, under the leadership of Mr. George Golding, and the four representatives of the Coloureds. After Mr. Golding had put the matter to them, they were instructed to support this measure on certain conditions. Let me read out the report which appeared in the Banier with regard to this meeting. On that occasion Mr. Golding said—

I take it that this amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula contains all the points that were submitted to them by Mr. Golding. The first assurance that they want is that there will be no lowering of standards under the new set-up. Let me say at once that we do not have in view a Brown matriculation next to a White matriculation, nor Brown degrees next to White degrees. Even assuming that the Government had such evil intentions, one would still have to reckon with the Matriculation Board, which controls both the content and the quality of the secondary curriculum, and at university level we would have to reckon with the University of South Africa which controls the examinations and the content of the courses and their quality.

But I want to say a few words in connection with the curriculum. The primary curriculum for Coloureds, as far as content is concerned, will not have to differ from that of White pupils, because here we are concerned with elementary things like reading, writing and arithmetic. But in the case of all the elementary little things in education, the things that we usually leave to a good home to take care of, there will have to be a difference in emphasis, where necessary, just as in the case of White education. It would possibly have to be included in the curriculum. That is done every day in White education too. But the curriculum for secondary education will differ materially because there will be an opportunity to introduce differentiated curricula, which, because of the divided control, we cannot have in White education, and which is something that we will still envy the Coloured in the near future. All secondary education will now be under the same control, which will make reorganization possible. At the end of the primary curriculum or at some stage in the junior high school it will now be possible to guide Coloured pupils, according to aptitude, in one of two recognized directions, that is to say, in the direction of vocational, technical or commercial training, or in the academic direction for training in clerical services and the learned professions. That is the crux of the recommendations of the de Villiers Commission. The hon. member for Peninsula can safely take it for granted now that this fear of a lower standard in Coloured education is unfounded and that on the contrary there are prospects of an improved standard.

The second assurance for which he asks is in connection with compulsory education. That will definitely come but it cannot come overnight. It will come gradually, just as in the case of White education. There are certain difficulties in the way. In 1954 there were 37,000 Coloured children who were still receiving no education. I do not know what the number is to-day, but I should imagine that having regard to the increase in the population the position is not much better. In 1954 the Cape School Board, for example, told us in response to an inquiry that they needed at least R600,000 just to provide the buildings and the equipment for the children in Cape Town who were still receiving no education, and that until such time as that had been done they could not think of introducing compulsory education. The third difficulty is that the vast majority of primary pupils are to-day still in mission schools. In 1954 there were 160,000 and to-day the number is 192,000. I simply cannot see how we can saddle the missionaries with the burden of compulsory education even if we made every missionary who controls a school an attendance officer. Secondly, we would have to think twice before forcing a parent to send his child, who belongs to one denomination, to a school run by another denomination. And even if those denominations are prepared to allow it—and I know that there are two big churches in the Republic who will not hear of it—it means that before we can introduce compulsory education, we will have to take over these mission schools on a large scale. In 1954 when this commission sat we were told that in buildings alone it would cost this province R 17,000,000, and to-day I am afraid the figure will be much higher.

The next assurance for which they ask is uniformity in education. Well, that is precisely what is going to happen and it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon this. The result of this transfer will be more uniformity in education. The next assurance which is sought is that the salaries of Coloured teachers will be put on a par with those of the White teachers. Well, I cannot speak on behalf of the Treasury, but I do want to say that it will be much easier under the new set-up than under the provincial set-up to bring about improvements in the salaries of Coloured teachers. But Mr. Golding realizes that this cannot be brought about overnight and that is why he said that they would be satisfied in the first instance with 80 per cent of the salaries paid to White teachers. The last request was that more administrative posts should be created for Coloureds. On every single occasion that the idea of parallel development has been extended it has resulted in the creation of more posts for Coloureds, and that will also be the case here. Under this new set-up the Coloured intelligentsia will be offered the opportunity as never before to serve their own people, both administratively and professionally. A large number of posts will be available to them. In my opinion, however, the contribution that they are able to make will depend on the extent to which they are prepared to accept that policy of separate development. Any flirtation with the United Party idea of integration or assimilation will detract from the contribution that they are able to make. This will also give the parents the opportunity to take an active part in the education of their children, and I hope that they will make the best use of it. I hope that in the future there will be many more Coloured labourers who will be able to enter the labour market as skilled labourers and not as unskilled labour. I have just indicated a few reasons to convince the representatives of the Coloureds that it is in the interests of their own constituents to support the Government in this effort.

I trust that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) will excuse me if I do not follow his trend of thought very far. He speaks as a politician and as a past educationist while I hope to approach the subject in a practical spirit, imbued with a deep interest in all matters educational affecting all races and unhampered by the bias and ideological prejudice which dogs the thoughts and actions of so many hon. members opposite.

The hon. member for Prieska admitted that the cost of education, if it came under control of the State, would increase, but he said, “What of it? A higher price for a better article.” Then later he went on to say that he could not speak on behalf of the Treasury, and for that reason alone I believe that the question of costs becomes one of paramount importance and that as far as Coloured education is concerned one would have to cut one’s cloth according to one’s purse. I submit that at this stage the take-over of Coloured education by the State is both illogical and inconsistent, and it would appear from some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister when he made his second-reading speech, that the impression he conveyed is basically different from many of the facts which I will try to bring before the House. I believe that basically the Coloured people of South Africa do not favour the divorcement and separation from Western standards in so many ways. Already we have these differences; we have them in living conditions, we have them in labour and in employment and now we are to have them in education. I do not believe that it is the considered opinion of all the Coloured people in South Africa, although it may apply to certain people in certain parts of the country or even in certain provinces. In so far as the province of Natal is concerned, I do not believe that that is the position and I wish to substantiate that by quoting the remarks made by the chairman of the Durban Coloured Federal Council in a letter to me dated 19 February. This is what he said—

Then I would like to refer briefly to a report which was submitted last July to the Director of Coloured Education, also from the Durban Coloured Federal Council, in which they made it clear that attendance at the discussions must not be construed as co-operation with the Department. They said in this memorandum that they were fundamentally opposed to the transfer of Coloured education from the provinces; they were against the establishment of a separate department because they felt it was inimical to the interests of the Coloured people who had not surrendered the right to be regarded as South Africans. They feared also that there would be a deterioration in the standard of Coloured education and they quoted Bantu education as an example. They were against segregation in education on the grounds of race and they felt that the present limitations in so far as Coloured education was concerned could be remedied by the provinces, and then later, as late as 20 February of this year, these opinions were endorced—

They conclude their communication by saying—

At this stage I would like to refer to some figures. I have chosen the figures submitted to the commission by the Natal authorities because by virtue of Indian education it gives a picture of the expense involved in the education of the four races. I quote the per capita amount of money spent on educating the four different races from 1956 to 1957: White R116; Coloured R77; Indian R45. and the Bantu figure for 1955 was given as R17. Then again in 1960-1 there had been an increase in the amount spent per capita, except in the case of the Coloureds. The figure for Whites had risen to R137; the figure for Coloureds was R71, Indians R49, and the figure given for the Bantu had decreased to R13; that was the figure for 1962. I quote in round figures.

Another section of this Schumann Commission indicates that Coloured teachers received salaries equal to 72.1 per cent of the salaries of their White counterparts and the report indicates in detail what funds are needed to increase the salaries of Coloured people. I submit that this aspect is one which deserves priority, no matter who implements education for the Coloured people. Sir, the Minister quoted from the Schumann report. He referred to pages 136 to 138, and I understood him to say that no additional expenditure worth mentioning would be caused by this transfer, but on page 138 of this report there is a footnote which indicates, I think in a very difinite way, that additional expenditure may not be incurred, but the figures quoted on that page, according to the footnote, do not include increased salaries, compulsory school feeding, etc., and from Table 33 on page 137 of the report it appears that approximately R3,000,000, on the basis of the 1961-2 figures, will be needed to provide for the three items mentioned. Sir, the Minister referred to sections of the report, but I think what is most significant is that he did not refer to the conclusions arrived at by the commission and detailed in the report. I should like to quote one of the concluding paragraphs because I believe that it has a great bearing on the whole matter under consideration. On page 143 the commission says—

Then after the concluding paragraphs of this report there were supplementary comments by Dr. Malherbe where he indicates that if Coloured education is to be transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs the Treasury will have to find a total of almost R 17,000,000. He made it clear that that figure of R 17,000,000 did not include the R3,000,000 which it was estimated would be required to provide for increased teachers’ salaries, compulsory education, school feeding, etc. This is what he said too on page 144—

Sir, the expenses of this particular Schumann Commission amounted to approximately R11,000 last year. Why appoint these commissions if we are not going to accept the recommendations put forward by them?

I could not help gaining the impression from the debate, particularly from the re marks from some hon. members opposite, that the Coloured people, particularly in the Cape Province and particularly with regard to education, were standing at the threshold of a land flowing with milk and honey. But, Sir, where is the money coming from to provide the facilities which are so urgently needed? The Minister of Finance, when he addressed the House earlier this Session, made it clear when an appeal was addressed to him in regard to the difficulties under which pensioners were labouring that any extension of the benefits to pensioners was contingent mainly upon finance and that finance in some instances presented a great difficulty. In terms of figures it would seem from the report that the most satisfactory and most economical manner to deal with Coloured education would be for the State to accept the financial responsibility but for the provinces to retain control and administration based on a State subsidy. I believe that the work which this commission has done has provided a very good platform from which such a scheme could be implemented, because so many figures are now available that it is possible to assess the need of a particular province in regard to education of. for example, the Coloured people, based on the estimated per capita expense multiplied by the number of pupils and I believe that in that way the cost of education could be spread evenly amongst the taxpayers of the Republic and that there would be no need for hardship for any one particular province.

Sir. I should like to digress for a moment

I hope the hon. member will not digress too far.

No, I want to do so merely to deal with what appears to be a discrepancy in the figures given in the report. I hope that perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to give us an explanation later on as to how this discrepancy arose. On page 14 of the report the numbers of Coloured scholars in the provinces are listed and on other pages which I will quote certain numbers are given. There is quite a big disparity between these numbers. I feel that this matter is sufficiently important to raise because these figures are used to assess the need for finances to be supplied in the year 1970-1. If we base our conclusion on figures which are wrong now, the ultimate result could be considerably out. With regard to the Cape, the figure given on page 14 is 283,770, whereas on page 26 the figure was given as 264,000. With regard to the Transvaal, the figure was given as 28,400 on page 14 and on page 31 it was given as 22,100. In the case of Natal, the figure was given as 12.510 on page 14 and on page 33 it was given as 11,694. With regard to the Free State a similar disparity exists because on page 14 the figure was given as 4,180 as representing the number of Coloured students in the Free State, whereas on page 34 the number was given as 3,320. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give some explanation as to how that apparent disparity arose. If we take Natal and the question of Coloured education there, I find myself in some difficulty in arriving at the actual number of scholars because in one case it is 12,500 and in the other case just over 11,000. I believe that the people in Natal are on the whole satisfied with Coloured education as presently administered. They claim that the salary scales could be higher, and with that the commission itself agrees. I would submit that a Government subsidy on the basis of per capita costs times the number of scholars would eventually overcome the difficulty and provide higher salaries and better facilities. Sir, what would be the position in Natal were the State to take over the control of Coloured education? We would have. I submit, management by remote control or it would be necessary to establish a new Department of Education to deal with the 12,000-odd Coloured scholars in Natal. I submit that that would entail unnecessary expense which could be aggravated by the intrusion of Parkinson’s Law and make for further wastage of public money.

Last year we dealt with the contentious matter of the National Education Advisory Council Bill. While I wish to dwell only very briefly on this, I would refer to the fact that when the Select Committee met to frame this Bill for the consideration of the House, they received evidence from 25 different bodies. It is very significant, I think, that of those 25. 17 were put the proposition: Should the National Advisory Education Council deal with the education of Whites only? Seventeen bodies, as I said, commented. Five said that it should deal with Whites only and 12 said “no”. Of the 12 who said “no”, I should like to refer to one in particular because I believe it has a great bearing on the decision which this House may make on this particular Bill. The quotation which I make comes from page 156 of the English version of the report; it is question 464—

This is the answer—

The man who gave that reply was none other than Professor Dr. Bingle who gave evidence on behalf of Potchefstroom University and who has now been appointed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science to the executive committee of this National Advisory Council for Education, and the Minister of Education, Arts and Science was very definite and at great pains to indicate the supreme confidence which he had in Professor Bingle, so I believe that these remarks are important and worthy of consideration. If we consider the Act itself which lays down certain conditions concerning this National Advisory Council, we find that Clause 7 (1) provides that the Council is to advise the Minister or any other Minister generally in regard to the policies to be applied in connection with education, and Clause 7 (2) makes it clear and charges the Council to endeavour to determine “the broad fundamental principles of sound education for the country as a whole, but with due regard to the advisability of maintaining such diversity as circumstances may demand ”. Sir, the personnel of this Council was gazetted late last year. It is due to commence functioning in May of this year. It has already been indicated in reply to question that for this Council to operate it will cost the State over R30,000 per annum. Here is a Council which is going to deal with the broad aspects of education. Surely the Minister should at this stage withdraw this Bill and submit this whole matter for the consideration of this Council. But what do we find in this Bill? We find in Clause 30 of the Bill that another Council is to be set up, an Education Council for Coloured Persons; it is to be separate; there is to be no liaison with its White counterpart except through the Ministers concerned. Sir, what is this mania for setting up bodies and then so often refusing to accept the advice which they give? There is a certain amount of expense involved in the setting up of these bodies. This money has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer.

Sir, I crave your indulgence to refer briefly to the question of Indian education because I believe that it impinges on the question of the principle involved in this Bill and that is the separation of education into ethnic groups. Where we have the position in the Cape that there is an almost overwhelming preponderance of Coloured scholars in relation to European scholars, we have a similar position existing in Natal where the Indian scholars outnumber the White scholars. Briefly the figures are the following; In 1960-1 there were 67,000 Whites and 105,000 Indian scholars, and in the ensuing year, 1961-2, the figure for Whites was given as 75,000 and for Indians as 109,000, so the ratio there is almost 3 Indian scholars to 2 White scholars. Only 16 years before, in 1946-7, the numbers were equal and were approximately 35,000. Sir, the Schumann report refers to Indian education and it says that in 1961-2 an amount of R5,500,000 was spent by the Natal Province on Indian education. The amount estimated for 1970-1 is R12,000,000. The Natal Provincial Council has accepted the responsibility and has made serious endeavours to provide the necessary facilities. I believe that the Indian community is aware of and appreciates the efforts that have been made on their behalf but—and this is where the inconsistency appears to arise—the Minister of Indian Affairs only a few weeks ago stated that the Government had no intention of taking over Indian education. I submit that if the cost of education of non-White races is to become the responsibility of the State, it seems both logical and economical that the cost of Indian education should not be borne by a section of the population of the Republic. As in the case of Coloured education, a State subsidy could provide the means whereby a very great burden can be taken off the shoulders of a particular province. In conclusion I say that at this stage the introduction of a Bill of this nature is illogical, inconsistent, ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-fated.

The Bill which we have before us is being attacked by the Opposition on purely political grounds. I have not yet heard any educational grounds of any nature whatsoever being advanced to show why this Bill is not necessary at the moment or why it is wrong. On the contrary, their attack is identical to their attacks on all the legislation which we have passed up to the present in connection with parallel development. I do not want to mention further examples but when we placed the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll they also opposed that legislation and yet since the adoption of that law we have for the first time heard the opinions of the Coloureds through the medium of the Coloured Representatives here in the House, who are in reality the spokesmen for the Coloured voters, as we have witnessed time and again in various debates. In previous years we have never been able to obtain the actual views of the Coloured from all the members who have represented them. It appears to me that this system has been so effective that the Coloured Representative in the Provincial Council to-day is the Leader of the United Party. This certainly proves that our system has been the correct one and that they have confidence in the person elected by the Coloureds. This Bill is being attacked on those grounds alone. The two hon. members with whom I wish to deal are the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) because of his notorious fragmentation speech, and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) because of the amendment he moved.

I want to start immediately with the fragmentation speech of the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member speaks from his own experience when he talks about fragmentation. Is he not an expert in the sphere of the fragmentation of the United Party? Was it not his proposals in Bloemfontein which led to the United Party breaking up into sections, forming the Progressive Party, and resulting in the fragmentation of the United Party?

Order! We are not discussing the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the speech of the hon. member for South Coast who spoke about the fragmentation of education.

The hon. member is mistaken; we are discussing the Bill.

That is only the first round. I want to come now to the hon. member for Hillbrow and in his case I will be able to discuss the Bill more specifically because he dealt specifically with the Bill. But I shall deal with that later. Section 85 of the South Africa Act provided that all education other than higher education would be placed in the hands of the provinces for a period of five years and that Parliament would then review the matter. This decision taken in 1910 is easy to understand. From a study of the notes of F. S. Malan in connection with the establishment of Union and also a study of the correspondence between Merriman and Smuts in connection with education and the placing of education under the control of and the retention of education by the Provincial Administrations, it is very clear that at that stage everybody felt that education should fall under the Central Government. Smuts who was the father of Union …

General Smuts.

Very well, Field-Marshal Smuts, who was the father of Union, actually felt very strongly at that stage that education should be placed under Central Government control but he left it as it was for the time being for the simple reason that only three years previously, in 1907, he himself as Minister of Education in the Transvaal passed an education law which he very much wanted to see applied in practice first and that was why he did not object to education being placed under the provinces provisionally; his education law could then still remain of force and effect in the Transvaal. At that stage he was not so sure of what its influence would be in the country as a whole. At the same time, in 1906, General Hertzog had a great struggle in connection with language rights in the Free State and because he probably also regarded the matter in that light and was sure of what the position would be in the Free State but was not sure of what the position would be in the Union as a whole, it suited him for education to remain under the Provincial Administration provisionally and that the Free State should have control of that education. John X. Merriman, the Leader in the Cape in those days, adopted the view—or so it appears from his correspondence—that there would be so many problems to be dealt with immediately in connection with Union—Native policy and other matters—that he wanted provisionally to leave this question to the provinces for the first few years; that the machine of Government should be made to run smoothly in the first five years and that education could be taken over later. From Merriman’s correspondence it is very clear that it was an accomplished fact to his mind that after five years education would be taken over by the Central Government once the initial growing pains of Union had been eased. Because of this attitude on the part of the various founders of Union, all other education except higher education remains provisionally with the Provincial Councils. Because of this fact, Coloured education still remains there. Everyone admitted therefore that it was in the interests of education for it to be controlled by a national body, but under the force of circumstances and for the sake of the great ideal of unity, the unification of the various provinces, they left it at that provisionally—I repeat “provisionally ”. In 1913 the Union Education Department was established and it suggested—

In 1915 the Jagger Commission made a very comprehensive recommendation. As I have said, it was laid down in the South Africa Act that the position would be reviewed after five years. The Jagger Commission recommended that the Provincial Councils should be abolished completely and that the control of education should be transferred to the Central Government. I quote from the Report of the Jagger Commission—

This was the recommendation of the Jagger Commission in 1915. This was the view of the people who investigated the matter immediately after this question arose in 1915. After this we had numbers of commissions, such as the Roos Commission, amongst others, until we eventually had the de Villiers Commission of 1948. In the report of that Commission too we find recommendations in respect of Coloured education which I shall discuss further just now. It is quite clear therefore that the fact that education was left provisionally with the provinces was a temporary measure. Everyone considered it to be in the interests of education for education to be placed under the Central Government but because of the force of certain circumstances it was left provisionally with the provinces. I want to state most emphatically. Mr. Speaker, that because of the historical course of events thereafter—in 1915 we were involved in the First World War: at that time the Government had neither the time nor the inclination to deal with these minor matters— this matter was also passed over and gradually the provinces built empires for themselves which could not be broken down without their rights being severely undermined. That is why this problem remains, but it is certainly not in the interests of education, either of White education or of Coloured education. When we established the Department of Coloured Affairs a year or two ago the idea was that this Department would eventually become the political home of the Coloured as regards all his facets of life. There was consultation with everyone concerned in regard to this specific matter of education. As the hon. the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, between 6,000 and 7.000 Coloured teachers were consulted at more than 40 regional meetings. The announcement of the transfer of Coloured education to the State was made in 1962 and that announcement caused the reaction. Various objections were forthcoming but, according to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), matters were also rectified in that regard. What is the choice with which we are now faced? We must either leave it where it is and make more funds available, as the Opposition apparently want to do; we can transfer it to the Department of Education, Arts and Science which deals with education; or we can transfer it to the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. We on this side of course choose the last of the three for very obvious educational, financial and logical reasons, but more about that later.

