It is not really necessary for me to say much in reply to this debate. The matters raised here by hon. members opposite have been replied to in such a crushing manner by hon. members on this side that not much remains for me to say unless I repeat what they said. I must honestly say that as far as my knowledge goes, and I have read the Hansards for quite a few years, there has seldom been such a shambles amongst the members of the Opposition as there was in connection with this Transkei Bill. Every argument they advanced here vanished like dew before the sun. Every hon. member on this side acquitted himself of his task like a Samson amongst the Philistines.

It has been said here, quite correctly, that South Africa has come to the final parting of the ways. That was said by hon. members opposite and also by hon. members on this side and I want to subscribe heartily to that statement. South Africa has reached the final crossroads, but what is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that when one reaches the parting of the ways one has to make a choice, and when one observes the struggle between the two parties, and the positions assumed by these two parties at this crossroads, one feels convinced that this debate will be remembered as an historical debate which was characterized particularly by the tremendous contrast between the approach of hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side in connection with this important matter.

Let me just mention a few examples. In the first place we have on this side of the House a party with an ideal which is not merely a pure abstraction hanging in the air, but an ideal which is the development of the historic process of the past 300 years, an ideal which is an actuality to every member of this party, an ideal which like a Pole star clearly indicates the future of the people of South Africa. On the other side we had a party without an ideal, a party which could not even state its case clearly and unequivocally, with an ideal so clouded by the spirit of opportunism that one could not recognize it as an ideal at all inspiring for its supporters. On this side of the House we had a party with a policy which was stated clearly and unequivocally, a policy which bears in mind not only the problems of the day, but also those of the future; a policy which takes into account not only the tasks of the present, but also the task of coming generations, the still unborn future generations. On the other side we had a party without a policy, adopting a standpoint which actually evades those problems, not only the present ones but also those of the future. But we saw one thing, namely that very few hon. members opposite felt inclined to discuss that policy. It was even intimated that they were prohibited from discussing that policy. In any case, their policy was not stated clearly and unequivocally; they tried to escape from the problems of the future. On this side of the House we found a Leader with his ear to the heart and his feet on the road of South Africa. On the other side of the House we had a Leader who reminded me of one of the expressive sayings in the Native language—“A Leader whose marrow has been sucked out”, sucked out by the Delilahs of the various wings of his party which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to try to satisfy. I pity him. I know that it takes all his energy to do so. On the opposite side one does not really find a house, but the wings of a house, in which the various groups live which he has to satisfy, and they suck out his marrow, with the result that he cannot come to light with a strong policy. A party cannot be built up in that way. The result is that the United Party is unable to-day to capture the imagination of the people. Here we had a golden opportunity where policy could be contrasted with policy, so that the imagination of the people could be captured, so that they could also succeed in that ideal they so fervently desire, namely to take their seats on these benches. But nothing of the kind happened. We had no statement of policy from the Opposition. In fact, this was one of the most negative debates from the side of the Opposition I have ever listened to in this House. Formerly we found that the Opposition at least once in a while came along with a positive case, with a statement of policy, but we did not find that on the part of hon. members opposite. No alternative was given, except for the federation plan. Here and there there was some reference to the federation plan, but what that federation plan is nobody in this House knows even until today. [Interjections.] I say it is one of the most negative debates I have ever listened to. From the side of the United Party we had a spirit of defeatism and escape. Instead of their putting up a policy against ours, we just had scaremongering and ghost stories, to an extent we have never had in this House before. As one member after the other got up, the United Party reminded me very much of a factory manufacturing scarecrows, which were turned out like sausages from a machine. In that way one cannot capture the imagination of a nation and make a party strong. When one day that party no longer exists, one should erect a gravestone for them with these words on it: “This party died from doubt.” The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) said that they were trying to build a house, and then they break it down themselves and say that this is the house that the National Party built.