I want to deal now with the amendment moved by the Opposition and I want to deal primarily with the hon. member who moved the amendment, the hon member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). How a man of his calibre, with his background and with his past in connection with this specific matter could go so far as to move this amendment is something I cannot understand because what he said here was a complete contradiction of everything that he said in this same House a few years ago, as I will indicate now. At that time he adopted a strong viewpoint on certain matters but suddenly now these have ceased to have any value for him at all. The amendment of the Opposition deals with four points and I want to discuss the first of those points. Their first viewpoint is that this Bill curtails the powers of the provinces. In the first place I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he is aware of the fact that the Cape Provincial Administration, which is most affected by this matter, approves of this question and has agreed to it? Is it still a restriction of their powers if they renounce those powers voluntarily?

What about their resolution of last year?

I want to tell the hon. member that they approved of it by means of a majority vote, according to democratic law. Is it still a curtailment of their rights? I want to go further. The hon. member said that it restricts the powers of the provincial council, but did the hon. member also consider it to be a restriction of the powers of the provincial council when Bantu education was transferred to the Department of Union Education? I am asking the hon. member a question. On 2 April 1945 (Hansard, Vol. 52, col. 4492) the hon. member had the following to say about Bantu education at that time. He made a long speech advocating that Bantu education should no longer remain in the hands of the provinces but be transferred, not to the Department of Education but to the Department of Native Affairs. The Opposition may well read that speech and then they will be able to ascertain what the standpoint of the hon. member for Hillbrow was at that time. At that time the hon. member was not the frustrated, hardened old politician he is to-day; he was a clever educationist who only two years previously had been awarded his Doctor’s degree in Education at the University of Stellenbosch. At that time he was still a man of impartial judgment and a man who could put his viewpoint on purely educational grounds. Now he is a frustrated, front-bench politician who has to echo the sentiments of his party. If the whip cracks, he must obey. What did he say at that time? In a long speech in which he said that education should be taken over by the State and placed under the control of the Department of Native Affairs, he had the following to say— almost wistfully, Mr. Speaker—

Is Coloured education not a national matter?

But I want to go further. The second leg of the amendment states that the transfer of Coloured education will lower the status of the Provincial and Education Departments. I take it that by “Education Departments” what is meant here is the Department of Education, Arts and Science. If this is so, I want once again to compare the speech and the attitude of the hon. member of to-day—that it is a lowering of the status—with his speech of 2 April 1945. In col. 4493 he stated—

Now I want to read exactly the same thing and substitute the word “Coloured” for the word “Native” and I want the hon. member to tell me whether he agrees with me or not.

The hon. member cannot do so; they are not the same people.

The argument stands—that it is a national matter, as the hon. member said. The argument also stands further that if it is in the interests of the Natives for Native administration to remain in the hands of the Minister of Native Affairs, why ought Coloured education not to be placed in the hands of the Department of Coloured Affairs? I would like to understand the logic of the hon. member in this regard if he can explain it to me.

The third leg of the amendment is …

Are the Coloureds the same as the Natives?

No. I did not say so. Let us understand one another clearly. I do not say that the Coloured is identical to the Native: I will never say such a thing; but I say that Coloured education and the policy in connection with the Coloured and the control of that policy by one specific Minister is identical to the case of the Bantu where they and their education and their policy have also fallen under a particular Minister in order to have uniformity in that regard.

The third leg of the amendment is that the transfer will lead to unnecessary costs and the duplication of administration. This is what the hon. member says in 1963. In connection with the particular Bill on which the hon. member spoke in 1945 it was going to have precisely the opposite effect. At the moment we have duplication, Mr. Speaker, because part of Coloured education already falls under the Minister of Coloured Affairs and part of it falls under the Provincial Administrations, or does not the hon. member want to deny that? If this is so. Sir, then we do have duplication; then we have a waste of energy and a waste of money; then we already have duplication. This Bill eliminates that duplication. The 1945 Act, on which the hon. member spoke at that time, did not take away any control. On the contrary, the 1945 Act made provision precisely for what the hon. member is advocating now— that the Government should merely pay larger subsidies to those Departments and that the control should still be vested in those specific Departments. But in 1945 the hon. member contended that this was wrong: it should not be done in this way; control should also be transferred. to-day he contends that it should stay that way. What was his complaint at the time about the unnecessary expense? I want to quote from col. 4493 of the same Hansard—

this is what the hon. member for Hillbrow said at that time—

Under that system he spoke about the waste of money and now that we are doing precisely what the hon. member asked for at that time, he tells us that we are wasting money! Does the hon. member know what he wants? At that time he strongly advocated the transfer of Native education to the Department of Native Affairs and he said—

I want to say exactly the same thing; “The Department of Coloured Affairs is at the moment the Ministries of Agriculture. Public Health, Roads, Industrialization and so forth to the Coloureds. Why cannot this Department also become the Department of Education for the Coloured people?” I want the hon. member for Hillbrow to reply to that and to use his own arguments.

The fourth leg of this amendment states that the transfer will lead to a further alienation between White and non-White. as the hon. member said. In 1945. on the taking over of Native education, in his view it meant the removal of points of friction between White and non-White. It was apparently one of the most effective means of solving the Native problem and of determining Native policy. I want to quote from col. 4491 of that specific Hansard—

I ask for a unified policy for Coloured education; there is a unified policy for Native education. I ask for it for the same educational reasons as the hon. member for Hillbrow asked for it in respect of the Natives. When I ask for a unified policy I say that there is only one body which can really make a success of it, and that is the Central Government and the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Coloured Affairs. In his 1963 speech, the hon. member for Hillbrow went further and said—

Now I want quote again from his 1945 speech, at col. 4490—

At that stage the delicate matter had to be left in the hands of the Union Government. to-day? to-day it means a lowering of status; the Department does not have the necessary experience and the provinces are the appointed people to undertake this task!

I want to deal finally with the hon. member for Hillbrow by saying that at that time the hon. member was an objective educationist who had the courage of his convictions to such an extent that he even differed from his own party on a matter which to his mind was correct educationally, and that was that the education of the Bantu at that stage should fall under one control. to-day he is a frustrated front-bencher on the Opposition side, a man who is under the authority of the Party Whip and who is not permitted to hold his own opinions on education but has to fall in with party politics. I want to leave the hon. member and his past to his own conscience.

Mr. Speaker, why do we want to transfer Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs? I want to mention a few reasons why we want to do this. It is necessary. In that same debate in 1945 the then Minister of Education, Mr. Hofmeyr, mentioned, as one of the reasons for taking over the financing, the fact that the levying of taxes, the control over taxation and the spending of the money was at that stage not in the hands of the correct persons. He put it in this way—

If this was right in those days, Mr. Speaker, then surely it is true at this stage too? We have previously heard the view expressed that large subsidies are voted here annually for education, for Coloured education as well, that this money is then transferred to the Provincial Administrations and that this House which votes the money, which collects the money from the taxpayers, has very little authority over the further spending of that money or the way in which it is spent. From the point of view of financial control, however, it is better for education to be taken over by the Department and for this House, which votes the money, also to have a say over the way in which that money is spent. The hon. the Minister can then appear here each year and report upon how that money has been spent so that we can question him in that regard. I want to mention another argument and that is the argument that the source of taxation, the body which collects the taxes, must also be able to spend that money. At the moment, so I am informed, the Coloured pays R2 per annum in taxes to the Provincial Administrations plus the small amount which he pays in the form of income-tax which goes to the Provincial Administrations. But beyond this the Coloured pays his normal income-tax, as required by the Income Tax Act, to this Government and it falls under the control of this House. In other words, the argument still stands very strongly that where we are the collectors of taxes and where we in this House impose taxation, we must also be the people to spend that money. This is a good idea financially and a sound control measure over the finances of the country.

I want to mention a third argument. Education is part of a person’s makeup. It is fundamental and it cannot be divorced from the rest of a person’s personality. The basis of one’s whole personality is formulated by one’s education; the preparation for one’s employment, the preparation for one’s outside life, the specialized study of specific problems are all covered by education. I have here a definition of education which I obtained from Professor Chris Coetzee. He defines it as follows [translation]—

What a comprehensive but what an enjoyable task! Education cannot be divorced from the rest of man; it is part of man. How can education be given in a certain direction while the person himself goes in a different direction? I want to put this very clearly. I want once again to quote the hon. member for Hillbrow. Unfortunately, he used a very bad anglicism in this quotation which I do not want to have attributed to me. I merely quote it as it stands in Hansard. This is what he had to say about education in that connection (col. 4493)—

I do not want to have “part en deel” in my vocabulary but from the quotation as such it is clear that the hon. member means that education is undeniably part of the whole man, something which one cannot divorce from the rest of his personality.

The hon. member will see that that is a translation. I spoke in English.

But “part and parcel” need not be translated as “part en deel”.

The hon. member never speaks English.

If the hon. member spoke in English—I did not check it—I want to apologize if this is not his translation. In any case, I want to continue in this vein. The hon. member for Hillbrow and all educationists, including Professor Coetzee, say that education forms an indispensable part of the whole man. One cannot therefore divorce education from the rest of man. If education must prepare man, educate man as a whole and at the same time also prepare him for his future life’s task, then it is necessary and in the interests of that man that he should receive his education under that body which deals with the rest of the person, with his opportunities for employment, with his physical education and with the various aspects of life which he has to experience later.

The fourth reason that I want to mention is that this fits in automatically with certain other aspects in man’s life—with social welfare, with nutrition, with housing, with opportunities for employment, with culture, with tradition and where all those things already fall under the Department of Coloured Affairs and under the Minister, we now ask that the whole should be completed—do the logical thing and add education to all these other things that I have mentioned. Then we will have the complete picture in every respect.

There is a fifth reason. By means of this Bill the opportunity will now be created for the Coloured parent to have a greater say in the education of his own child. He can now take a great interest in education; he can prove that interest by setting up school committees and school boards. The bodies will be represented on the Coloured Education Advisory Council. They are now going to take a positive share in the education of their children. They are now going to co-operate in and live with the education of their children. This gives them the opportunity of co-operating in their own education and living their lives to the full in this regard.

A sixth reason why Coloured education must be taken over is the question of technical training. In the composition of our present set-up, the Coloured will eventually have to play his part more and more over the years in various trades. If our policy of separate development is built up gradually over the years which lie ahead, the Black man will gradually be drawn back to his own areas, to the border industries, and as he leaves various avenues of employment, the Coloured will have to be equipped to take his place and to take over that work. It is necessary therefore for the Coloured to be trained. We are training the Bantu to do certain kinds of work but we are not prepared to train the Coloured for those types of work under different circumstances. I think that that is wrong. I have here recommendations of the de Villiers Commission of 1948. Recommendations Nos. 19 and 20 read as follows—

In other words, after a very careful investigation that Commission also arrived at the conclusion that the non-White and the Coloured should be trained for their specific tasks. It also suggested that the non-White. including the Coloured, should be trained for his specific tasks. [Interjection.] Yes, I know the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) will make use of this statement and say that we wish to force the Whites out of employment in this way. I am putting it very, very clearly; that is not our intention. He is already telling the hon. member behind him (Mr. Streicher) to make this fact known in Port Elizabeth (West). I want to say very clearly that it is not our intention to force the Whites out of employment. I have stated repeatedly that as the Bantu are drawn back to their own homelands, the Coloureds will be more in demand for their labour and they will have to play a part which they are not playing at the moment.

I want to go further. That is why we do not want to plan on a national basis in the interests of the Coloureds as a whole. I do not want to deal specifically with the curricula of the Coloureds. These will be worked out at the proper time. I just want to give the assurance—I am convinced of this fact and we have a great deal of proof in this regard— that the education of the Coloured will not be inferior; that he will not be treated in an inferior fashion at all in this regard.

I want to come to the eighth reason. His training must be adapted to his opportunities for employment. The Department of Labour can have liaison with the Department of Coloured Affairs in this regard. A survey was made of the Coloureds, including male and female, in their employment. There are three main sources of employment for the Coloured people at the moment: 24.2 per cent of them are employed in agriculture, forestry and in the fishing industry; 17.4 per cent of them are employed in factories and 27.6 per cent are in domestic service. These are mainly women. In the factories in the Western Cape alone 48 per cent of all workers are Coloureds at present. The building industry—masonry, plastering, joinery and so forth—is about 90 per cent Coloured. Over all the years during which Coloured education has fallen under the Provincial Council—I knew that they have not had the opportunity—has anything specific ever been done to train the Coloured in those particular avenues of employment. Has anything ever been done in this connection? No. On the contrary, because its administration is set up in such a way, the Provincial Council only provides academic training. The Coloured is only trained to know and do the usual things. There is no specific technical or vocational training. Under this Department and with the régime as envisaged in this Bill, the opportunity will be created for technical education to be given to the Coloureds. They will be trained positively for the practical requirements of life. Take commercial education. We know that there is an agreement between the Provincial Administrations and the Department of Education, Arts and Science to the effect that the Provincial Administrations will not offer more than two commercial subjects in their Standard Ten. This is a specific agreement because otherwise it would intrude upon the interests of the technical and commercial schools. In other words, the Coloured people of the Western Cape and throughout the country cannot receive commercial training of a comprehensive nature at this stage at all. They can only take two subjects. They can take shorthand and typing but they cannot do “snelskrif” and bookkeeping as well. The transfer also makes it possible for them to be given a full opportunity in the commercial sphere so that they can live out their lives to the full as far as the commercial sphere is concerned.

I want to mention a ninth reason why we must take over this Coloured education and I think that this is probably one of the main reasons. It will contribute towards our having a uniform policy and uniform control over Coloured education in the whole of the Republic. The Coloured child will then no longer be the guinea-pig of experimenting Provincial Authorities. We will not have a position where we have compulsory Coloured education in one province and not in another. We will not find the position where a great deal is done for Coloured education in one province and less in another province. We will reach the stage where we will be able to treat them all in the same way—a position where education as such will be placed in the hands of one body. By this means we will achieve what we want the Coloureds to have. I know that this will have repercussions but I want to say that if we really want to rise above pettiness, if we really want to rise above the historical, rise above everything, we ought to reason purely as educationists and say that it is also in the interests of the White child for this to be done.

I want to raise one last argument in connection with this situation, and this is the question of inferior education. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) made a speech here which was based on suspicions—he did not trust this and he did not trust that; he did not trust the Government in this regard and he did not trust it in that regard; he felt that inferior education would be given to the Coloureds. I want to put this to the hon. member. When the University College of the Western Cape was established for the Coloureds, we heard precisely the same arguments. We heard that it would be a “tribal college ”; that it would be an institution which would be inferior to other colleges; that it would be a “bush college”, out in the bundu. That college has now been in operation for three years and the persons in control there are people with particular ability. I shall mention a few of the teaching staff in order to convince hon. members that they are people who maintain standards. Dr. J. G. Meiring, formerly S.G.E. of the province, is the head of that college. I wonder whether any hon. member objects to him? Dr. Stopforth teaches English and he is a highly qualified person. Professor J. J. de Jager is head of the Department of Education. Professor Heese is head of the Department of Psychology. Dr. Helgaar Muller is head of the Department of Commerce. Dr. Swart is the head of the Department of History. These are fully qualified people; they are some of the best trained people that we have. They perhaps have come over at a lower salary to assist these people and to set that college on its feet, a college which need stand back for no other college. Have hon. members ever been there? Have they been to see the buildings? Have they seen the plans for the future buildings? A unit is being built up there which need stand back for no other university. The highest standard is maintained in all respects. Even overseas visitors have praised the college and the work that is being done there. The actions of the Government prove very clearly that we are not giving these people less than they deserve.

I want to conclude on this note. The educationist L. S. Steenkamp will probably agree with me—although I do not think that the politician L. S. Steenkamp will agree—and all educationists who analyse this matter objectively, impartially and in an unbiased manner, will agree that education is a national matter which must fall under a national governing body, which must be dealt with as a unit. That is why education ought to be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs so that it can be placed on a unified basis in the interests of all those who are concerned in this matter.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) advanced various reasons why Coloured education should be taken away from the provinces and why it should be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs. He mentioned the fact that taxation was in the hands of the Central Government whereas the provincial councils spent the money. He said that control should be in the same hands. He said that the source which collected taxation should also spend that money. He said that education was part of the whole basis, was part of the individual. He spoke about feeding, etc. I shall come to the other points at a later stage. But he said that taxation was in the hands of the Central Government and that the provincial councils spent it. But surely that is also true in the case of White education. Did the hon. member sneak on behalf of his party this afternoon? I want to know whether it is the declared policy of the National Party to take White education away from the provinces? Because surely it is clear that in the case of White education the provincial councils are spending the money and the taxes are collected by the Central Government. The hon. member says that those sources which collect the taxes should also spend the money. What does that mean? I must say that it is a long time since I have heard such an illogical speech as the one which I heard this afternoon and at that one from an educationist! He started off by saying that with the establishment of Union the idea was to leave all education in the hands of the Central Government for five years only and that the position would then be revised.

Just the other way round.

The hon. member forgot to add that Act 45 of 1934 changed the whole position. The hon. member quoted General Smuts and his private reason why he wanted to keep it as it was and he spoke about General Hartzog and about Merriman and he dragged in the Jagger Commission where they referred to a “systematic whole”, But that was in the past, in the 1920s and 1930s. Many years have passed and education has remained in the hands of the provincial councils. What is the use of quoting what they considered at the time of Union when the position may perhaps have been liquid, and to advance that as proof of the desirability that a change should be made? All these years the Union Government has decided that education should remain under the provincial councils.

But that is not all. We passed an Act here in 1961, the Republican Constitution Act and Section 144 of that Act says that “none of the rights of the Provincial Councils which were granted to the Provincial Councils in terms of Section 84 shall be curtailed, except in pursuance of a petition to Parliament by the Provincial Councils concerned ”. I ask this: Is there a petition before this House from the Provincial Council of the Cape; is there a petition from the Provincial Council of the Transvaal: is there a petition from Natal: is there a petition from the Orange Free State? Thereafter the hon. member for Randfontein attacked the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). He based approximately half his speech on what the hon. member for Hillbrow is supposed to have said in connection with Bantu education.

Did he not say that?

I do not remember what he said in connection with Bantu education but the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) a few days ago quoted what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), who is to-day their main educationist, had said and how he had changed his opinion. But the fact which stands out above everything is the fact that the Bantu and the Coloureds are not of the same race. Has that hon. member never noticed that the Coloured person speaks the language which he and I speak? has he never noticed that they speak English and Afrikaans and that they do not know any Bantu languages, unless they have learnt it in addition? Has he never realized that they are part of the White nation and part of the Western civilization? How can the hon. member come along and quote something which was said in respect of Bantu education and then accuse the hon. member for Hillbrow of having said certain things at that time? You see, Sir, I am slowly getting tired of this forceful (kragdadige) Government and the forceful members on the other side. I am slowly getting tired of their somersaulting every few minutes; I am slowly getting tired of the block of granite which somersaults so easily. I wish to quote what Mr. C. P. Swart said in that same debate from which the hon. member has just quoted. As an educationist he should surely have read the entire debate. Surely he did not only read a portion of it, just the portion which he wanted to read? I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, col. 4536—

What do you say now?

May I ask the hon. member a question? She has quoted from the Constitution Act. I just want to ask her what is stipulated in the new Constitution Act as far as education and the provinces are concerned?

The new Constitution Act stipulates that no rights which the provincial councils have shall be taken away other than on the strength of a petition by a provincial council and Coloured education has been in the hands of the provincial councils. Does the hon. member not even know what is dealt with in the legislation which is before us at the moment? Does he not know that the legislation which is before this House at the moment envisages that Coloured education should be taken away from the provincial councils? How can he tell me that it was only taken in 1961? The hon. member advanced a host of reasons and I found the one more peculiar than the other. The eighth reason was that employment would be more plentiful because the liaison between Labour and Coloured Affairs would operate much more easily. He said that 48 per cent of the workers in factories were Coloureds to-day. He also spoke about commercial education and vocational education, etc. But does he not know that that has not been entrusted to the provincial councils? Does he not know that that falls under the Department of Education, Arts and Science? He says that everything will now be right. Why? We still have the same Government which has not done anything for 15 years and we still have the same Minister who has not done anything for 15 years! No, I have never yet heard such a disjointed speech and that happens, of course, when you try to base your speech on the Hansard report of somebody Elbe's speech. The hon. member for Pries' (Mr. Standee) tried to talk away what the hon. Chief Whip of the Government Party let out in a thoughtless moment. He said “the syllabus must adapt itself to the needs of the pupils ”. The hon. member for Prieska then said that it was nothing more than “commonplace” (gemeenplaas).

Do you know what “commonplace” is?

As far as that is concerned, I am prepared to take lessons from the hon. member, but the fact that it was not commonplace, was proved by the following speaker on that side, the hon. member for Randfontein, who detailed how the Bantu were going to be removed from the Cape Province and how the Coloured would have to be trained to take the place of the Bantu.

You did not understand the whole argument.

That is a “mis-place ”.

I even accept the assistance of the hon. member for Parow to show how ridiculous the arguments of the hon. member were. I do, however, want the entire House to take note of what the plan of the Nationalist Party is. What hon. members opposite have in mind is that the Coloureds should not be trained to become better tradesmen but that the Coloureds will in future have to do work which they regard at the moment as below their dignity to do.

That is a sadistically wrong statement.

Those were the words of the hon. member for Randfontein and I am going to ask for the Hansard report of the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein and show it to the Minister.

Only you are capable of doing anything like that. It is unworthy.

I did not write the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein. The Minister should not allow him to say things like that, because I think it is terrible to say that the Coloureds should take the place of the Bantu. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity of making her speech.

This House has seen what I should like to call “the great build-up ”. During the past few days something has systematically been built up here; certain reason have been advanced and certain things have been held out to us. We were told that the Provincial Council of the Cape Province could no longer afford to pay for Coloured education. Not one hon. member opposite has told us what the Provincial Council has discussed, and I think I should read that. Mr. Venter, M.E.C. (member for Stellenbosch and a Nationalist) moved the following resolution. He said—

Read further.

Yes, I, unlike the hon. member for Randfontein, shall read further. But it is clear from this, Sir, that the whole approach is that they want an increased subsidy. Mr. Venter said that twice. He spoke about the present subsidy system and the limited sources of taxation; he mentioned 80 per cent and his resolution ends as follows—

Why do you read it so softly?

Is the hon. the Minister hard of hearing? He said, “If such an increase is not possible, effect should be given to the wish that the Central Government must take over Coloured education ”. I suggest that the hon. the Minister acquires a hearing aid.

I suggest that you learn some manners.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

The whole emphasis was placed on the fact that finances presented the difficulty, the subsidy. But not one hon. member has as yet given us the reason why the subsidy could not be increased and the hon. member for Randfontein argues that the body which collects the taxes should also spend that money. The hon. member for Randfontein, therefore, does not want any Provincial Council to receive any subsidy; not one hon. member has told us why the subsidy cannot be increased. Let us study this question of the finances a little closer. Surely that was not the first occasion on which the ques-of the financing of Coloured education was under discussion. That has been under discussion for years and years. Surely that is the reason why for years and years there have always been negotiations between the provinces and the Central Government so that the subsidy could be gradually increased, particularly in respect of the Cape Province and Coloured education. I want to quote what a Superintendent General of Education, Dr. Wouter de Vos Malan, said as far back as 1938—

That was in the year 1938, in the distant past years. It was already brought to the notice of the Government at that time and it was emphasized time and again by Nationalist Party members in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province; they asked for an increased subsidy time and again and they merely added an addendum that in case they did not receive an increased subsidy, the education must be taken over. The Administration explained very clearly that the removal of Coloured education would not place the Cape Provincial Council in a very much better financial position. The fact of the matter is that this question which is before this House at the moment has nothing to do with improved education, it has nothing to do with financial arrangements, because they were not insurmountable; it is simply part of the Government’s policy of separation and segregation and differentiation. I want to quote an authority, Sir. My authority is nobody else than the Prime Minister who said the following on 7 December 1961—

He then goes on and he gives various reasons in connection with what he thinks ought to be done, and he says—

You see, Sir, there was no reference to the Provincial Council of the Cape Province finding it difficult—

But then we come to the finances and the hon. the Prime Minister says this—

Where is the hon. member for Randfontein now? Because just listen to what the Prime Minister says—

In other words, the machine which levies the taxation will still not have control over education—

The hon. member for Prieska says that the Coloureds have never contributed much to their own education.

One of your people said that and I quoted it here.

Another case of somebody making a speech which consists of what somebody else has said.

What else are you doing?

If I accept what the hon. member for Prieska quoted, without having disapproved of it then …

May I ask the hon. member why she does not listen otherwise she would have known that I did not say that.

As I have said, had the hon. member said that it was well known that the Coloured did not contribute much to the education of their own children …

You simply did not listen.

The hon. member made no comment, if he did quote somebody else. The Prime Minister said—

Where does that land us? Where does that land us seeing that the Schumann Commission said that by 1970 a sum of R3 0,000,000 would be required only for the buildings connected with Coloured education. Where does that land the Coloureds as far as their education is concerned, if that is the basis of the argument of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said that a great deal of suspicion had been sown as to where the money for such development would come from and then he told the Coloureds straight out that they themselves would have to pay for it. We are told that there will be better control as far as Coloured education is concerned. What better control will there be when one Superintendent-General will be appointed who will be sitting here in Cape Town? Will there be better control over Coloured education in Natal which is 1,000 miles away from here? Will there be better control over education in the Transvaal where, according to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto), 7 per cent of the school-going children are Coloured? He said that the grand total was 22,500 and he said it was difficult to provide proper education to such a small number as 7 per cent. What is going to make it easier for the Minister of Coloured Affairs? Surely he is not going to huddle all the Coloured children together or is he going to push all the parents into one camp? Surely it will not be any the easier under the new set-up. Do you see the kind of argument which we get from the other side, Sir? But that was not all that the hon. member for Pretoria (East) said. He said that the United Party avoided facts and statistics and then he went on to say that as far back as 1911 they had already established separate schools for Indians in the Transvaal and he said that in the Transvaal there were already 62 schools solely for Coloureds and 38 mixed schools for Indians and Coloureds. Then he says that the United Party is avoiding statistics. Mr. Speaker, since 1911 the province of the Transvaal has not been able to establish schools solely for those 7 per cent Coloured children, because as the hon. member said, it was difficult to provide education to such a small section of the population. I now want to know what is going to happen to that in view of the limited amount of money that will be available to the Coloureds for their education? How will those 12,000 Coloured children in Natal, who have had compulsory education throughout the years and who have had the same syllabus as the White children, fare under the “commonplace” of the hon. member for Brits who told us that education should be adapted to the needs of the students? We are told that there will be better control. How will that be possible in the circumstances? The Superintendent-General will be in Cape Town, very far removed from the 12,000 Coloured children in Natal and from the 7 per cent in the Transvaal, making a total of approximately 31,000 children. This Government has a record.

Hear, hear!

It has already taken powers unto itself and taken powers away from the provincial councils which they had previously in connection with Bantu education. They have already had that under their control for some years. In 1953 the expenditure on a Bantu child amounted to R17.08. [Interjections.] In 1960-1, after the Government had taken Bantu education away from the provinces, and in spite of the increased cost of living and cost of administration, the expenditure was R13.6.

What about its greater efficacy?

The hon. member has only just entered the Chamber and he must accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister for it. In this same column all sorts of promises are made to the Coloureds. In this same column in Hansard it is also stated that as far as the hundred most senior posts in Bantu Education were concerned, not a single one was occupied by a Bantu. The hon. members for Randfontein, Prieska, Pretoria (East) all told us what improved education there would be for those poor little Coloured children, but what about the Bantu child?

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss Bantu education.

Sir, I am replying to the hon. member for Randfontein who spoke about Bantu education.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Thank you for your ruling, Sir. In 1953 547 children wrote and 249 passed or 47 per cent. The Bantu children who were then in Std. VI went into the matriculation class and 629 of them wrote the examination and only 118 passed, or 18.8 per cent. The following year 716 wrote and 128 passed, or 17.9 per cent. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort quoted figures to show how many more Coloured children had entered schools under the guidance of the Nationalist Government and he quoted the figures in respect of the increased number of Bantu children who were attending school. I admit that, but I refute the allegation that better education will be provided and that the Coloured child will be better off, because I have to look at the record of the Government as far as Bantu children are concerned and in whose case the percentage of passes has dropped from 48 per cent to 17 percent and 18 percent. Mr. Speaker, what does the Coloured really want? I shall tell you. He wants compulsory education. He wants increased salaries for the teachers. He wants the same syllabus as the Whites. He wants his own inspectors of schools. He wants improved medical services and better hostels, and school feeding, and better training in the clerical, administrative and professional sphere. He wants more farm schools. The hon. member for Prieska told us that 36 per cent of the Coloureds in the Cape Province were on the farms. They want more farm schools. When I thought about that it seemed to me that that would require more money than was required for the entire Orange River scheme, but having read everything I still cannot see a single reason why Coloured education should be taken away from the Provincial Administrations. Had there been a 80 per cent subsidy in respect of Coloured education, all these things which I have mentioned, as was said in the Cape Provincial Council, could have been done under an administration which has knowledge and experience and which has a record of which it can be proud. [Interjections.] We even have a better record in Natal. There we have had compulsory education for Coloureds ever since 1943. Everything I have read out here as to what the Coloureds really want they could have received under the Provincial Administrations as in the past, not only without detracting from the powers of the provinces, but without affecting the Constitution Act of the Republic.

It is unfortunate that what we on this side of the House regard as a new milestone in Coloured education should be regarded with so much suspicion by hon. members opposite. I should like to quote only a few excerpts from the speeches of senior members opposite. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked: What is the destiny of Coloured education? The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) referred to the fear of the Whites for the educated Coloureds, and the estrangement between Whites and Coloureds. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said that if there really is an honest intention to create opportunities, that also could be achieved without transfer. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said: “The Minister must be honest and tell us what he intends with this Bill.” I am mentioning these few quotations merely to explain why I contend that hon. members opposite regard this Bill with suspicion. I think that if there is a section of our people which can be proud of its past history and the honourable manner in which it has treated the Coloured races during the past 300 years, it is the Afrikaner. I think it is unfair, but I shall revert more particularly to this type of thing at a later stage.

I hope the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) will not be offended if I do not deal fully with all she said, but I shall not leave her alone altogether; I shall return to her later. [Interjections.] In passing I should merely like to ask her whether she can tell me why it is that Natalians and Transvalers have taken the whole debate in tow on that side of the House, and why the Cape representatives are refraining from participating in the debate for such a long time, in view of the fact that 86 per cent of the Coloured children are resident in the Cape Province? Natal has only 3.8 per cent and the Transvaal 8.7 per cent of the Coloured children. I merely wish to say that it is very peculiar that in this debate the people who are most interested in the debate have refrained from participating in it. Why did they not enter the debate sooner? Because so much suspicion has been expressed by that side of the House, it is as well for me to refer to the object and functions of the Department of Coloured Affairs that was established in 1960. They have a dual object: firstly to be the liaison between the Central Government and the Coloureds in their rural areas and local authorities and secondly to perform certain direct functions in respect of the Coloured community, inter alia, to subsidize cultural and recreational activities, to assist in the organization of vacation courses for the training of Coloured games leaders, and to remain in contact with the Coloureds by means of conferences and meetings. There is a great variety of things they have to do but which are not relevant to this debate. Now it is a very peculiar thing, in view of this position as set forth in this explanatory document that these people are still so suspicious. It does appear quite clearly that the Department of Coloured Affairs has not been established to isolate the Coloureds and to lead them away from the Whites, but on the contrary, to create better facilities and opportunities for them.

I wish to go further in consequence of the insinuations that have been made, and say that the Provincial Administration, as well as the Central Government, did not lightly take this step. I have to say this to the credit of hon. members opposite that they never objected to the reports that were submitted. But now it is a strange thing that after the Provincial Administration, as well as the Central Government, have done their best to have inquiries made as to the actual position, hon. members opposite come along with vehement protests, and they are very suspicious. I refer to the fact that in the early 1940s the Administrator appointed a commission in connection with Coloured education, and as a result of that report the Administrator appointed another commission in 1953, which reported in 1956. Now it is remarkable that shortly after that report was submitted the Provincial Council decided to ask the Government to take over Coloured education. After all these years of investigations it certainly cannot be said that this step has been taken lightly. But the Government also appointed a commission to investigate the whole matter, and in 1960 there was a direction from the Minister of Finance, who appointed a commission to inquire into the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces. After all this splendid co-operation, hon. members opposite are still so very suspicious as far as this matter is concerned.

But I want to go further. I would say that it must be very clear now that the Provincial Administration, as well as the Government, have not lightly dealt with this important matter. We have always said that the Coloureds should develop fully to their full status as human beings, but how can they develop better than along the lines of sound education within the limits of their intelligence? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said that there was no consultation. He concedes that the Minister had consultations, but he says that the desirability of transfer was not discussed, nor the method. It has also been argued that the Coloureds were confronted with a fait accompli, but I should like to use this report of the Department of Coloured Affairs to show that the very opposite is true and that the hon. member is not well informed, and that he will have to concede that the Minister went out of his way to consult with the people to whom this Act applies. In the first place, after the Departmental Commissions had produced their reports, the Minister of Coloured Affairs submitted the whole matter to the Coloureds over the length and breadth of the country. The Director of Coloured Education held a series of 40 meetings throughout the country to test the feelings of the people, on the one hand because so few Coloured teachers belong to an organization and on the other hand because the Minister wished to satisfy himself about the true position, so that he could not subsequently be charged with having lightly decided upon these matters. After this series of meetings had been held, the Coloured Advisory Council was informed and asked to express its views. That council appointed a standing education committee that expressed itself in favour of the transfer, and it also furnished valuable information. I shall quote some of the various persons and bodies who made representations and submitted memoranda. Firstly I refer to the Coloured Council. They recommend a uniform system for the whole Republic; the standard should be equal to that of White education; compulsory education from six to 16, parallel medium schools and a feeding scheme. I am merely mentioning this because hon. members have said that the desirability of transfer was not discussed and that the people were confronted with a fait accompli. The Port Elizabeth Liaison Committee: Give every child full opportunities; ensure present standards; recommend Education Council. Uitenhage Liaison Committee: Compulsory education; take over primary schools and Church schools. Orange Free State Education Association: Appointments on merit; introduce vocational education and create opportunities for adult education. Keimoes Cultural Society: No inferior education; improve salaries; vocational education; provide for short courses. Cape Town Teachers: Appointment should receive attention; powers of school committee should be limited; salaries, Education Council. Teacher, Vredendal: Make stricter laws, with compulsory appointment of Coloured teachers as inspectors, Education Council. School Principal, Johannesburg: Be careful with Coloured inspectors; rather retain the Whites. School in Cape Town: Trust that transfer is the right thing and the outstanding event in the history of the Coloured people in South Africa. School Principal, Cape Town: There are several motives for the transfer of education; some are in favour and some are against it. So it goes on. But, furthermore, other aspects of Coloured education were also discussed at these meetings, and views were obtained from people and memoranda were submitted on the various aspects. The first aspect that is involved is compulsory education. This is not practicable; socio-economic conditions have first to be improved, and a greater sense of responsibility should first be fostered among the parents; not only Churches are in favour of this; permit the children to work for parents; introduce it gradually; first let the general wage structure be lifted; advance the age of admission with or without compulsory education. Then in regard to the inspectorate—I cannot possibly read everything, but it shows that there really cannot be any doubt at all as to the real intention of the Minister in regard to the transfer. Then the memoranda refer to the inspectorate, and they say: Retain the present White inspectors: appoint only those Coloureds about whom there can be no doubt at all that they can be influenced; appoint Coloureds to work with Whites; ensure that the Coloureds will maintain the standards. I could proceed in this way and also refer to Church schools, and there the position is the same. The people were not confronted with a fait accompli. They had an opportunity to air their views. Some said: Permit the Church schools to expand as in the past; appoint educational experts as governors. Also in regard to school committees they say: Permit Whites also to serve in the committees; permit only the parents of children in a particular school to serve in those committees; let the parents elect three members and let the Department nominate four members. Then we come to the Education Council. I have read enough of this to show that there can be no question of there not having been the proper consultation. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout owes the Minister an apology for having misrepresented the position so completely.

As regards the aspect of suspicion: The hon. member for South Coast asks: What is the destiny? If the hon. member will read the Bill, he will find references in it to handicapped children, vocational schools, vocational education, commercial education, domestic science education, special education, nursery schools, primary schools, secondary schools, high schools, agricultural schools, industrial schools, Education Council for Coloureds, training schools, training colleges, special schools, State schools, State-aided schools, technical and vocational education and reform schools. Those are the things that are established in this Act and hon. members cannot ask: What is the destiny? If the hon. member had read the Bill, he would have seen clearly what the intention is. They say we are acting in a dishonest manner by transferring Coloured education to the Central Government, but I can understand hon. members from Natal emphasizing that the status quo should be retained, for they are unaware of the financial burden the Cape has to bear. They have to accommodate only 3.8 per cent of the Coloureds, and the expense is minimal. It amounts to only 3.18 per cent of the total expenditure of Natal, but in the Cape it is 18.51 per cent. We can also understand the Trans-yalers adopting that attitude, for in their case it is only 2.89 per cent, and in the Free State it is only .85 per cent of the total provincial expenditure. It is very clear that those hon. members are unaware of the tremendous financial burden the Cape has to bear, because the vast majority of the Coloureds are resident here, and for that very reason the Cape members have refrained from participating in the debate, for they are in a difficult predicament. They cannot go to the taxpayer and say he has to pay more taxes. What is the position here? In the Cape we are paying property tax and we are paying a health rate, not only the people in the rural areas but also the people in the urban areas. They are paying it to the Divisional Councils. In other words, the people in the Cape have to pay two taxes, one to the municipal council and the other to the divisional council, a matter that is strongly objected to at every municipal congress. In the Transvaal and the Free State they do not pay these taxes, nor in Natal. That is why the Cape representatives do not enter this debate. They cannot go to the taxpayers and say they advocated the retention of the status quo. What are the facts? We are paying all these taxes. That is why the Agricultural Union asked that a portion of the Cape be excised and added to the Transvaal so that they will not have to pay property taxes. I am very sorry for the hon. members of the Cape on the opposite side, but they are embarrassed now. What is more. I could quote how teachers have to walk about and go to the Chambers of Commerce and collect money from the business people for their schools, and the Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that although businessmen generally are sympathetically disposed to charity, it is felt that such requests from school principals in many instances constitute an additional tax. Do you see what it leads to? Every school principal wants to do the best for his children, but they lack the funds, and the provincial authorities cannot provide the necessary funds, and that is why they appeal to the public, to such an extent that these organizations now are complaining about it. That shows that there are no dishonest motives involved when we advocate the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government.