But there was another phenomenon in this debate with which I want to deal, and that is the interesting way in which hon. members opposite contradicted one another, particularly when referring to the implications of the policy followed by this side of the House. I just want to mention a few examples. Some hon. members got up and said everything is finished now; the Transkei now gets full independence and will be severed from the Republic immediately. Then another member gets up and says we are not giving full self-government in the Transkei, and they deplore the fact that we give so little self-government to the Transkei. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) accuses me of making terrible promises to the Zulus and other people, but then again other hon. members get up and say: What is the good of it? You are not making positive promises to the Bantu of South Africa; and then they reproach me for it. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Sea Point asks who said so. I shall mention names. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) gets up and says there is a difference of opinion between the hon. the Prime Minister and me. But then others again get up and say that what they cannot understand is that hon. members on this side of the House follow the Prime Minister like a flock of sheep. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) accuses the Government of having regard for the Bantu only. Then again someone else gets up and says that this Government has very little regard for the Bantu; it only cares about the Whites. [Interjections.] One member gets up and says that the Transkei is really a desert which economically can never become viable. Then another hon. member gets up and says that the economy of the Transkei will constitute a threat to the Republic. Now build a nation with such people! [Interjection.] But the final note was sounded by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) in his concluding speech yesterday. He exclaimed in ecstasy: Cannot the Government once and for all learn a lesson from what has happened in other parts of Africa? Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! Here the hon. member stands at the graveside of a federation plan in Rhodesia, which has now been lowered into the grave, and while that is still happening he holds up his own federation plan and reproaches us for not having learnt the lessons of Africa.

What are the lessons of Africa? The first lesson to be learnt is that nowhere in Africa has any plan for a multi-racial society worked, nor has any plan for a multi-racial parliament ever been successful. That is one of the main lessons to be learnt from Africa, but that elementary lesson has not been learnt by the United Party. Another important lesson Africa teaches us is that one cannot bring about Bantu development by revolutionary methods, but that one has to follow an evolutionary way, which links up splendidly with the Government’s plan for systematic development. As and when they become mature enough to perform their task they must be given a share in it. But hon. members opposite do not want to learn that lesson.

But another lesson taught by Africa is this, and I am so glad that all the UN Committees have now accepted this at last, namely that economic development can take place only as fast as the Bantu are able to absorb it. It cannot be done faster. That is one of the lessons hon. members opposite refuse to learn. We have a splendid example of it in Nigeria. Nigeria followed more or less the same plan that we are following in South Africa to-day, and Nigeria was the most successful country in Africa in that respect. It also has its troubles, but it resembles us closest in regard to its methods of development.

In the first place I want to pause to deal with a few of the general statements which were referred to or repeated by almost all hon. members who harped on the same note which was sounded by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think it will save a lot of time if I first deal with some of these generalities. The first allegation made here by various hon. members is that this plan was designed by the Prime Minister, and that he stands alone, and that if there are people who support him they are not many. I immediately want to reject that proposition very decisively and say that there is no difference between the standpoint of the Prime Minister and that of any hon. member on this side, nor does our party outside differ from it—I am not referring now to a small group who have always been difficult people. Let me point out that this plan was thoroughly discussed by the Cabinet and by the caucus of the party and at our party congresses in all the provinces and in South West Africa, and this policy is well known to the people of South Africa to-day. Just go to an old farmer on the veld and ask him about the Transkei plan, and he will be able to explain it. [Laughter.] No, there are no differences between us. Those hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, alleged that I did not see eye to eye with the Prime Minister, but I want to reject that most emphatically, because by this time hon. members know that this is the basis of my whole philosophy. Hon. members will perhaps be surprised to learn that I wrote in this direction as far back as 1917. But I just want to quote from the White Paper I issued in 1959 in regard to the Bill dealing with the development of Bantu self-government. On that occasion I wrote this, and it was distributed to all hon. members and to the Press, and many people even on the platteland still have this White Paper. I said this—

Then it continues to say the following—

We cannot have clearer language than that. The hon. members said that there was no clarity regarding the constitutional position of the Transkei, and that our members even differed amongst themselves as far as that constitution was concerned, and that our people on the platteland do not believe in it. Let me put it very clearly. There is one thing which we reject, and which our people on the platteland also reject, and that is when the United Party alleges that the Transkei has already received full self-government and is already an independent state and that it is just waiting for the fragmentation to become quite separate from South Africa. We join issue with that statement and say it is not correct. Our people on the platteland also object to it. We always stated it very clearly. We have always subscribed to the standpoint of the Prime Minister that they would systematically be guided by us towards obtaining the fullest measure of self-government, and eventually to become independent. There is no doubt about that. That is the course followed by every nation in the world, and I have so often said already that no power in the world and no force of arms can stop this development of a nation. Let us have no illusions about that, and do not tell me that I am flattering the Bantu. That is something which applies all over the world. But it is not fair to tell the people that we have already given full self-government to the Transkei. We merely ask that the case should just be put as it is. And on this side of the House there is no difference of opinion. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) referred to a confederation. That is just a word he elected to use. but there is no fundamental difference of opinion, and that applies to all of us in regard to this matter. We set out from the standpoint that the Bantu should in an evolutionary manner be guided along that road of development of a nation.