But we go further. It has been repeatedly stated here: Why cannot a bigger subsidy be paid? But let us see what the true position is, and what the anomaly attached to it is. Let us examine the true position and see whether a higher subsidy will solve the problem. What is the anomaly? The sources of taxation of the Provincial Administrations are limited, and in the Cape those sources of taxation have been tapped to the full. The income-tax source, the personal tax source, motorcar licences, motor tax etc. have been tapped to the utmost extent, yet they are unable to supply the 50 per cent due from the Provincial Administration. From 1913 to 1925 we operated on a £ for £ basis, but from 1925 to 1945 they based it on a system of school attendance, but that did not work either, and they then reverted to the 50 per cent basis, but by 1956 they realized that this thing also did not work, and it was then decided that the Central Government could make its annual contribution on the basis of 1955-6 plus another 6 per cent annual increase. But that was not yet sufficient. They had to provide a special sum of money for Coloured Education. As a result of those constant manoeuvres they retained the position that the Cape would bear 50 per cent of the Provincial expenditure and that the State would contribute 50 per cent. This has been the position since 1955. But who can give us an assurance that the position is stabilized now? It is envisaged that in ten years’ time the provincial expenditure will be not R89,000,000, as it is now, but R144,000.000. During this period it is estimated that Coloured Education will increase by 100 per cent. In the report submitted to the Cabinet by the Economic Advisory Council, Professor Schumann says that Coloured education will amount to R34,000,000 by 1972, but then regard should be had to compulsory education, increases in teachers’ salaries, which will mean another R6,000,000 and add to that a further R20,000,000 to R28,000,000 for land and buildings. If the Cape were then still to contribute on a 50 per cent basis, what are our taxes going to be like? Remember, the 50 per cent remains the same, but it is not 50 per cent of R88,000,000, but 50 per cent of R144,000,000. The amount will be nearly doubled, and the taxpayer of the Cape will be the one called upon to foot the bill. The hon. member wishes to know why the subsidy cannot be increased. It cannot be increased. It will not reduce our taxes to such a great extent, but I should like to assure the hon. member that once this transfer has taken place, there will not be such a burdening of one section of the people year after year, and he can go and tell his constituents that. And if the hon. member is still in doubt on this or that aspect, then I say: Why are you in doubt? Why don’t you accept this transfer so that we can at once get rid of all those extra taxes only because a certain section of the population lives mainly in the Cape Province? When doing business, one does business where one will not run any risks, if one is placed in a position to decide. That is my whole approach.

But now we come to the constitutional aspect of this whole matter. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the course of history: Why has South Africa left the Commonwealth? As a result of our racial policy. Why are we constantly regarded with suspicion by all the States of Africa and all the overseas countries?

Which clause is that?

No, I am making my own speech. I do not want to put up such a poor argument as the hon. member opposite. It is still my considered opinion that it is merely sound government, that it is merely sound diplomacy, that Coloured education, that facet on account of which the Government has to endure so much criticism and which is the basis of the welfare of Coloured, and which will lead him to the fullest development as a human being, should be placed under the direct control of the State.

I am happy to please the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) who has just sat down by entering into this debate as a Cape Province representative.

A Transvaler representing a Cape seat.

Modestly I can tell him that this is only the beginning; there is still better to come. The hon. member was much concerned to emphasize that the Government has not gone into this proposal lightly. That I accept, but that does not make wrong right nor does it prove that a better course could not have been followed. We on this side of the House, of course, believe that a better course should have been followed. The hon. member was also much concerned with the question of taxation in the Cape Province. In that regard I will reply to some of his remarks in the course of my speech.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has in the main justified the introduction of this legislation on the score that the cost of education of Coloured persons has become an intolerable financial burden on the Cape Province; or, as the Burger has paraphrased the hon. the Minister’s argument, “Kaapland kan dit nie langer be-kostig om Kleurlingonderwys te dra nie.” Politically that may appear to be a plausible argument but fiscally and administratively it is no argument at all. What may sound politically ingenious on the part of the Government is factually and practically quite disingenuous. It is obvious that the financial burden which State controlled education places on the fiscus, i.e. on the public purse, becomes the greater as the demand for education by the masses becomes greater. Race and colour have nothing to do with the problem as such. The problem has emerged elsewhere in the world and is by no means unique to the Cape Province. Here, however, it is easier to look upon it as a racial problem instead of a fiscal problem because the masses are predominantly persons of colour. Elsewhere the remedy would be one of financial adjustment by means of fiscal devices. Here this Government can only see the problem as one calling for more legislation, for more apartheid, for more authoritarian rule and for more ministerial power. I say that elsewhere the task of meeting the problem would be an educational one of trying to meet the educational demand of the masses and it would be one for the educational department to settle with the help of suitable financial aids and fiscal devices. Sir, the accepted principle of public finance to regulate a matter of this sort is quite simple. It applies at all government levels and it applies in all countries. In simple terms it requires that contributions to the public purse should be based on ability to pay, while benefits derived from the public purse should accrue according to needs. In other words, the affluent section of the community contributes more in taxes than it gets back in services and in kind so that those who are not so affluent may share according to their needs. In so far as the cost of providing and subsidising education in the Cape Province has become unduly burdensome, the remedy is a straightforward one. The hon. member who has just sat down had a great deal to say about the question of taxation. I say that the remedy is a simple one. It is simply a financial adjustment between the Government and the province concerned.

It is strange that that solution could not be found since 1910. You now come forward with a solution but you have not been able to find one since 1910.

I will answer the hon. the Minister in the words of the Prime Minister himself. This is purely a fiscal matter and I will demonstrate that by evidence even better than my own. You see, Sir, demands for education are admittedly becoming greater in the Cape Province, as elsewhere, and the tax-raising potential is not keeping pace with those demands. But it is not keeping pace, not because of the racial complexion of the parents, but because of their inability to contribute more to the public purse. Let no one be deluded therefore. The transfer of the control of education of one section of the community from the Province to the Government will not reduce the demands on the public purse. Indeed the setting up of yet another bit of State machinery to control primary and secondary education in the country as a whole, is likely to increase the cost, and unfortunately it is also likely to lower the standard of instruction because of the inevitable disruption which a change of this nature must bring about amongst existing teaching personnel. That is why I say that in practice this scheme is disingenuous, and the Minister’s explanation must be recognized for what it is. Politically it is an excuse, not a justification for the introduction of the Bill. At this moment therefore Parliament could be better employed by exercising its financial functions instead of having to exercise its legislative functions. Sir, let no one be deluded. The sovereign remedy of an ill of this kind is not the passing of yet another Act of Parliament, especially an Act of Parliament which will add so extensively to the executive authority of a single Minister. I will come back to that disturbing feature of the Bill later on. Let me first of all refer to another disturbing feature which arises from an address which the hon. the Prime Minister gave to the Coloured Affairs Council in December 1961. My hon. friend, the member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has referred to this document and I want to read out a quotation from it as well. This is the answer to the hon. the Minister who glibly suggested just now that I had found something which was an answer that nobody had found. Let me tell him that the Prime Minister found it himself. In this document, after stressing the question of the Department of Coloured Affairs taking over the education of Coloured persons, the Prime Minister went on to explain that normal Coloured taxation would finance this scheme. This is how he put the matter himself—

I pause here to say that it is not quite clear to me what double taxation machine the hon. the Prime Minister was referring to, since whilst there are two bodies that imposed taxes, the Provincial Council and Parliament, the actual machinery for collection is the same. The Department of Inland Revenue does the collecting. The Prime Minister then continued in these words—

That quotation confirms that at least in the mind of the Prime Minister the matter before the House is essentially a money problem and I hope therefore that the Minister in his reply to this debate will answer two Questions that I want to put to him. The Bill itself, of course, is completely silent on this tricky question of finance, but this House and the persons mainly concerned, i.e. the Coloured community are entitled to know how the Prime Minister’s financial scheme or vision of December 1961 is to be fitted in and is to be applied in practice under the provisions of this Bill. My questions to the hon. the Minister are these: Firstly, is it the intention of the Government when applying the appropriation provisions of this Bill to regulate the amount of money to be spent annually on Coloured education according to some predetermined ratio of the “global sum” which the Prime Minister has said can be easily calculated as being the total direct and indirect taxes paid into the public revenues by the Coloured community; and, as a supplement to that question, if that is so, will the hon. the Minister tell this House what proportion of that “global sum” is to go to Coloured education? My second question is whether it is the intention of the Government, in giving effect to the Prime Minister’s financial scheme, to create now or in the near future a “Coloured Education Account” on the lines of the existing “Bantu Education Account ”? These are both simple, straightforward questions and I think they call for simple and straightforward answers from the Minister. They are questions which are very pertinent to the financial arrangements which are set out in his Bill and 1 hope therefore that in replying to this debate the Minister will give an unequivocal answer to both questions which I have raised.

I come then to the administrative complications involved in the transfer of the control of Coloured education from the provinces to the Department of Coloured Affairs in terms of this Bill. You see, Sir, schools are human institutions, and I am now going to concern myself with the human side of this problem. Viewed from that angle and from the administrative angle, the Bill is a very complicated measure. It is not easy to assess how some of the provisions will work out in practice, but it will, of course, affect many hundreds of persons either as teachers or as pupils or as parents, and I hope therefore that the Minister will not in his reply overlook this human aspect of the problems with which we are concerned. In that regard the Bill raises many questions of principle, but it is only possible for me to deal with a few of these matters. As I have already said, the most alarming aspect of the Bill is the vast number of executive powers it vests in a single Minister. In most cases the powers so vested in the Minister are absolute. They are absolute powers which are not subject to any form of veto or review. For all practical purposes much of the verbiage of the Bill could be replaced by four simple words, “die Minister bly baas ”. I would refer you. Sir, to Clause 7 in particular which in simple terms could simply read this way: “The admission and dismissal of students shall be in the hands of the Minister.” That is the simple effect of Clause 7 of this Bill. [Interjections.] It is most inhuman, I think, and it is placing an inhuman burden on one single Minister as well.

You need not worry about that.

I do not think the Minister is superhuman and he will be the first to admit that, because it will require someone who is superhuman to carry out these vast powers. You see, excluding the definition clause, the short title and three consequential clauses amending other legislation, there are 33 operative clauses in this Bill. Two-thirds of those operative clauses, i.e. 22 of them, place in the hands of the Minister arbitrary powers or completely discretionary powers. In several instances the clause confers not one but many such arbitrary or discretionary powers which are placed in the hands of one single person. If hon. members want to question that let them just look at Clauses 11 and 18 to see the extraordinary powers which are being placed in the hands of a single person. No wonder then that the persons most affected by this Bill find little comfort in the legislation itself, and no wonder that the representatives of the Coloured community in this House want assurances from the Minister not about the legislation as such, but about how the legislation is to be applied in practice, because that is in fact the substance of the amendment— not the legislation but how the legislation is going to be applied in practice.

One of the fears that has been voiced in the Press on behalf of the teaching personnel in Coloured schools is this—

I say that there is substance in that fear, because as I read the relevant provisions of the Bill, the teaching staff will in future come within a new category of public servant, but they will be deprived of certain of the statutory safeguards that are accorded to the main body of public servants in South Africa in terms of the Service Charter, as set out in the Public Service Act of 1937 (Act No. 54 of 1937). Sir, I am dealing with the principles involved and not the detail and I can, of course, only refer therefore to a limited number of cases to substantiate that the fears which have been expressed on behalf of the Coloured teachers are not ill-founded. It is, of course, elementary that if the State is to have a contented Public Service, then Parliament as the final arbiter in all matters of administration must make sure that certain basic principles which govern employment in the Public Service are safeguarded in the law itself. The most important principle which govern employment in the Public Service is that the law which regulates the duties and the responsibilities of the servants must itself give adequate protection to the servants against any arbitrary action by the Government or by a Minister as the employer. I have indicated the extraordinary number of cases in which this Bill confers arbitrary powers on a single Minister. The principle which I have just enunciated is a perfectly clear one which governs and should govern all cases of employment in the Public Service. The justification for that is also quite clear. Because Coloured teachers under the terms of this Bill will not become statutory servants, as distinct from contractual servants, they will lose the right which they have as contractual servants under the common law. Let me explain the difference. Because the public servant is deprived of freedom of action in so many directions, his rights must be protected by statutory safeguards. In terms of this Bill the Coloured teachers will now fall into the category of an employee who cannot bargain on his own for better terms, because he now falls within a statutory group. He cannot freely offer his services to a different employer in future because there will be no competing employer for Coloured teachers, and basically he has only the rights and the privileges which are set out in the Bill and in the regulations. He has no other rights or privileges. Our courts have made that position perfectly clear. In Evans’ case 1920 T.P.D., the court said this—

That is why I am stressing the general principle which is so important if you are going to have a contented Public Service, and that is why the Coloured teachers, the public servants of the future, are entitled to have statutory safeguards such as (1) security against reduction of emoluments; (2) security of tenure of office and against arbitrary dismissal and (3) the privilege of pension benefits. Let me traverse some of the provisions of this Bill. There is no general safeguard for instance, against reduction of emoluments as is to be found in Section 22 of the Public Service Act of 1957. Let me just read the provisions of that section for record purposes. Section 22 reads—

That is in the case of misconduct—

Sir, when you look at the terms of this Bill you find that the safeguard is by no means as clear and unequivocal as that contained in Section 22. It is perfectly true that in the case of a transfer, Clause 14 (2) does give a limited amount of protection in that it says—

And it adds, unless it is in consequence of an act of misconduct. But there is no such protection given to the man who may be seconded by the Minister in terms of the powers which he has.

The second aspect to which I want to draw attention is that whilst it is true that the fixing of salary scales and allowances is dependent on the Public Service Commission having first made recommendation—and that is in terms of Clause 11 (1)—but when you come to the question of the appointment, the promotion or the transfer of the individual, we find that the power vests entirely in the Minister. There he has certainly got arbitrary, complete discretionary power, to appoint or to promote or to transfer. Under the Public Service Act, however, the appointment or promotion of an individual are dependent on a prior recommendation by the Public Service Commission. That is a most valuable safeguard which any public servant is entitled to have, but it is absent from the provisions of this Bill. And that is not the worst. Where the Public Service Commission is required in terms of this Bill to make a recommendation the hon. the Minister is not bound to accept that recommendation. He can change it at will. Nowhere in this Bill is there any safeguard to ensure that the individual receives any protection in any way. Once the Public Service Commission has made its recommendation it becomes functus officio under this provision, therefore it ceases to operate. As far as the individual is concerned, whether he may or may not know what the effect of that recommendation is as far as he is concerned, he is completely remediless. On the contrary, Sir, in the Public Service Act there are safeguards which are of great value to the public servants. The first one is this that the Public Service Commission is obliged to report to Parliament annually. I will read one of the provisions which calls upon it to report to Parliament—

Moreover, Sir, the Public Service Act safeguards the right of the individual where a recommendation favourable to him had been made. There is provision that having made this recommendation it shall be carried out by the Government, unless it alters it. If it alters it, it shall also be carried out as altered, and if in a stated period—usually six months— nothing is done the individual becomes entitled to the benefits which have been included in that recommendation. These matters are basic to employment in Government service. Those safeguards are singularly absent when you read the provisions of this Bill, complicated as they are, and I can assure you, Sir, that they are extremely complicated as far as the individual is concerned. Nor is there any safeguard to protect the prior rights of a Coloured teacher who, in terms of this Bill, now becomes a State servant. I will again quote from the Public Service Act to show the extent to which that Statute protects the individual. Section 31 reads as follows—

The teacher who has contractual rights in a State-aided school, once that State-aided school is taken over by the Minister—and he can take it over on consultation alone—that individual becomes a State servant He becomes a State servant in terms of Clause 10. It is true that he is given a limited amount of protection in Clause 11 (2) which says that his conditions of service shall remain the same. And then come the significant words “unless or until the Minister determines otherwise ”. So there again, Sir, we have the situation that only a limited amount of protection is given to him; he is really placed at the mercy of one single individual whose decision is final and not subject to any form of veto or review.

Viewed in the light of the absence of any adequate statutory safeguards such as those that I have mentioned—I am obviously only able to deal with some; not with all—all I can say at this stage is that the comment that was made in the Press on behalf of the Coloured teachers is a very modest one. I shall read it—

I can only repeat that it is a modest way of setting out a position which is going to affect the human side of schools very very greatly. It is a matter which I think is sufficient to deter this Government from proceeding with the Bill which is before us to-day.

The hon. member who has just sat down always gives me the impression of being a person who has a reasonably wide knowledge of subjects and who can participate in discussions on many matters. But he has one unmistakable characteristic and that is that he always succeeds in burying in his speech the case which he is advocating. Once he has finished speaking he really does not know what he said and what he wanted to say. I must say that in any case the hon. member once again succeeded in making all of us forget what he was talking about. I tried to follow the hon. member to the best of my ability and I think that he made more or less two points which are of interest in regard to this matter. The rest of his speech dealt more with the Public Service Commission, the Public Service and so forth. He tried to simplify the question of Coloured education and he tried to make out that the whole matter would be solved simply by way of financial adjustment. He complained further about the increasing power of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

The history of Coloured education and the history of education in the Cape has, over the years, become a great problem to the various Provincial Councils and particularly the Cape Provincial Council. This shows that the question of financial adjustment is not such a simple matter. It is not a problem which is easily solved. Every Administrator finds himself saddled each year with this problem of doing justice to Coloured education within the limits of the funds at his disposal. This is a problem which has also retarded the whole development of Coloured education with the result that it has not made good progress. It has also impeded White education in the Cape and has frustrated development in various other directions. As has already been said, this has imposed a very heavy burden on the Cape. I do not want to try to follow the hon. member any further because much of what he said was not germane to this particular debate.

I want to start by referring to three historical facts which we must take into account in a discussion of this nature.

The first fact that I want to emphasize is that we have developed a system of separate education for the Coloureds over the years and this fact must be borne in mind in discussing the transfer of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. This system of separate education for the Coloureds is one which has grown from our history; it is a system which we cannot break away from. We have separate schools for the Coloured child throughout the whole of the Cape Province and in the other provinces as well.

There is another fact that I want to mention and that is that in the religious sphere the Coloureds have developed their own separate Church. History has taught us that this system of separate education for the Coloureds and a separate Church for the Coloureds—the vast majority of the Coloured people belong to the D.R. Mission Church—is the best thing for the Coloured people. Over the years it has given them the best opportunity to look after their own religious and educational matters. Although there has been further development in the religious sphere, separate education for the Coloured has only reached a certain point; in other words it has been separate education only in the sense that there have been separate classrooms and separate school buildings and Coloured teachers for the Coloured child.

The third historical fact that I want to mention is the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs. This is a comparatively recent development and yet this development has, during the few years of its existence, demonstrated that we are dealing here with a particular direction in the interests of the Coloured people. I do not think that there is one State Department which has been able to do so much in such a short time for the particular cause which it has been serving as the Department of Coloured Affairs has done. That is why in this short period the Coloureds have begun to look to the Department of Coloured Affairs more and more for guidance, not only in regard to their socio-economic development but also in regard to their spiritual and mental development. The Department of Coloured Affairs is taking the lead to-day in the development of Coloured residential townships and in the building up of local authorities for the Coloured people. The Department is taking the lead in training the Coloureds in administrative work. The Department of Coloured Affairs already controls higher education for the Coloureds. In this development of the Coloured people there is one important shortcoming, and that is that the matter which is fundamental to all Coloured progress is controlled by other bodies, bodies other than the Department of Coloured Affairs, and that matter is the education of the Coloureds which is controlled by the provinces. There is no doubt that we have to deal here with a practical shortcoming—I might almost call it impediment—in that the Department of Coloured Affairs, which guides the Coloured people along the road of development, which assists them socio-economically, which gives them the opportunity to enjoy higher education, which helps then enter a section of the Public Service, can have nothing to do with the education of the Coloured people. It cannot direct that education into really useful channels so that the Coloureds will be trained in the best way possible to make use of the opportunities which are open to them. I want to emphasize this point very strongly to-day that under the present regime the Department of Coloured Affairs which the Coloureds look to for assistance and guidance and which is accepted by the Coloured people as the appointed body to assist them in their progress, is not able to look after the education of the Coloureds also and to fit it into the whole pattern of Coloured development. In other words, as things stand at present, the Department of Coloured Affairs is like a cripple trying to help another cripple. We will only be able to serve the interests of the Coloured people in the best way if we also give the Department of Coloured Affairs this other leg so that it can look after the interests of the Coloureds as a strong unit. If there are shortcomings in the present system, they are inherent in this divided control of Coloured education in the various provinces. Coloured education has always been treated as an appendage of White education. Good work has been done, Mr. Speaker—let us admit it. Good work has been done under the circumstances but we have reached the stage where we are experiencing a particularly rapid development on the part of the Coloured people. New opportunities are arising for them. They are faced with new challenges now and we have reached a stage where the Provincial Administrations are simply not able to meet the demands of the times and readily to equip the Coloured people for the task which lies ahead of them.

I want also to mention another shortcoming in the existing system, and that is the fact that in the past, Coloured education was an appendage of White education, because it was too loosely connected with the national character and needs of life peculiar to the Coloured people. It took too little account of the national character and the particular requirements of the Coloured people. It needs no expert to realize that in spite of their diversity, we have to deal with an individual group of the population, people with their own way of life and with their own outlook on life, and that their education cannot merely be something which is incidental to White education if it is to be really effective.

The figures have been mentioned here. The percentage of failures in the Senior Certificate Examination as far as the Coloureds are concerned is about 35 per cent or 40 per cent, while that for the Whites is much lower. This leads me to think that there is a lack of understanding in regard to the nature and the needs of the Coloured people. That is one of the reasons—I do not say that it is the only one—for this unduly high percentage of failures amongst the Senior Certificate Coloured candidates.

Another shortcoming in the system of Coloured education is that there is no positive aim, there is no clear goal. That is why there are so many Coloured boys and girls who leave school and do not know what they are going to do. The reason for this is that they have not been trained for a specific task because they have really not undergone the preparation needed to become fully-fledged members of society.

Another shortcoming in the present system is that there is so little of what is peculiar to the Coloured in Coloured education and the fact that the Coloureds can contribute so little themselves towards the system of Coloured education which is offered them. To a large extent it is White education which is given to them, as a favour. The Coloured teacher has little opportunity to make a positive contribution to the curriculum and the content of the education which the Coloured child receives. Besides this, the Coloured teacher has little control over and little share in the administration of Coloured education. In other words, Coloured teachers and education leaders have no say in regard to the essence and the scope of Coloured education and those matters which should fall in with the national characteristics of the Coloureds. This has remained a very important shortcoming of this system. There is another shortcoming and that is the lack of funds, a shortcoming which is always raised in regard to Coloured education. Hon. members opposite cannot escape the fact that Coloured education is often impeded by this stumbling-block of a lack of funds. The funds of the provinces are limited and they simply cannot make sufficient funds available to make Coloured education effective. They cannot supply the necessary facilities for suitable education.

I have stood up before in the Provincial Council and asked the hon. the Administrator whether we could not move in the direction of giving more technical training to the Coloureds; whether we could not move in the direction of specialized training so that a Coloured child leaving school, whether in Standard eight or Standard ten, could find a position which would enable him to become a useful person. The reply I received was: Unfortunately, the province does not make those services available and we do not have the necessary funds. What else is this but an admission by the highest authority that the province is powerless to make available really effective and positive Coloured education? That is why one of the sore points in the present set-up is that a great deal of human material is lost because of the lack of the necessary guidance and vocational training and information. I telephoned the head of the Department of Psychological Services of the Provincial Administration last week and asked him whether he had a good intelligence test for Coloureds. I asked him whether comparative tests had been made by means of which the White and Coloured child could be compared with one another to assist us in directing the Coloured child along the correct channels. The reply of the head of that particular service was: Sorry; we are engaged upon it but so far we have made no progress. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the head of the Department of Psychological Services here in Cape Town admitted that we actually do not yet know the Coloured child. We do not yet know what his potential is. We do not know what his particular aptitude is. But hon. members opposite want the matter to stay as it is. If the Central Government were merely to make more money available it would not rectify this matter. On the contrary, we have to deal here with a matter which is a challenge to us; which reassures further investigation and further study and challenges us to utilize and harness the Coloured person in education so that he can make a positive contribution towards the education of his own child. Is this not something which we owe the Coloured child and the Coloured people in general? I want to go so far as to say that we will be committing a crime if we continue offering the Coloured merely what we think is good for him. To my mind it is necessary for the Department of Coloured Affairs to take over this service and not only for the Coloured people to be consulted in connection with the question of the take-over, but that the Coloured people will be further consulted and asked: What is your opinion of and what will you contribute to the curriculum of the Coloured child, to the education of the Coloured child in order to make him a worthy citizen of South Africa? We cannot get away from the variety of national groups in our population. We cannot deny that we have to deal here with a group of the population which is fundamentally different from the Whites even though there are many points of similarity. It is this difference exactly, this difference which is a challenge to us. We must keep in mind and we must offer the Coloured people a new adjustment having regard to the demands of the time. That is why it is important to my mind that we give the Coloured people a new régime in education and not merely a little more money, as was advocated by the hon. member for Hillbrow. To his mind, in the detailed survey of the history of Coloured education which he gave us here, the whole solution to the problem is simply: The provinces must have more money. But he as an educationist knows that the matter is not so simple. Let me remind the hon. member that we have to deal here with a considerable section of our population. There are 300,000 Coloured boys and girls of schoolgoing age at school to-day. This is a large number for our country and it creates a great problem in regard to the future of our country and the development of our industries. There are probably at least 50,000 more who are not yet at school. Let us make no secret of the fact that it is our responsibility to get the Coloured people to help themselves. Let us urge them to see to it that all of those schoolgoing children attend school if possible. We do not only owe this to the Coloured people but we also owe it to South Africa. I am convinced of the fact that if there is one body which will make this possible it will be the Department of Coloured Affairs and not the Provincial Administrations because they are hampered by a lack of funds.

Let me say further that we need a new regime because we have to deal with a swiftly developing community in South Africa. The Coloured people are one of the most swiftly developing communities in South Africa at this time, on the one hand because there is so much opportunity for them and on the other hand because the demands of the time are so great. As is the case with any other nation in the world, they ask to be permitted to play an active part in their own development. The Department of Coloured Affairs gives them that opportunity in other spheres —in their own local authorities and in the Public Service in the Department of Coloured Affairs. They receive that opportunity in their community associations and so forth. It is also most important that the Coloured people should play an active part in the education of their children and this can best be done by placing Coloured education under the Department of Coloured Affairs. There is moreover the challenge to the Coloured people at this stage to serve their own people in a variety of professions. There is a need for Coloured doctors; there is a need for Coloured attorneys; there is a need for people to serve the Coloureds in various spheres, for example, in the commercial sphere. There has to be a controlling body covering the whole field, a body which can give guidance and arrange matters so that those opportunities will be created for the Coloured people. Because the Coloured community is developing so swiftly at this stage and because there are so many opportunities for them it is very important that Coloured education be lifted out of its old groove; that Coloured education be used to help the Coloureds ahead so that they can make a positive contribution towards the development of the country.

I want to add that this Department knows the needs of the Coloureds, the nature of the Coloureds better than any of the Provincial Administrations do. And moreover, this Department will enable more Coloured teachers, people who have a knowledge and experience of the education of the Coloured child, to participate administratively in Coloured education. In other words, there are new possibilities for promotion for Coloured teachers. Let us give them what is their due. We are convinced that where they have the opportunity they will grasp it and not disappoint us.

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed last week at the speech of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who is a responsible front-bencher on the other side. I was surprised when he stood up and reversed the policy of the National Party and said that it was a policy of discrimination. He was replying to what the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) had said. The hon. member for Malmesbury had said that he did not want to be incorrectly understood. He had said: “I want it to be very clearly understood that I am not speaking of inferior education, but of the differentiated education of the Coloured with a view to the circumstances in which he finds himself Then the hon. member for South Coast stood up and said that the hon. member for Malmesbury had said that our policy was one of discrimination. He translated “differentiation” by “discrimination ”. But surely any hon. member in this House is able to translate “differensiasie” by “differentiation ”? To translate it by “discrimination” is rather droll to my mind and I really did not expect this of the hon. member for South Coast. But that is the way hon. members opposite argue. Their arguments do not hold water. I want to repeat that our view on this side of the House is that we want to give the Coloured people in this country every opportunity to develop as a happy community and as a developed community so that they can make a worthy contribution to the welfare and progress of South Africa. I am also convinced of the fact that they will make that contribution. Our policy is not one of discrimination but a policy of the development of the variety—differentiation—by means of which the national characteristics of each national group are considered. In terms of this policy those groups have the opportunity of contributing to the prosperity of all according to their own national characteristics, their own talents and possibilities, and most of all, towards the prosperity of their own national group.

And so I want to conclude with a few general remarks. We are living in particular times and the Coloured people find themselves in particular circumstances of the times. World politics are in a turmoil and I have been struck over the past years by the fact that the Coloured people have acted in a fairly mature manner. They have gradually come to realize that in order to progress they should talk less and work harder. The Coloured people are awakening to the idea of hard and faithful work, and that is the key to the future. It is a striking fact that they have learnt to withstand the political assaults which are being made to-day on the lesser developed nations of the world and to find their own way and their own direction. They are participating to-day in the swift industrial development in South Africa and they are doing so successfully. They are producing professional people who can stand on their own feet and even in the Public Service they are making use of the opportunity offered to them by means of which they will eventually hold responsible positions in the Department of Coloured Affairs. That is why we have high hopes for the Coloured people and we are convinced that it is the policy of separate development of the National Party which is giving the Coloured people their best opportunities. We are convinced that the taking-over of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs is not only necessary but that it will give the Coloured people a particular opportunity not merely of participating in their own education but also of having a share in the content of Coloured education, in order by so doing to make their contribution to the development of our country in their own particular way.

The hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) tried to convince the House that the transfer of Coloured education is desirable for the future of the Coloured people. He studiously avoided the basic difference between his party’s political views and the views of the Opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to be consistent in this matter from a political point of view. That is more than I can say about some of the Government members opposite. Our amendment is on record, but I would be failing in my duty as a Representative of the Coloured people if I did not point out certain aspects of this matter. Mr. Speaker, two very important features have become evident during the debate. The one is the question of finance and the other, in my opinion, is a purely political aspect. I believe, as the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) indicated, that this question which was raised by the Government side of the very heavy financial burden is merely a red-herring. There is no substance in it. But they believe that this legislation is an important piece in the crazy jigsaw puzzle of apartheid. The hon. member who has just spoken clearly indicated that that is the viewpoint of the Government party. It is part and parcel of the Government’s policy.

and I might describe it in this way, that the Government has built a Berlin Wall between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. They have built a wall dividing two sections of the same nation, as in Berlin the Germans of the West and the Germans of the East have been divided. Two people belonging to the same nation, divided in South Africa, not only on ideological grounds but on the basis of colour, and every step that the Government has taken in regard to legislation in respect of the Coloured people has been one brick more to build up this wall and making it higher and broader and making it completely impossible for the Coloured people eventually to come over to us again as it is their desire to do. Mr. Speaker, to show my consistency I want to quote from the debate that took place in 1959.

I hope it has a bearing on this debate.

Yes, Sir, it deals with Coloured education. I want to say that we were watching out for this type of legislation for years, because the Coloured people were afraid and they asked us to watch developments, and in March 1959 (Hansard, Col. 2955) I said this—

And what did the then Minister of the Interior say?—

In 1959, therefore this question had not arisen.

Surely you know the facts.

Despite the fact that in 1957, when I was a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province, there was a resolution asking the Government to take over Coloured education, two years later, in 1959, the Minister of the Interior, in charge of that particular Department, said that he had not yet considered it.

Now the present Minister of Coloured Affairs then took the unprecedented step last year of forestalling—and I give him credit for it as a clever political move—of forestalling this issue. He made a statement in this House and said that the Government was going to take over Coloured education. There was no legislation before the House, there was no motion. What happened? He almost made it impossible for any objection.

You had an opportunity to discuss it.

The hon. Minister made it almost impossible for the Coloured teachers, after his statement, to organize any opposition, because they knew that any opposition to the desires of the Minister and the intentions of the Minister and the Government would mean the death-knell of every Coloured teacher …

Is that your excuse now?

I am giving the facts as I know them. The hon. Minister then anticipated that there might be objections, and he then did what I believe was correct under the circumstances, and he went to consult and he got a very excellent gentleman in his Department to consult the teachers, and I believe the Minister said that some 40 regional meetings were held, and the Minister said that a very large percentage of the Coloured teachers had accepted the principle of the transfer. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they accepted that principle with a heavy heart and with their tongue in their cheek, and I now want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is so sure, because I am not sure …

You are never sure of anything.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is sure that the Coloured teachers are behind him in this transfer. If he is so sure, let him show his bona tides and have a referendum amongst the Coloured teachers by secret ballot, without coercion, without fear, and let the Minister give an indemnity to every Coloured teacher who dares to get up on a platform and oppose this legislation. If the hon. the Minister is so sure that he has the Coloured teachers behind him, then he should welcome my suggestion of a referendum.

We had what was nearly a referendum and met 6,000 or 7,000 teachers.

The hon. the Minister must not think that these people dared to object to the transfer. The Minister does not know his own Bill. They did not dare to do anything to upset this.

That is a very serious reflection on the executives of the Coloured teachers.

Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there is no finer type of Coloured man in South Africa than the Coloured teacher and I would hate to insult them or to reflect on their integrity, but they come to me and say: "What can we do about it?” I am giving the hon. the Minister the facts. They say: “We were faced with a fait accompli, what can we do?” They say that their whole future depends on a teacher’s career, and they feel they cannot get up and protest and say that this should not be done.

Now I want to destroy, if I can, this question of finance. The hon. Minister mentioned it in his opening address. He did not deal with it very fully, because I do not think he himself believes that the financial aspect has very much to do with this matter.

You know that there was a commission …

Yes, I am coming to that. In order to complete the jig-saw puzzle of apartheid, the Minister feels it necessary to put this piece into it. The financial aspect does not matter. There was the Schumann Commission, as the hon. Minister says, and they reported—

That is what they said.

Is that in the report?

What are you quoting from?

That is an extract from the report.

Why not read the report itself?

If the hon. gentlemen are trying to suggest that I am misleading the House by only quoting that extract, I may say that I am quoting from an editiorial on the Schumann Report.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: Whose editorial?

I will read it in Afrikaans—

That is not the commission’s report.

I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a chance. This is a paragraph from the commission’s report—

This is an extract and if the hon. member wants to see it I will give it to him. I merely am trying to show that those hon. members of the House who wish to convince the public outside that this is a necessary step on account of finance, are not correct, that is merely eye-wash. I want to read to you what an Administrator said when this matter was raised in the Provincial Council. I have been told that it was the present Administrator, but it may have been a previous Administrator, who said—

Who said that?

I have been given to understand that it was the present Administrator, but it may have been the previous one.

That is all I wanted to know.

The whole question of finance therefore does not come into the picture. The hon. member for Peninsula said that he was not impressed by that argument. This is purely a political move by the Government and as such we must approach it.

The Coloured people are concerned. They may have nothing to worry about, but they are concerned.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: What does the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) say?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) had such wonderful things to say about Coloured education under the care of the province, that the hon. member for Karoo admitted that he was in two minds.

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill?

The Coloured people are worried because they read what is being said, and they read for instance extracts such as the following in regard to Coloured Education.—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from “Christian National Education”, and the Coloured people have drawn my attention to this. The hon. the Minister is trying to anticipate what I am going to conclude my speech with. I did not interrupt him when he spoke, and I want to tell the hon. Minister now that it is no use him getting hot under the collar, because I repeat with all the emphasis at my command, that the Coloured people are not happy at this moment about the change. They may be wrong, they may find that they were wrong in opposing this step. Only the future can tell. But we are talking about this legislation at the moment. There is another extract from this “Christian National Education”, and it goes like this—

Those are matters which rather frighten the Coloured people, this fear of Government people to use money which they claim comes only from the White taxpayers, to be used for Coloured education. I was in the Provincial Council in 1957, when the hon. member for Malmesbury moved a motion which read—

I was there, and as usual he made a typical organizer’s speech. The late Mr. Olivier, was then Administrator, but unfortunately he was ill that day and he could not be present during the debate, but he sent us a message and he informed us that he was quite happy in respect of the next three years at least, because he had received an increased subsidy from the Government which would last him for about three years, from 1957 to 1960. He was a Nationalist, who was a member of the Nationalist Party in this House, but threw off the cloak of party politics when he became Administrator, and there he sent a message to say that he was quite happy with the position at the time.

This is five years ago.

That does not matter.

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

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended I was referring to the attitude adopted by the late Mr. Olivier, then Administrator of the Cape, in regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Sta-den) and I think I have dealt sufficiently with that aspect. There was a motion before the Provincial Council asking whether the Government would not subsidize the province by a greater amount, and the report to the Administrator read as follows—

The point I make is that the Cabinet decided unilaterally. There was no consultation with the Coloured people prior to this Cabinet decision. I would have thought that it would have been right for the Minister to consult the Coloured people before this Cabinet decision was taken. But be that as it may, it is now finished and we can do nothing about it. In the few minutes at my disposal still I want to ask: What of the future of the Coloured people?

They will be properly educated.

It is a pity the hon. member did not have that opportunity. I ask …

I ask the hon. member not to be so personal.

Sir, it was merely meant as a joke. Hon. members opposite have shed crocodile tears about the future of the Coloureds and they have indicated—I believe sincerely—that the future of the Coloureds in the sphere of education will be assured by this legislation. I visualize then that they will produce scientists, teachers of high qualifications, and I ask what is to become of these people? You educate them. Under this system it is possible that there will be thousands of young men who will qualify as scientists and medical men and legal men, but what of their future? Are they to be restricted to this narrow, insular area to which they are confined? Will they be permitted to enter the service of the Government in other spheres?

Order! I do not think that is relevant.

I merely wanted to say that we must, hand in hand with this legislation, open up opportunities to the Coloured people to benefit from the new status which is to be given to them in the educational field, and I do believe that it cannot be to the advantage of the Coloured people to bring them to a certain state of education and then say: So far and no further.

That was the trouble in the past.

Is the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) prepared to give me the assurance that if we produce a thousand scientists amongst the Coloureds in the next few years they will be employed by the Government?

Order! That goes beyond the scope of this Bill.

Raise it under my Vote.

I will do so. Now, in conclusion, let me say that we also saw certain Coloured people. I do not want to mention names. Those people saw us and one of them said to us: When it was first mooted there was an outcry. That confirms what I said, that there was an outcry. But he said: “Since then the Opposition has watered down and most have accepted it.” Now, as Coloured Representatives, we are in this position, that the Government by unilateral action came to the decision to transfer Coloured education to the Government, and we now say it is inevitable, because this legislation will be passed, but what guarantees are there for the Coloureds that certain things will happen for their benefit and their improvement? Therefore the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) moved an amendment and we therefore hope that the answer to these questions will be given. We do not expect that the Coloureds will be very happy, but there will be some sort of compensation if they know that the questions we have asked of the Government will be answered in the affirmative. Sir, this is a very difficult question and one which this Government knowingly undertook to implement their policy. I am very sorry indeed that the Coloured people once more have been used as a political football in the game of party politics and in the name of apartheid.

And what are you doing now?

In conclusion, I want to say that we are to-day by this legislation making it impossible for the Coloureds to come back to us, as we wanted to do.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: May I ask a question? I just want to ask what the hon. member for Boland says about that?

Sir, the hon. the Minister did not believe me when I said that the Coloured people are not happy. I want to repeat that and tell him that they will now have to accept what has been offered to them, and we hope that the future of the Coloured man will be as rosy as it has been painted by hon. members opposite in this debate. I do not want to deal in detail with the amendment we moved, except to say that if some of them or all of them are implemented it would be some ointment for the wounds of the Coloured people. I want to say that because there is no outlet, because there is no escape, because any open opposition would be prejudicial to these people, we are prepared to help if the Government gives us these assurances. We are not doing it willingly, as far as I am concerned.