Now hon. members say yes, but there is a difference between what we say in South Africa and outside South Africa, but that is not true either. We have held the standpoint throughout that that is the way in which those Bantu areas will develop, and it was said abroad also. No conflicting statements were made. I say our standpoint in regard to this matter is clear and unequivocal, and I do not think the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) should have any doubt about it.

All the hon. members again said that there is now fragmentation of South Africa. I do not want to say much about that, except to say this. There is a basic difference in our approach and our standpoint. Hon. members opposite are going in the direction of a conglomerate state where everybody is bundled together, whilst we on this side believe that the best way is to develop the Bantu homelands and that they should be able to give expression to their national and personal aspirations there, and that no ceiling should be placed over them. That is what every nation in the world desires. But what we also deplore here is this. Why do hon. members say on the platforms outside that the Transkei has already been cut off and is no longer part of South Africa? I want the hon. member for South Coast to listen attentively now. The other day I interviewed a deputation from Natal, responsible people and they said: We fully agree with your Transkei plan, but what makes us feel unhappy is that at this stage already you have cut off the Transkei so that it no longer forms part of South Africa. I said: But here is the Bill, and it is not true. And do you know, Sir, those people were astounded. They asked whether they could go and say that in Natal. I said: Here is the Bill; go and read it to the people. Prominent people were under the impression that the Transkei had already been severed from the Republic. [Interjections.] The hon. member for South Coast asks who those people were. That is my own affair, but I would not tell lies here. What I say here is the truth, but that is the sort of thing the hon. member for South Coast has told the people there. We merely ask that the case should be stated correctly. I want to say at once that we are bearing in mind the possibility that the Transkei will eventually obtain full independence, and we bear in mind all the problems which may result from it, but I want to repeat what I said before, namely that my experience hitherto has been that the Bantu of South Africa are much more enlightened than the Bantu of any state in the whole of Africa and have a much greater sense of responsibility, and I challenge the Opposition to deny that. In regard to this matter we have shown how great a sense of responsibility they have. Therefore my attitude has always been that they are not politically as stupid as some hon. members opposite think. In fact, I have come across some of the cleverest politicians amongst them. They have a feeling and a flair for politics. There is no doubt about that. Everyone who has made a study of the Bantu has come to the same conclusion. They are not so stupid as to throw South Africa overboard for those things which they are being offered to-day in many other states in Africa. They know that South Africa is their best friend, and I prophesy that for generations to come those bonds of friendship and co-operation will still endure between the Republic and the Transkei. We shall, of course, have elements which will try to destroy those bonds, but it will be particularly White people who are behind it, and not so much the Bantu themselves, as is the position to-day also.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories quite correctly, as a responsible man, said that he was concerned about the Whites in the Transkei. I do not blame him for that, because he is trying to protect their interests. But here also I would just ask the hon. member to act with responsibility. Then we can co-operate to make the best of this matter. The Prime Minister has given his word of honour in regard to those people, and I have also given my word of honour. We will not throw those people to the wolves, but to expect us to-day to make all kinds of promises in regard to compensation, etc., is unreasonable. When we decided at the time to purchase 7,125,000 morgen of land for the Bantu, the same wild things were said in South Africa, but the Government refused to give any undertakings. Every matter was dealt with on its merits, and we did not find any people who were dissatisfied. When we started buying up the land of the farmers of the Transkei, a great fuss was made, but we bought those people’s land and they are all happy now. When I discussed the case of the traders in the Transkei with those people, they said that if we treated them just as decently as we had treated the farmers, they would have no complaints. In the Bantu areas of the Transkei there are altogether 3,323 White people, 1,326 men, 1,263 women and 935 children. Listening to some hon. members opposite, one would think that half of South Africa is affected! There are 660 White traders. I want to say immediately that if there is one person who appreciates the work and the services rendered by those people, it is I, and therefore I did not hesitate to say that it was my personal view that many of those traders would be in the Transkei for generations to come. They render a service which the Bantu appreciate and which is an essential service. I appreciate the work they do more than they themselves realize. Therefore those people need not fear that we will throw them to the wolves. But what I deplore is that there is a small group who are not concerned about the interests of the White traders in the Transkei, but are only concerned with petty politicking. They make propaganda and they make all kinds of wild statements, but it is only a few of them who do so. The great majority of the traders in the Transkei take no notice of that sort of thing. There is the Liaison Committee, and I have undertaken to work in close co-operation with them. I have also undertaken to appoint a special committee of traders to advise me what to do in future. Why make this fuss if there is no danger? Of these traders, 581 have title to their land, and 79 have been granted permission for occupation. There are also still about 26 farmers. The total area of land owned by these people is 3,870 morgen. Surely this is not such a terrible problem with which we are dealing here. I want to predict that the decent trader who behaves himself properly will remain on in the Transkei. I say there is this Liaison Committee with which I am in constant contact, and the Hekroodt Commission was also appointed. In general the traders of the Transkei are well disposed.