Will you vote for it?

I am not sure yet. I am not prepared to bind myself in advance. But I want to tell the Minister that any deviation in the slightest … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Malmesbury has been the biggest enemy of the Coloured people.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: On a point of order, may the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) call the hon. member for Malmesbury the biggest enemy of the Coloured people?

I do not want the hon. member for Malmesbury to try to pose as the champion of the Coloureds, because I remember the amendment he introduced in the Provincial Council, and he shall not, as far as I am concerned, ever have the opportunity to pose as the champion of the Coloureds. But I want to tell the Minister that if he deviates one iota from the amendment moved by us, he will not be showing his bona fides to the Coloureds. But I do believe that if this transfer takes place—the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has just arrived—there is one redeeming feature in this unfortunate piece of legislation, and that is that there are men in the Department of Coloured Affairs whom I believe have the interests of the Coloured people at heart, and I hope that there will be friendly relations and that the rosy picture painted by hon. members opposite will materialize, and that if it does the Coloured people will not be stopped from going further and being an asset in every sphere, not only to the Coloureds themselves but to the Republic as well.

I do not think it is necessary to take the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) very seriously. We are accustomed to his making contact with certain groups of his voters, and it is clear which groups they are— and sets his sails according to their wind, but always towards the end of his speech he makes a wide turn so as to be able to get some of the praise if something good should emanate from the legislation.

I think what is basic to the discussion to the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government is the recognition of the Coloured as a differentiated section of the population with their own needs, with an individual way of life and a particular place in our country. This debate shows the difference in the approach of the two main parties. The Government Party sees the Coloureds as a particular group, a section of the population which largely shares the White Western way of life, which talks our languages and, on the other hand, also has its own characteristic customs and a way of life peculiar to itself, and which is still poor and backward in many respects, and for that reason needs much assistance in order to develop. But at the same time this side of the House regards the Coloureds as a great potential for the development of the country, and we realize, without belittling them in any way, that they are still poor, but we believe that that must be recognized and remedied in order to give them a decent living in this country. The National Party has made it its task to assist the Coloureds, and the announced programme of socio-economic development for the Coloureds is the key to that task, and we believe that education is really the key to everything in that programme. Opportunities must thereby be created for the Coloureds to improve their position and thereby become an asset to the country. The Coloured must be assisted to help himself. This belief is also shared by responsible Coloured leaders. I should like to quote the opinion of a responsible Coloured leader and educationist in my constituency, Mr. P. M. Williams, who said the following last year at the Conference of Coloured Teachers at the University College of the Western Cape—

I say it is encouraging that the views held by this side of the House in regard to the position of the Coloureds and the task ahead of it is shared by responsible Coloured leaders.

But I regret that hon. members opposite have a totally different view of the matter. They do not want to regard the Coloured as an individual national group. In debates of this nature they express those views, but when they go outside they treat the Coloureds as an inferior group. This behaviour cannot but give one the impression that the Opposition’s political philosophy as to the position of the Coloureds and its practical politics differ as day from night. In debates of this nature the Opposition acts as the spokesman for the leftist element amongst the Coloureds, and they usually allege that the Government is suppressing the Coloureds. But now I want to ask hon. members opposite what they have specifically done for the Coloured population in the many years during which they were in power? In practice the behaviour of the party opposite in regard to the Coloureds clearly amounts to “the survival of the fittest ”. In theory they believe that they should be treated as equals, but in practice they do not care what happens to them.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) spoke about larger subsidies to the provinces for Coloured education. Listening to him and to other hon. members opposite, one would have said that this is very easy. The State must just pay a much larger subsidy, but not a single word was said about how that subsidy should be spent to the advantage of the Coloureds in order to improve their position by means of their education. This argument was often used when they referred to the cost of the transfer of Coloured education, but there is no deep interest in the education of the Coloureds. They are not concerned about how the money is to be used. That is the sort of attitude which will result in the Coloureds, as the weaker economic group, retrogressing further and further. We have had the same attitude from the Opposition in regard to every measure passed by the Government so far to assist the Coloureds. They adopted precisely the same attitude in regard to the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs, with the taking over of special education, with the legislation for the establishment of the University College of the Western Cape, with the legislation to establish the Coloured Development Corporation, and precisely the same attitude in regard to the rural Coloured areas, when we had to hear from them that this was now the beginning of the establishment of Colouredstans. And they are adopting the same attitude in regard to this Bill. We have heard the same arguments of inferior education that we heard when the University College was established. At that time they spoke about “the college in the bush ”. In this debate the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula says it will mean inferior education.

Where do you find that?

It was also stated in the amendment that this Bill would make the relations between the Whites and the Coloureds more difficult. But I want to tell the hon. member that it is this attitude and these views that they disseminate amongst extremist elements, that it will be inferior education, which makes relations more difficult. I want to ask hon. members whether they can point to anything inferior in the steps hitherto taken by the Government and this Department to improve the lot of the Coloured? I do not mind criticism, because it can have a wholesome effect, but if the Opposition cannot point to anything inferior in the results achieved by this Department they should not use such arguments. Is it not true that an infinite new world has been opened to the Coloureds in South Africa since the Government announced its policy for the socio-economic development of the Coloureds? If hon. members opposite cannot get any further with this type of argument about inferior education, they go to the provinces of which there is only one where they can still frighten the people, namely Natal, and say that it means the curtailment of provincial powers knowing, as the hon. member for Hillbrow knows, that his political friends in Natal are very sensitive on this point.

The Free State is equally sensitive.

Now he tries to frighten them by saying that their powers will be taken away or curtailed. I think the people in the Free State are a little more politically mature so that they will not be frightened by such allegations.

I do not want to derogate from what the provinces have done in regard to education and the other functions entrusted to them, but with reference to the allegation made by the hon. member for Hillbrow this Bill will curtail provincial powers, I just want to ask this: Has the provincial system been introduced to be served, or is it there to serve the province and the country? I believe that this system was wisely created to serve the citizens of the country, but I also believe that when circumstances develop which at that time were not foreseen, and if the provincial system cannot cope with the position, supplementary functions should be taken over by the Central Government, not because the Government is so keen on doing it but simply because circumstances force it to do so.

The argument is also advanced that this Bill means that the status of the Provincial Education Departments will be derogated from. I cannot believe that. On the contrary, I believe that the status of the Provincial Education Departments will suffer particularly as a result of a shortage of funds and if as the result of developing circumstances they cannot cope with the requirements of Coloured education. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said that the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government would lead to further fragmentation. Sir, it is nothing new that the particular needs of a particular group lead to special permission being made for that group. I have never heard hon. members opposite complain about fragmentation because of the fact that certain people in their ranks formerly decided that there should be private schools in which certain principles to which they adhered should be applied, schools which in the words of one of their leaders should be “unashamedly English ”. I believe that it was in order to meet the particular needs of that group of the population that they established such schools. At a later stage departmental singlemedium schools were also established. I believe that it was in order to meet the particular needs of that particular group that they took that step. But then I cannot see how the hon. member can allege that for the socio-economic development of the Coloureds the transfer of their education to the Department of Coloured Affairs which concentrates on the advancement of the Coloureds is tantamount to fragmentation.

I should like to pay tribute to the various Provincial Administrations for what they have done and what they are still doing in connection with education, but they are being restricted by a lack of funds as well as other means. The Administrations are not always equipped to be able to judge where people should be fitted in so as to be able to make a good economic living. Our Provincial Administrations are not equipped for it. It is precisely because of this need that the State has now taken it upon itself, in its plan to uplift the Coloured, to transfer his education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. I do not think anybody can level the reproach against this Department and its officials—and I was glad to hear this tribute from the hon. member for Boland—that in this great task which they have undertaken and to which the hon. the Minister has also devoted his energies, they have never neglected to do their duty. I believe that because of this divided control the place that should be occupied by the Coloured is not appreciated by the Provincial Administrations as well as it is appreciated by a department which is in touch daily with the needs and problems of the Coloureds. There is a multiplicity of systems in the provinces in respect of Coloured education. In the Cape Province we find that a large portion of education is the responsibility of the various denominations of which there is a large number. In the Transvaal we find that quite a number of Coloured children have to attend school together with the children of Asiatics and in the Free State we find that Coloured education is administered as a subdivision of Bantu education. In the provinces we find that there are various forms of instruction and divided control of Coloured education, which cannot be sound. As far as the financial aspect is concerned, I believe that it is the Coloured who suffers as far as his education is concerned, because the necessary means are not always available. It appears from the report of the Schumann Commission that in the Cape Province 90 per cent of the Provincial revenue is contributed by Whites and only 8.7 per cent by the Coloureds, but as far as expenditure is concerned, only 60.3 per cent of the expenditure is devoted to White services and 33 per cent to the Coloureds. It so happens that provincial revenue is derived mainly from direct taxes and that is why it is felt, since this position is developing, that it would be much more correct for the State, which to a large extent also gets the indirect taxation, which is also paid by the Coloureds in the form of excise duties, etc., to plough this money back for the education of Coloureds.

The point has also been raised that it will cost too much to transfer Coloured education to the Central Government, but I believe that it will always be worth while incurring these costs as long as we get the necessary results which the hon. member for Boland apparently believes we will get.

The Coloureds find themselves in a particular economic position. I do not say this reproachfully or in a derogatory way, but the fact of the matter is that there are thousands upon thousands of Coloureds in the Western Cape who are not in full-time employ simply because, as the result of defective education, the right approach towards work has not been drilled into them. In this situation we find that workers, Bantu amongst others, flock from elsewhere to this area where Coloured labour is available. When another hon. member referred to this aspect this afternoon it was stated sneeringly from the other side, “Oh, you want the Coloured to do the work of the Bantu ”. That is an absolutely erroneous representation. Better equipped Coloured workers strengthen our manpower potential and also make the presence of Bantu here unnecessary. But I want to go further and say that we must get away from the idea that there are certain kinds of work which are only fit for the Bantu. Just as we are teaching our own White children, so we should also teach the Coloured to realize that no work is a disgrace, whether it be manual work or white-collar work. On the other hand we believe that through better training of our Coloureds greater mechanization is possible, which will make it possible to transfer many of the redundant labourers who are here at the moment and who keep Coloureds unemployed. Without reproaching the provincial authorities in any way, I want to say that the existing education does not meet the need that exists to equip the Coloureds for their task, and South Africa can no longer afford this state of affairs. The Department of Coloured Affairs which takes an intense interest in placing Coloureds in employment is in an excellent position to judge for which occupations the Coloureds should prepare themselves. I do not believe for a single moment that this department will ever plan anything of an inferior nature for the Coloureds. There was a time when our White children could not all attend the bigger schools with the finest buildings. There was a time when we had little farm schools, but was that inferior education? On the contrary, I believe that one of the tragedies of education is the disappearance of these small farm schools. Attention will also have to be given to this problem of the education of the rural Coloured. There are certain farmers who at their own expense are establishing schools for the education of the children of their Coloured labourers. I want to put forward the plea that the Department, in implementing its educational policy, should guard against the harmful consequences of over-centralization of schools. Although we Whites have developed beyond that stage, I would urge that we do not overlook the value of our rural schools and the place that they occupy in our social life. I would urge that special attention be given to the aptitude which the rural Coloured has for agriculture, and that that aptitude should not only be retained but further developed. In connection with vocational training I would also urge that the necessary attention be given time-ously to the question of keeping in the rural areas the Coloureds who show so much aptitude for agriculture. Through the planned educational policy of this Government they will also be better fitted for the commercial world which more and more Coloureds are entering to-day. In the nature of things, what is lacking in the domestic background of many of our Coloured children will also have to be supplemented by the instruction that will be given to them. On the other hand, through the taking over of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs, opportunities for promotion in the teaching profession will be created for our Coloureds. to-day teaching is practically a dead-end profession in which the highest post that they can reach is that of school principal; as against that, the possibility is now being created that they will be able to progress even as far as inspectorship. The establishment of a Coloured Educational Council, which is visualized here, opens up the possibility of using the services of some of our best Coloured teachers on this Council. All this can only redound to the benefit of the Coloureds in general because they will now be able to put into practice their own ideas and co-operate with the Department to uplift their own people.

To show to what extent our Coloured educational leaders agree with us as far as this matter is concerned, I need only refer to a few ideas that were expressed at the conference which was held in October last year at the Cape Western University College. Mr. Golding of Elsies River, for example, stated—

He said that his school received free books every year to the value of R3,000 but at the end of the first term those books were in a terrible condition and that by the end of the year half of them had disappeared. He went on to point out that he noticed every day at the tuck-shop that large silver coins were being handed over, but that when 5 cents was charged for a book, the children were unable to pay it. He said that the children grew up with the idea that the Government has to pay for everything they need.

Another Coloured educationist stated that many teachers were against the Department of Coloured Affairs, but this was due to ignorance. Now they realize what opportunities are being offered to the Coloured child and to the Coloured group as a whole and that is why there is a new awakening amongst the Coloured teachers, he said.

Since that is so, in other words, since one already notices a sense of responsibility amongst the Coloured educationists, I think the time has come when we should carry on with this step and, through the Department of Coloured Affairs, help Coloured education find its feet. In that way I believe that we will achieve the results which were also visualized this evening by the hon. member for Boland towards the end of his speech and that we will silence the Opposition cries, because the knowledge will grow in the mind of the Coloured that this Government and the Department of Coloured Affairs are out to benefit the Coloured in his own interest and in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as one who finds little to admire in the policies or politics of the Nationalist Party, I am nevertheless constrained to admire and to wonder at the ingenuity with which they invent the necessary jargon to go with every shift of policy—because every time they think up something new in relation to any particular section of the population of South Africa, up comes the phrase, or combination of phrases, or the magic word or combination of words, and after that every argument is based on that particular phrase or word. Lest the hon. the Minister feels surprised about this, as surprised as he looks, let me hasten to tell him what I mean by this. He set the pattern for this debate when he talked about socio-economic, followed by this, that and the other. I can give you my word, Mr. Speaker, that every speaker on that side has had a lot to say, since, about the socio-economic motivation or about the socio-economic effects of this Bill. But it is quite easy over a period of a few years to go back from socio-economic considerations to “Wit baasskap” because it started with “Wit baasskap”, turned into apartheid, then into separate development. was then called self-development or autogenous development.

The hon. member should return to the Bill.

May I with respect point out, Sir, that in order to understand the Bill properly, one is entitled to find out what the motivation behind it is, what are the reasons behind it because, after all, we on this side have not asked for the Bill, and therefore I submit we are entitled, if we cannot get the answers from the other side, to examine of our own volition the effect as well as the motivation of the Bill. If we do this, Sir, we find that there was first of all separate or self-development, autogenous development and now we come to socio-economic development. So it goes on until the point is reached where we are now being told, with the usual mass of statistics and with the usual quotations from this, that and the other authority, that this is the only solution and the only salvation for the Coloured people of South Africa.

Before I examine what I call the motivation of this Bill, I should like for two reasons —one of them being that I want to be courteous—to deal with some of the points raised by the last two speakers on the Government side. For all sorts of reasons, I believe that after I have done that, there will not be many more speakers on that side of the House! At any rate, one of these members, namely the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) said in effect that better education— which, he claimed, would result from this particular Bill—would make more Coloureds employable, and as a result would do away with the need to have Natives in the Western Province. I am prepared to stand corrected as a result of what is reported by Hansard, and I hope that the hon. member is similarly prepared to stand by what Hansard reports he has said. I heard him say it—admittedly it was in Afrikaans that he said it …

May I ask you a question?

Mr. Speaker, if it is possible for an intelligent question to come from the hon. sheep-tail for Cradock, I will be prepared to answer …

Order! I do not want the hon. member to be so personal.

I did not intend to be personal, Sir, but he called me a ducktail, and I was merely returning the compliment …

Order, order!

When a member on this side of the House is heard to say that this Bill is based on a political motive, there arises a cry of horror from the Government benches—and yet at the tail-end of the debate—I do not mean “tail” in the sense I have just used it, but in the sense of “at the end” of the debate—we heard the hon. member for Stellenbgsch who comes from a constituency which is vitally concerned with the Coloured people and the contents of this Bill, telling us what we have been telling them for the last 12 hours of this debate, namely, that there is undoubtedly a political motive behind this Bill. Now the hon. member for Stellenbosch gives us that reason gratuitously, namely that better education would make more Coloureds employable …

But what is wrong with that?

Wait a minute … "and that it would do away with the need for Natives in the Western Province ”. Again, Sir, I want to say that I admire the ingenuity of the spokesmen of the Nationalist Party, but if they can alter the complexion of this statement by the hon. member and still say that this Bill has no political motive—such as, for example, displacing the Natives in the Western Province, which has been a very strong political flash-point in this part of the country for some months now—then I am prepared to say that I have made a mistake. However, I will not pursue this point any further.

The hon. member went on to say that one of the tragedies of our educational system was the disappearance of the farm school. Now, Sir, it is all very well to become sentimental about the old school and the old farm, and the little old school on the old farm! That is all very well. With due respect, however, I do not think that anybody in South Africa wants to change our educational system, which is already being changed to some extent by this Bill, to the extent where all of us will be running back to the dear little school on the dear little farm. I would have thought that he, speaking on behalf of an area which has a vital interest in this matter, would have said that we should have better and bigger schools because of the fact that we are an industrial country, that we have already left the pastoral economy behind, and that we do not want to have farm schools if we can avoid it—but that we want well-established schools in well-established civic communities. That is what the Minister said he was going to give the Coloured people. So that when I say that all this talk about the value of the old farm schools made no real contribution to this debate, I hope the hon. member will forgive me.

Now, before I come to deal with my own particular approach to this Bill, I should like to deal with certain remarks made by another member on the Government side, namely the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht). I am sorry he is not present here now, He, in effect, said that the purpose of this Bill was to make of the Coloured man a worthy citizen of South Africa, “om ’n waardige burger van Suid-Afrika te wees ”. This is what this Bill is going to do for the Coloured, according to that hon. member. So again when one asks why this Bill has been brought before this House, one must examine that aspect of the matter. What is the meaning of this argument about the Coloured people being all of a sudden citizens worthy, or unworthy, of South Africa when one compares it with some of the other statements made by more senior spokesmen of the Nationalist Party than the hon. member for Piketberg? I have here, as an example, a statement which was made by the hon. member for Kempton Park. Unfortunately he made the statement in my constituency when he addressed the John X. Merriman Branch. The statement has a real bearing on this matter we are discussing now. Analysing the composition of the South African people he said—

Did you not know that?

Sir, I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay should save his enthusiasm because according to him the hon. member for Kempton Park knew what he was talking about, while I do not understand it. But let him listen to this. He went on to say under the heading “ambiguous ”—

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay can explain to me just what that means, I will sit down so that he can come into the debate. [Interjections.] If not, I withdraw my statement that he is enthusiastic! Here, Mr. Speaker, is one of the leading spokesmen of the Nationalist Party speaking about the Coloured people …

Order! The hon. member is drifting very far away from the contents of this Bill! The hon. member is already as far away as Hospital …

But, Sir, the hon. member for Kempton Park came to my constituency to tell us what the policy of the National Party was, and what went on with the people of South Africa. We are now dealing with the position of the Coloured people. The hon. member for Kempton Park said that their position was unique, and that the National Party does not recognize them as being part of the South African nation, although they are not excluded in toto!

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

I am indeed discussing the Bill, Sir. Am I then not entitled to discuss a point made by …

But the hon. member is drifting far too far away from the Bill.

May I ask for your guidance, Sir, as to whether I am entitled to reply to a point which was made by the previous speaker?

The hon. member has already done that and must now come back to the Bill.

Very well, Sir. I should then like to deal with our point of view, i.e. that the Coloured people are a part of the South African nation in toto. We agree entirely on the need, referred to by the hon. member for Piketberg, that there is for us to make of every Coloured person a worthy citizen of South Africa. Consequently, we want to examine how far this Bill is going to contribute to that object. That, I think, is relevant to the matter under discussion, and therefore I should like to examine some of the statements made in this connection by some of the hon. members on the other side.

The hon. the Minister was heard to say that no socio-economic plan could be carried out without the educational aspect being kept in view. He went on to say that such a proposal (the Bill) was in line with South Africa’s traditional colour policy. But if I recall the Minister’s statement correctly, he did not go on to say why it was in line with the traditional colour policy of South Africa. When you use the word “tradition” you are supposed to be referring to a pattern which has evolved out of the past into the present. And we know that, as regards the education of the Coloured people, there has, in fact, been a fairly consistent pattern for some 100 years or so. I can quote from five different books which I have here, if proof of that is necessary. There is plenty of authority for such a statement. Why then this change now, this handing over to a new Department which happens to be the Department for Coloured Affairs, under a Minister of Coloured Affairs? Why? Has that become the traditional policy of South Africa overnight? I hope the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain, when he replies to the debate, why this is now, so suddenly, the traditional policy. Otherwise, this will only be another loose statement in support of a very poor case.

The Minister went on to say that education must be planned as an undivided whole for each group. This, he said, was emphasized by large employers’ organizations which urged him to accept this point of view. Now, Sir, the question immediately arises: which large organizations of employers urged this upon the Minister? He did not say that he was urged by the Federated Chamber of Industries, for instance, or by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, or by the Chamber of Mines, or by the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut or the Afrikaanse Sakekamer. He did not say whether it was any of these bodies which urged him to take Coloured education away from its traditional home! Not a word of that—but he merely announced airily that this was urged upon him by large employers’ organizations. As this point has been made by the hon. the Minister, I wish to urge upon him to tell us which large employers’ organizations took up that attitude, because they certainly have a very direct and material interest in the education of all the people of South Africa. I should like him to tell us which large employers’ organizations came to him and urged him to take Coloured education away from, say, the Cape Provincial Department of Education. It will be very interesting to hear who they were.

The hon. member for Malmesbury, earlier on in the debate, asked why we were against divided control in education. Such divided control is, in fact, being introduced here because if this Bill is passed, it will mean that there will be two Departments which will be concerned with education in an area like the Western Cape, for example: one for the Whites and one for the Coloureds, leaving aside for the moment the Department of Bantu Education. He asked why we were against it, and went on to say that in the United States there was divided control of education. Of course there is—but the first material difference is that such division in the United States is certainly not, to begin with, based on colour. As you know, Sir, there is a lot of trouble in certain of the American states because of their determination to integrate their educational systems with the constitution of the United States. It is, in consequence, a remarkable comparison to make, when he says that this divided control is also the position in the United States. Then the hon. member went on to state—completely at variance with what we heard from the hon. member for Stellenbosch to-night—after all, Stellenbosch and Malmesbury are not geographically far removed from one another!—that they, i.e. the National Party, recognized the Coloureds as part of our “volk” but not of our “nasie”, Those were his very words. Again, Sir, I am constrained to ask when hon. gentlemen on the other side are going to tell us exactly where the Coloured people fit into our South African pattern; I hesitate, Sir, to use the word “nation” because if you contrast the statement of the hon. member for Malmesbury with that made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who wants to make of every Coloured man a “waardige burger van Suid-Afrika”, part, therefore, of the “volk” and nation … [Interjections.] When one remembers, Sir, that the difference between “volk” and “nasie” as these words are being used to-day by spokesmen opposite is absolutely impossible to grasp, then one is entitled to ask what they mean by saying in Johannesburg that the Coloureds are not recognized as part of the nation, and by saying in this House just the opposite, on a Monday night—and that in contrast to what was said on the previous Thursday night. Words have a certain meaning for the simple-minded person and this meaning they get out of the dictionary …

Words, words and more words!

In the greatly expanded and revised 4th edition of the dictionary compiled by Bosman, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra, the following definitions will be found: “nasie” means “nation ”; “volk” means “people, nation ”. Therefore, Sir, accordingly to an authoritative work on the subject, “volk” and “nasie” mean exactly the same thing. That, however, is not the case for the National Party. To them the meanings are completely different, although we do not understand what that difference is. They blow hot and cold about who is or is not part of the “volk”, and who is or is not part of the “nasie ”. I think they owe us an explanation. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary of 1955, the word “nation” means “the whole people of a country ”. In terms of this, the Coloureds are part of the whole people of South Africa. They do not live anywhere else than in South Africa! Or hasn’t anybody over there realized that yet? The Oxford Dictionary goes out of its way to give an example by an authority by the name of Freeman. “In Switzerland four languages are spoken, yet the Swiss certainly constitute one nation.”

Therefore, to understand this Bill, one must realize once and for all that despite the hon. gentlemen on the other side arguing about differentiating between the one group and the other group as much as they do, the Coloured people are part of the South African nation; yet the Minister has come forward with a Bill to prove the type of ideological concept of nationhood existing in the mind of the hon. member for Kempton Park and of the hon. member for Malmesbury.

I should now like to deal briefly with a point made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker). This hon. member is obviously a very great admirer of the United States of America, because whatever we may have been discussing this session, he quoted examples for us from the United States. The other day, in asking what this cry of “fragmentation” meant which came from the hon. member for Natal (South Coast), he asked whether he was not aware that there was fragmentation in the United States? The obvious explanation is, Sir, that just as some people cannot distinguish between “volk” and “nasie”, the hon. member cannot distinguish between “fragmentation” and “decentralization. Of course there is decentralization, because no department of State can be run by push-button control from some central bureau. Hence decentralization. The fragmentation to which we object is, however, a different thing, because it means that you take something which exists as an administrative whole and break it up into two or more sections. That is fragmentation, and that is what this Bill does. I think that I should for the benefit of the hon. member, again read from one of my favourite American books entitled “Facts of American Life” issued by the American Government. I think I should tell him what they say in this book about the general philosophy behind American education, because he seems to rely on that philosophy, without mentioning what it really is, in order to prove that this is a good Bill. On page 225 of that book the question is asked: “What is the general philosophy behind American education?” Then the following answer is given—

That is the American philosophy of education. Now, Sir, one has only to examine this Bill to see how far it deviates from that philosophy of education, and to see how far the hon. member for Fort Beaufort missed the point when he said that we would only be following the American pattern when we adopted the proposals placed before us in this Bill.

Now I should like to come to another point. I was somewhat surprised that in the course of a speech made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), when she mentioned the name of Dr. van der Ross, the hon. the Minister—even before the words were out of her mouth—interjected by saying “The voice of van der Ross!” Apparently he thinks very little of this van der Ross. But the fact is that Dr. van der Ross is regarded by the Coloured people as having some standing in the field of education. I may be wrong in saying that he is on friendly terms with the Minister, because I do not know what their personal relations are like, but that does not alter the fact, Sir, that Dr. van der Ross enjoys some standing, in the Coloured community and out of it—as an educationist …

He enjoys great standing in the English Press!

All right, Sir, in the English Press. But does the hon. member hold that against him? Does the hon. member mean to say that if this gentleman had a standing in the Afrikaans Press, he would be a fine fellow? I have here a publication called “The Coloured People of South Africa” published, not by the English Press, but by two Departments of State in combination, i.e. the Department of Information and the Department of Coloured Affairs. I have had this publication since last year; it is, in fact, one of my treasured possessions. It is an extraordinary document telling you all about the Coloured people, “you” being a person living thousands of miles away in some European country. This publication puts the Coloured people in a Technicolor light; it is a highly-coloured publication, unlike the other one I have here, named “Bantu”, which is just in black and white! On page 47 the compiler of this Coloured publication apparently wanted to show that we in South Africa were so broadminded as to recognize the merits of certain Coloured writers, certain Coloured educationists and of certain Coloured poets; and he says that from time to time articles appear by Coloured writers, such as Dr. van der Ross … He therefore gets his accolade from the Department of Coloured Affairs and he gets his accolade from the Department of Information. Yet the hon. member for Pretoria (District) says it is the English Press that recognizes van der Ross! It is very important to note that although this publication is circulated very widely in South Africa, it is not primarily intended for us but for the overseas reader.

It is widely circulated in South Africa.

But it is not intended for us in this sense: that the emphasis on everything concerning the Coloured people is—I will not use the word “slanted ”—put in such a way that it is intended for overseas consumption. I should like to give the House further examples of this. First of all, there is the future of the Coloured people which was canvassed by the Prime Minister. In this connection the overseas reader was told by the Prime Minister (via his address to the Council for Coloured Affairs in Cape Town in December 1961) that the Coloured people could have “their own Parliament and Cabinet within ten years ”. Now, within that framework comes also the question of education. In this connection the Prime Minister’s concept is made clear in this Bill, namely, that wherever there is to be any consultation or contact between one Department and another, it shall take place through the Minister concerned. That was made clear at that time, in 1961, because it is made clear in this document that—

So you can see, Sir, how this educational system, now called the “traditional system of South Africa” is meant to be integrated politically and ideologically in this Prime Minister’s concept as stated to the Council for Coloured Affairs in December 1961 and as reflected in the statement of the Prime Minister in this document. In other words, Sir, the whole thing from top to bottom is nothing more than a political concept. It is not an educational concept. If the hon. the Minister had come to this House and said that he and his Party had had the bright idea that politically it would be a good thing for the Coloureds to have a separate department of education under his control, I would have understood him readily, because that would have been a plain and simple statement of fact. But when he comes to this House rigged out in all the trimmings and trappings of this Bill yet making it so easy to trace it all back to a political foundation, I am amazed at the lack of perception on the part of hon. members on that side in coming to us—gullible as we may be in appearance—and trying to sell us this Bill of goods on the strength of it being in accordance with the traditional system of education.

You shall have to do better than that because half your side is already asleep!

I should like the hon. member to know that I want to make a speech after him!

Sir, I am not going to deprive the House for very much longer of the privilege of hearing that hon. member. Despite the fact that I have found something hilarious in this Bill, there is a bitter irony about it all. Superficially it may be funny, but basically it is tragic. The arguments which I have advanced show up so pathetically the sham which this Bill is in reality, and what the policy of the Government really is. I am sorry it has not been said as plainly as this by a representative of the Coloured people, but if they have a group point of view, I am at a complete loss to discern it. Therefore I am obliged to say that from what I have observed, and from what the Government is now trying to do to the Coloured people, it is clear that this Bill is educational sham, which has no other motivation than a political one.

The question of intelligence was also brought up by the hon. member for Piketberg this evening. He said that he contacted the University of Cape Town and asked them whether they had any intelligence tests or assessments of the intelligence of the Coloured people. The reply which he got and which he gave to the House to-night was “no, they were still working on it ”. The inference which he asked us to draw was that if this education, this so-called traditional pattern of education for the Coloureds, was in fact as inferior as we claimed it to be, then it was justified. That was the inference he asked us to draw—that it was justified on the basis of the inferior intelligence of the Coloured people. I have various reference books here; I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I think this one is really quotable. This is a work by Professor T. B. Davie, Principal, Vice-Chancellor of the same University of Cape Town which the hon. member for Piketberg consulted about this alleged inferiority of the intelligence of the Coloured people. This is a very important book on education because it is called “Education and Race Relations in South Africa ”. One of the points which the Minister made was that this Bill would make for better race relations. So, Sir, I think with respect that this is very relevant. Professor Davie says on page 17 of this book—

This book was written in 1955; one should be quite accurate about this matter. It says “up to the present” that is up to 1955—

Where is the hon. member for Piketberg?—

“Equal to those of their European counterparts ”! Mr. Speaker, how can anyone have the gall to come to this House and start this old hare running again? This hare of the man’s inferior intelligence; he is Coloured, you must give him an inferior education, because he cannot absorb or understand the superior, the White, education. Surely this has been dealt with so regularly and frequently in our own time as not to require repetition in this House. The answer is not only in this work, it is in others as well; it is in the facts of life about the Coloured people which should be known to people who represent a Coloured constituency, I have very few Coloured people in my constituency, but I have some personal knowledge of conditions in this part of the country. I have no doubt that a Coloured person, given the same educational opportunity is naturally, in terms of the experience of the people at the University of Cape Town, as intelligent as a White man. What stock does he stem from, to begin with, Sir? I want to make one quotation from Dr. van der Ross, the same Dr. van der Ross who is not appreciated by some hon. members here, but who apparently has the blessing and the approval of a publication for which I, as a taxpayer, have to contribute my share. Here they say “Look at this Dr. van der Ross; he is one of our leading Coloured writers ”. “He is an estimable man, in fact”, they say to the people overseas—but here he is anathema. Why? Maybe he is a political opponent. I do not know. But he said quite recently, under the heading “Little Solace in Education Bill ”—

So he goes on, Sir, for I would say, about a quarter of a page of this particular newspaper.

What point are you making?

If the hon. member does not know by now what point I am making, I do not know what to do for him. I have been making the point ad nauseum—for half-an-hour, I think—that this so-called educational move or method or system is a political sham, and I am not going to begin all over again. I would like to make the point in another way, through the mouth of somebody else, through the mouth of a Coloured man. Let me say immediately, an eminently “respectable” Coloured man. His name is Adam Small, and overseas we boast about the fact that among the Coloured people of South Africa, whom the White people are forever advancing to higher opportunities, is a man by the name of Adam Small.

He is a regular writer in the Burger.

Yes, we all know who Adam Small is. He is perfectly respectable in both official languages. How do you like that? He is referred to, not by me, but by Prof. Dr. F. P. Lategan, head of the Department Netherlands/Afrikaans, University College of the Western Cape. Long before this Adam Small could have seen this book on education—because he wrote this poem some time ago —he summed the position up far better than I have been able to do in my speech up to now. [Interjections.] Yes, I concede that. It is no good saying “hear, hear ”. In all humility I have said it. Of course, you would not understand his point as well as you would mine, because he has no right to speak in this House. This man has summed up the position far better than I have done in one stanza of a poem of his. The poem is written phonetically “Die Here het gaskommel ”. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to return to the Coloured Persons Education Bill. Before I come to it, I suppose that in terms of the unwritten rules of debate I am obliged to make a few remarks in regard to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) completely misinterpreted the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) when he said that the hon. member for Piketberg had consulted the vice-chancellor of the University of Cape Town in regard to the intelligence of Coloured students. What he said in fact was that he had consulted the chief of the Psychological Services of the Cape Education Department, who certainly knows just as much or a little more about the intelligence of Coloured school children than the principal of the Cape Town University.

Another point made by the hon. member for Hospital was that this traditional system, as he called it, in South Africa makes no provision for the divided control over White education and Coloured education. Apart from the fact that this is not true, he seems to be quite confused in his mind in regard to this concept of divided control. I will deal with that in a moment. I just want to point out first that this proposition of his that it is not inherent in the traditional system in South Africa is quite untrue. Ever since 1893 provision has been made in the Cape School Board for separate schools for Whites and for Coloureds, and in 1911 Coloured children were prohibited by legislation from attending the schools for Whites. In the Transvaal, in the days of Milner, the same legislation was passed, and in 1907 legislation was passed in the Transvaal by one General Smuts providing for separate schools for Whites and Coloureds. But as I said, the hon. member is rather confused in his mind in regard to divided control. When we talk here about divided control, we mean the control over academic or school education on the one hand and technical training or vocational education on the other hand. That is the concept of divided control we are discussing here. In order to come to that, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a whole series of commissions of inquiry which investigated this aspect of education ever since 1916 when the Jagger Commission brought out its report after having investigated the matter. One commission after the other pointed out how untenable the arrangement was that the provinces were responsible for portion of the education and the Central Government for another portion, viz. vocational training and technical training. The Hofmeyr Commission of 1924 proposed a Union Education Council, but points out that the confusion and the resultant powerlessness which arose from divided control was a cause for much of the inefficacy of the education provided. I want to read what the Hofmeyr Commission said in regard to this matter. Unfortunately I have only the Nederlands copy here, because at that time Nederlands was still the official language of Parliament [translation.]—

Thereafter the Van der Horst Commission in 1928 emphasized that technical education should not revert to the provinces. I want to read the English report of the De Villiers Commission, which quotes the Van der Horst Commission—

Thereafter the Roos Commission found that the co-ordination between ordinary education and vocational education was so essential that if the provinces could not or would not cooperate voluntarily, Parliament should enforce it. I again read from the same report, para. 2010-

Mr. Speaker, so I could continue quoting from one educational report after another to show how tragic it was for education in South Africa that for so many years we had this divided control between the provinces which were in charge of primary and secondary school education, on the one hand, and the Central Government which was in charge of vocational and technical education on the other hand. The De Villiers Commission itself in conclusion emphasizes that divided control over general education and vocational education was completely unsound. I do not want to quote it again; it appears in the same report, in para. 2115 (4). The one recommends that general education should be transferred to the Central Government, and the others just the opposite, viz. that vocational education should be handed back to the provinces, but all of them are agreed that divided control should come to an end. It is therefore clear that either the provinces must take care of all education, or else the Central Government must do so. The Cape Province, with its 85 per cent of Coloured education, cannot afford it, as various hon. members on this side have already indicated convincingly. Therefore the Central Government must take over.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) stated the proposition to-day that the Cape Province would not really benefit so much financially if the Central Government took over Coloured education, because, according to figures he quoted from a speech made by the Administrator of the Cape Province, it appeared that the Cape Province would benefit to the extent of £1,700,000 only if Coloured education were transferred to the Central Government. But that was five years ago, Sir. The Schumann Commission, which he also quoted, states that viewed from the financial aspect the transfer of Coloured education is not really desirable. But this same Schumann Commission points out that although five years ago there were only about 220,000 Coloured children in the Cape Province, to-day there are already more than 300,000. Therefore the picture in regard to the cost of Coloured education is completely changed. The Schumann Commission emphasizes the fact that the costs in the years to come will be particularly high. In 1961-2 the expenditure on Coloured education was R22,196,000. In the year 1970-1 it will be precisely double that amount, namely R44.144,000. That is without compulsory education. That is the position as we know it to-day. When compulsory education is in fact introduced, the costs in the year 1970-1, according to the calculations made by the Schumann Commission, will already amount to R47.922,000. Will the Cape Province be able to bear that, or even its share of this huge amount? Definitely not. The hon. member for Boland talks about concern and opposition on the part of the Coloureds against this Bill, but what about the Standing Education Committee of the Coloured Council who expressed themselves as being in favour of this transfer of Coloured education? An acquaintance of mine who is a Coloured principal expressed the following opinion: He trusts that the transfer will one day rightly be viewed as the outstanding incident in the history of the Coloured people of the Republic of South Africa.

The Department of Coloured Affairs already administers a whole number of vocational and other technical schools and colleges, including nine State-aided vocational schools, various extension courses, a higher technical school, the Peninsula Technical College which was recently taken over from the Cape Technical College, an agricultural training centre at Kromme River which will commence its courses in the near future, the University College of the Western Cape and an industrial school at Ottery, as well as the reformatories at Constantia and Faure. All these educational institutions are already being controlled by the Department of Coloured Affairs through its Coloured education section. In order to put an end to this divided control over ordinary education on the one hand by the province and this type of vocational and technical education on the other hand, under the Central Government through the Department of Coloured Affairs, we are therefore compelled to come along with this Bill which is now before this House, namely to transfer all education from the Provincial Administrations to the Central Government.

The only principle which in the final result is of any real importance is that the best interests of the child and therefore of the community should be promoted. In order to uplift the Coloureds in the most effective manner, it is essential to devote particular attention to their education and that it should be planned as a whole. I repeat, Sir, that it should be planned as a whole. I wish that we could also have in respect of White education this position we will now get in respect of White education, this position we will now get in respect of Coloured education. Only with this central planning of all education will full justice be done to our White education. Mr. Speaker, when I say that I wish that this position would also arise in respect of White education, then I do not allege that it should necessarily be transferred from the Provincial Administration to the Central Government. In regard to White education, as far as I am concerned, the opposite may also be done, namely that all White education be transferred to the provinces. I have no definite views on that, as long as we can just put an end to this, I may almost say diabolical, divided control over education.

In referring here to the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government, it behoves us briefly to pay tribute to those people who for so many years had Coloured education under their control. I refer here particularly to the various mission societies in South Africa, and particularly to the N.G. Sending-kerk, which had by far the most mission schools. These people rendered a very valuable service to South Africa under very difficult circumstances and with very few facilities. It behoves us, standing as we do on the threshold of a new era, to pay tribute to those who deserve it.

Allow me also to pay tribute to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs and his officials and to the Director of Education in that Department. New ground is being broken here, and as is the case in any new undertaking there are, of course, and will still be, birth pains and growing pains. But we feel assured and full of confidence that with these people at the head of affairs those birth pains will soon pass. It is with full confidence that we entrust this task to them to implement it, not only in the interests of Coloured education, but in the interests of the whole of South Africa. A Coloured acquaintance of mine, who is also concerned with education, expressed this opinion to me: We Coloured teachers in South Africa have a tremendous task in educating and forming our people for the future, and what a pity it is that we have to do so against a wall of prejudice against everything which is done by this Government, or which the Government wants to do for the Coloured community. And then he continued: We who regard the matter free from politics and quite objectively cannot but state with regret that it is the United Party which to a large extent is responsible for this prejudice. That took my thoughts back to the time many years ago when I was a youth and started to take an interest in politics, and when on one occasion I noticed how one of the fathers of the present United Party, viz. the old S.A. Party, fought an election in the days when the Coloureds were still on the Common Voters’ Roll.

Order! The House is now discussing Coloured education. The hon. member should come back to the Bill.

Sir, I will return to the Bill immediately because I do not wish to fall foul of you. This Coloured teacher hit the nail on the head when he said that to his regret he had to state that to a very large extent the United Party and their predecessors were responsible for this wall of prejudice obstructing them in their efforts to do their best for the Coloured child of South Africa.

In the new dispensation under these men, I believe that we will even succeed in breaking down this wall of prejudice and eventually in doing our best for all the races in this beautiful country of ours, the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) who has just sat down has surprised me considerably by saying that he believes in the central planning of White education. I had thought that hon. members would believe to-day in decentralization in education. That is the accepted education policy of the world and the central planning of education does not appeal to democratically-minded countries. The hon. member for Paarl spoke further about the Milner policy and he quoted from the Hofmeyr Commission’s report and from the de Villiers Commission’s report. He quoted the portion from the de Villiers Commission’s report which formed a justification for the removal of vocational and technical education in the earlier stages from the provinces to the Central Government. But I would like to remind the hon. member for Paarl that this recommendation was based on lack of finance, lack of financial support to the provinces. If sufficient financial assistance from the Central Government had been forthcoming at that time, there would have been no need for the change-over of vocational and technical education from the control of the provinces, which had managed it admirably since Union, to the Central Government.

I have listened to hon. members this afternoon and this evening. The hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) was in favour of Coloured education and Coloured development under the direction of their people. When the hon. member for Piketberg was saying this I myself was thinking of what has happened to Bantu education since 1953-4 when there was talk at that time of the development under more direction of their own people. When I heard the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) say that representatives here who had the least number of Coloured people in their provinces—he was referring no doubt to Transvalers—had been the majority in this debate, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am a Transvaler and I intend dealing with the very real problem of this transfer of Coloured education and its effect on the four provinces. Because the Transvaal has a smaller number of Cape Coloured pupils does not mean that they were not very directly concerned with the proposed transfer under this Bill now before the House. The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the Schumann Report and he said—

Yet not one hon. member, and here I include the hon. the Minister himself, has referred to the fact that the Schumann report is an Interim report. It is not the full report; it is not the final report of this Commission at all. This Commission of Inquiry which is sitting to inquire into the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces, stresses throughout this Interim report that we have had before us, that no final conclusions can be drawn on the financial implications of transferring Coloured education to the Government. None is possible until the overall investigation is complete. On page 3 of this report it stresses this point and it says on page 4 that—

The commission makes it quite clear in this report, on page 3, that the additional mandate to investigate the transfer of Coloured education, was thrust upon it suddenly. So it seems as if the Government in this respect, has acted with its customary haste in committing itself to a course of action as laid down in this Bill without knowing the full implications and without proper regard to the taxpayers’ interests as it has done so often in the past.

The Government’s decision to transfer Coloured education to the Minister’s Department was taken months before the commission’s report was available to the public. It started in 1961 and I quote from the Minutes of the Cape Provincial Council where, in regard to the Coloured Education Special Grant, the Administrator said the following in his report in 1961—

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because decisions were already being taken in 1961 for the transfer of Coloured education. The hon. the Minister himself last year mentioned in this House, when his Vote was under discussion, that all Coloured education presently falling under the aegis of the provinces would be transferred gradually to the Department of Coloured Affairs.

The decision was taken last year.

This followed, of course, on the direct statements made by the hon. Minister and by the hon. Prime Minister last December, to which hon. members on this side of the House have already referred.

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Schumann Report which bristles with warnings throughout and does not even touch upon certain aspects of this case, and it says “Even matters examined must be subject to review later ”. We on this side of the House in supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow feel that the best possible way of providing Coloured education in the interests of all must be found, but we do not feel that it can be found through the measure of this Bill, and between us and the other side there is no measure of agreement on the contents of this Bill whatsoever, as we feel it will be more costly for the State to run Coloured education because of a duplication of administrative services, which are at present shared by the White and the Coloured schools. We ask: Why cannot better services for the Coloured people (we are all in favour of better services for the Coloured people) be provided at less cost by merely expanding financial aid to the provinces? This has been gone into very fully in this report here, and if hon. members on the Government side of the House—the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Parow touched on this earlier in the debate—think that this transfer is going to alleviate the financial burdens of the provinces, then I feel there is naught for their comfort in this interim report. I would like to quote from the Cape Argus of 19 October last year. This is what the Cape Argus said in an article about these financial arrangements—

That is indeed what may happen.

In 1957, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), the Cape Provincial Council passed a resolution asking that Coloured education should be transferred to the Central Government, and 1 would like to ask the hon. Minister at this point whether the other provinces also petitioned the Central Government to take over Coloured education from 1957 onwards and whether they themselves sent petitions in to the Central Government on this point? The reaction is very interesting—I am now referring to the resolution passed in 1957. It was moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) who was then member of the Provincial Council—

An amendment was moved by United Party members of the Provincial Council, in which they said—

1. (a) it would not be in the interests of the Coloured people for their education to be administered and controlled by a Central Government Department;
2. (b) it would cost the South African taxpayer far more in administrative costs to make a wholesale transfer than to increase the present subsidy to the province;
3. (c) the Coloured community in the Cape contributes a considerable proportion towards our provincial taxes;
4. (d) any attempt that proposes the transfer of Coloured education to the Central Government is, in effect an expression of no-confidence in the Cape Education Department, which has always administered and controlled Coloured education in this province most competently, and, further, it would constitute a serious diminution in the powers of the Provincial Council.

It is very interesting to see what the Schumann Report says about this very same motion. On page 4 it says that the Cape Provincial Council passed the said resolution, and then they react as follows—

On the administrative side I would like to deal with the Cape Province. On the administrative side the Cape Province has 84 per cent of the teachers, 86 per cent of the pupils and 90 per cent of the schools. In the business world when a take-over bid for education is made on these lines, I feel that when it would be negotiated, it would be customary to assess not only the financial considerations but also the very vitally important question of whether there is the necessary administrative staff available in the hon. Minister’s Department to run this concern. Those are the questions that would be asked in an ordinary business deal, and in this proposed take-over of Coloured education, has the hon. the Minister given the House any guarantee and assurances that the high standard of personnel now employed in the Provincial Department of the Cape Province will be maintained in his Department? Has the hon. Minister already got the necessary personnel trained and ready to move in and ready to perform the same administrative task immediately as at present carried out by the provinces? And how is the hon. Minister going to evolve the take-over? I would like to refer to the last clause in this Bill that we are now discussing, where it says “that the provisions of the Act shall come into operation on a date fixed by proclamation in the Gazette, and a separate date in respect of the provisions of Sections 30 and 31, and different dates in respect of different provinces may be so fixed ”. So one may well ask how the hon. the Minister is going to introduce this programme in order to interfere as little as possible with the provincial programme. The budgets of Provincial Councils have either been passed or are in the process of being passed at this moment. Is there going to be a complete financial take-over immediately? How will this timetable be laid down? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to answer this question and I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the Cape School Board which has functioned admirably over these past years. It has 18 members, three of which are Coloureds. I understand that the Cape School Board submitted a memorandum to the hon. the Minister in which they strongly opposed the transfer of Coloured education to the Government, and this resolution was supported by the three Coloured representatives on the Cape School Board. The Cape School Board has jurisdiction over the largest number of schools in the Cape Province, and the experience of this board gained over the years in which it has been in existence, is very valuable. Like all other school boards, a trained inspectorate has been built up, and the Cape School Board has the whole force of the Department of Education of the Cape Province behind it, with the background and knowledge of people who have handled Coloured education over these years. Can the hon. the Minister transfer this also to his new Department? I feel the dangers inherent in transferring education out of the hands of experienced educationists such as these who occupy positions in the Provincial Administration to a Department of State are manifestly apparent when consideration is given to the deterioration in much of the educational standards of the Bantu, since the Government took over Bantu education in 1953. I know it has been touched on by hon. members already, but I would like to make this comparison: The hon. the Minister himself in October, last year, speaking in Robertson on the changes in Coloured education, said according to a report in the Cape Argus—

Later on the hon. the Minister said this—

He continued to say that there would be greater emphasis on industrial schools. And in the Cape Times of 27 February they say in a leading article that it is apparent to anyone …

Order! Is that a leading article dealing with this Bill?

I only want to quote three lines.

No, the hon. member may not do so.

It is apparent that Coloured education under the Central Government may well be inferior to the type of education as provided admirably by the provinces at the moment, and one would like to ask in connection with the clause in this Bill which refers to the taking over of education, what the position is going to be of private schools. We know when Bantu education was taken over by the Central Government, there was also the proposition put to mission schools to fall in with the regulations, or otherwise to function without a grant. Now I would just like to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 6 of this Bill. Is there the same underlying motive in Clause 6, and what is the full meaning of paragraph (a) and (b) of this clause— “Unless such school is registered with the Department in the prescribed manner and complies with the prescribed requirements; and otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed conditions”, “no person shall manage any school for the education of Coloured persons which is not a State school or a State-aided school and at which more than 14 pupils are enrolled ”? Will the hon. the Minister enlarge on the implications of Clause 6?

On the administrative side of this take-over there is going to be very heavy financial expenditure necessary, and the provincial personnel in the four provinces that handle White and Coloured education, will no longer be in control of Coloured and White education. This division of control will necessitate the employment of more personnel in order to handle this separate sector of education. It is the taxpayer in South Africa living in the four provinces who will be called upon to pay for the policy of this separate development.

I would like to ask another question of the hon. Minister regarding the representative representing the Coloured people in the present Provincial Council. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister as to the position of representatives of the Coloured community in the Cape Provincial Council. Once Coloured education is removed from the control of the Cape Provincial Council, will the hon. Minister give the House the assurance that the Coloured representatives will remain in the Cape Provincial Council.

Order! In my opinion that is a different subject altogether.

I would like to turn to the Transvaal schools, the Transvaal schools dealing with the Coloured and Asiatic communities. Figures have already been quoted from the Report of the Schumann Commission, viz. that there are 80 schools, 969 teachers and 28,400 pupils in the mixed schools, but as far as the Coloureds alone are concerned, they have 32 schools, 14,500 pupils and 492 teachers. When consulted, the Transvaal Coloured community stated that there was no discrimination against them at present, but that the lack of progress in the building of new schools and in the laying out of new playing fields, was hampering Coloured education. Most of the new schools are prefabricated, they say, and the lack of progress can be attributed solely to the effect of the Group Areas Act, because until these areas are fully defined, the Transvaal authorities are unable and unwilling to develop existing schools fully, or to establish new ones in the old areas. So Coloured schooling is suffering obliquely as a result of this lack of development because of the Group Areas Act. The Coloured teachers of the Transvaal, they state further, have always felt satisfied that their position was satisfactory, and that within the limit of National policy, as laid down by the Government, they were well-treated, and that there is no discrimination in Transvaal Estimates regarding bursaries for the Coloured pupils there. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to continue giving the Transvaal pupils generous bursaries and travel bursaries such as they can apply for at the moment? I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to an ordinance that was passed in the Cape Provincial Council recently which said that children accepted were accepted in schools if their parents had been checked via the population registration control and the certificates of the parents both showed them to be White. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if the population registration control is now completed in the Transvaal and whether that provision will also be applied to Transvaal Coloured children.

The Coloureds in South Africa have always been accepted as a part of the Western section of the South African population. This has been stressed by hon. members on both sides of the House. The Coloureds speak our languages, they attend the same churches as we do, their living standards are based on our Western living standards and if the Government really wishes to serve the interests of the Coloured community then it should leave in control those at present charged with the administration of education and make a greater contribution by way of a subsidy to the provincial authorities. Expenditure rises very naturally with the provinces as well as with the Central Government, but with this rise in expenditure, my criticism is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the motives in introducing this Bill, because if the provinces were subsidized to a sufficient extent they could pay for Coloured education. Moreover the taxpayer pays for it anyway. If the Government takes over Coloured Education, the national taxpayer will pay for it just the same, and I feel that provincial councils are most admirably suited to our circumstances and that they are a permanent and essential feature of South Africa. They have become a tradition since they were established under the Act of Union, now incorporated in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, and it is therefore essential to strengthen the provincial councils by retaining their existing rights, and not by pruning them. The machinery for the transfer of Coloured Education laid down in the Bill before the House leaves very much to be desired. The principle of transfer is simply objectionable, as it was in the case of Bantu education, and decentralization of control is always to be preferred, with education left in the hands of the provinces. Anything else, especially when it refers to such a humane subject as the education of children, or the nursing of the sick, when it is centralized tends towards a disregard of people as individual personalities in their own rights. I feel that this Bill is another step in driving a wedge between the Coloureds and the Europeans, that it is diminishing provincial autonomy and rights and that it will run us into unnecessary extra costs, and it could lead to the further estrangement between the two section of the population, the Whites and the non-Whites.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) obviously studied this Bill in order to find points in regard to which she wants information, and I will leave it to the hon. the Minister to provide her with that information. The main theme of her objection to the Bill, if I understood her correctly, was that she objected to the additional expenditure which the taxpayers of the country would have to defray as the result of transferring Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. My reply to her is this: If it can give the Coloured more than he has had for the past 50 years, I am sure I as well as the whole of the White community are more than prepared to make that greater contribution, because there is no doubt that however much we want to defend the system we had, the accusation can be made against the White man in South Africa to-day that the system under which we wanted to serve that community and provide education for it simply has not kept pace with the times and the demands of the times in which we live. I am one of those who have developed a conscience that we have neglected to do certain things for that community. Therefore I heartily welcome the fact that we want to make a new start in an energetic way with a new, virile and energetic department which can say: This backlog must be caught up with, this emergency in regard to the Coloured population is my task and I shall try to concern myself not only with the every-day needs of the Coloured in regard to housing and his upliftment, but also start at the very roots and that is to educate his child to become a useful citizen of our country who can occupy a worthy and respected place.

I rose to thank the Minister heartily for what he has already done for the Coloured community in the short time he has been responsible for this Department, and in doing so I do not want to forget the names of men like Dr. du Plessis and others, who along with him fought like a small Gideon’s band to maintain the honour and respect of the White man in the eyes of the Coloured community in South Africa. They have rendered wonderful services. But it is no less than our duty now to make it possible for them to continue that good work full force and on a level which is not only worthy of the Department of Coloured Affairs but of the White people of our country as well. It is a great and a tremendous task.

It has been said that we should leave it to the Provincial Councils, I have no complaints about the work they have done, but I want to say that with all respect: If this is the position in which the Coloured community finds itself after 50 years or more of provincial control, then it does not seem to me that the question of finance is the only one I should be concerned about and that I can allow this state of affairs to remain as it is, But I will accept that this is so, and I want to say that the Cape Province, which is larger than all the other provinces together, does not have the sources of income which, e.g. the Transvaal has. But for all these years the Cape Province has had to bear this tremendous responsibility, and it is nothing short of a miracle that they succeeded in the way they did, and as the hon. member for Gordonia has said, the taxpayers of the Cape Province had to pay property tax in order to finance these services, and they have to pay more taxation than is paid in the other provinces. Therefore it is high time for us to remedy these matters. I personally do not wish to wait until the Schumann Commission has one day published a report in regard to the financial relations, and then to do something. It should be done immediately. I am prepared to say that the taxpayers of South Africa should make it their responsibility, and I know that the matter cannot be in better hands than those of the hon. the Minister and his Department. As I have already said, they have to catch up with the great backlog, and I have no doubt that where they are now going to be burdened also with the education and training of the Coloureds, they will make sure that the same mistakes will not be made in respect of the Coloureds which were made in the past in connection with White Education, but that they will help to educate the Coloureds in those things which will be of most value to them and which they will need most. By that I mean that we must ensure that their vocational and technical training will keep pace with their needs as a group so that the Coloured can be a useful citizen to society and can be of service to his own community and to the country.

Mr. Speaker, if I have to tell you to-night what the position of Coloured education is in my own constituency, in a town like Mafeking, I must honestly say that I would hesitate to tell you over the floor of this House, so essential is it for steps to be taken immediately. Therefore I want to express the hope that this House will never begrudge the Minister the funds he will need to catch up with this backlog which is really the responsibility of Parliament and of the Government. I hope that he will always readily obtain the funds needed by his Department to perform the great task resting on them.

I want to congratulate the Minister and express the hope that by means of this Bill he and his Department will be of great benefit to the Coloured community for the welfare of which they are responsible, and I want to express the hope that through education and uplift the Coloured community, with the guidance of that Department, will in the years that lie ahead be a useful and contented section of our population and will be an ally to our White civilization in South Africa.

I am glad to be able to follow the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) because it is clear to me that he has given heed to the appeal made by the hon. the Minister at the outset when he asked that this debate should be carried on in a spirit of realism and objectivity, and although I do not agree with the hon. member in every respect it is clear to me that he has heeded that appeal, because I believe that tremendous harm may be done to the prestige of the White people in South Africa by discussing the Coloured problem in an unrestrained manner.

I do not doubt for a moment that this Bill as a whole should be viewed against the background of the policy of the Nationalist Party, the policy of separate development, the policy of autogenous development or of development of each race according to its nature, as one of the hon. members called it, and in particular I believe that the Bill should be viewed in the light of the particular policy of transfer ring Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. I do not think any hon. member opposite will deny that. That is the policy, and the Government is simply trying to implement its policy by means of this Bill.

If we accept that, I feel that we should also attach a different value to the consultation which the hon. the Minister told us took place with the Coloureds. It was interesting to hear that he held 40 regional meetings at which Coloureds attended. It is certainly interesting to know that between 6,000 and 7,000 teachers were consulted in regard to the matter. I want to add that in my opinion that is laudable. But in my opinion also this has little to do with the essence of the matter, because the question that arises in my mind is this: What would the Minister have done if the Coloureds during those consultations had said: “No, we do not want it ”? Would the Minister then have said: I am convinced that the Coloureds do not want this change? Or would he have continued with it? He would undoubtedly have continued because the policy of the Nationalist Party has not been formulated with reference to the wishes of the Coloureds; certainly that policy has not been formulated with reference to a proviso that the Coloureds should approve or disapprove of this transfer. This is the policy of the Nationalist Party and in my opinion the Coloured teacher who surely listened to this explanation with as as much interest as I did, or more, felt that he was faced with a fait accompli, and whether he liked it or not the hon. the Minister would simply have continued with his legislation. The conclusion to which I have come in regard to this consultation is that the Minister, for the sake of courtesy, consulted all these teachers, but in my opinion he cannot rely on this consultation to support the transfer of Coloured education to the Department of Coloured Affairs.