A tremendous fuss was made here over the statement made by Kaizer Matanzima in regard to the radius rule. It should not be forgotten that formerly it was ten miles, but in 1932 that was changed, and then an equally great fuss was made because the radius was fixed at two miles, but have any Whites left the Transkei as the result of that? No, their numbers have rather increased. And there is a difference of opinion in regard to this two-mile radius, but the fact is that the decent trader need have no fears, and if he is afraid that is just a sign of weakness. I want to admit frankly that there are a few of them who are too inept to run a decent business, and now they want to put the blame on the Government, but fortunately there are only a few of them.

Various hon. members have expressed concern about the future of the Coloureds in the Transkei, particularly the Coloureds’ Representatives, and more particularly the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland). He was greatly concerned and said: “What will become now of those 14,000 or 15,000 Coloureds in the Transkei? You are going to treat them like animals.”

I never said that.

No, it was not that hon. member; it was the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). The hon. member for Peninsula became very excited about the matter and said: “You will treat them like animals.” But what is the position of the Coloureds in the Transkei? In the Bantu areas there is a total of 2,550. There are 314 men, 364 women and 1,872 children in the Bantu areas, and all the rest are in the White areas. But the hon. the Prime Minister and I have given the assurance that these people need not feel concerned. They will not be treated like animals. They are also entitled to protection by the Government. Only 17 of them are traders; 116 have fixed property, of which 112 are only residential sites. There are six farmers, but I have instructed the Hekroodt Commission to investigate their position also. I have personally given them the assurance that they need not feel concerned; their position will be looked after. Why this tirade, why paint this false picture in regard to our approach, not only in South Africa but in the outside world? Those are the things we deplore.

Several members of the Opposition made a great fuss about the statement issued by Chief Matanzima; that was really the big news of the day. Some of them almost threw a fit. I almost feel inclined to mention their names, but why inflate that statement to such an extent? Chief Matanzima did issue a statement, but I want to say immediately that the newspapers again played the false role which some newspapers play and misconstrued what he said, and no one with a sense of truth will deny that. I want to tell the hon, member for South Coast to go and read that statement and then to look at the headlines over that statement. This chief himself said that a totally wrong construction had been placed on his statement, but at the same time he pointed out that there was also a large measure of provocation. Here I want to refer to the condemnatory statement issued by certain traders in the Transkei before this statement was made, in which they actually went so far as to put all the chiefs on the same level and to accuse them of bribery and of everything bad. I will concede that here and there such cases occur, but it should not be forgotten that Chief Matanzima is a highly esteemed Christian. To make that accusation against him, particularly after he had given those people an assurance that they need have no fears, is surely very unfair. Hon. members should remember the effect something like this could have on a person. Hon. members think that they can make all these accusations and that the Bantu will just ignore them. I said here once before that the Bantu read even our Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention what was said by a few members of the Opposition in this debate. It is against these things that I want to issue a warning, because nobody can gain anything by it. It is very wrong to belittle another racial group or nation. It does not help to create good relations. Here are a few of the expressions used by some hon. members: That the Bantu are too immature to accept what we seek to give them in the Transkei to-day; that we can only keep them in order by military action; that they have no experience of government (notwithstanding the fact that ever since 1894 they have been gaining such experience): that corruption and bribery will be rife; that we will create Dingaans and Chakas; that they will attack us in UN; that they will sabotage us; that they have no sense of justice; that the Bantu areas will be breeding-grounds for Communism and subversive organizations, etc. Is it fair, without any proof at all, to make this kind of accusation? Can hon. members not appreciate that such remarks must necessarily invite sharp reaction? I think that hon. members have attached an exaggerated weight to the statement made by Chief Matanzima. It is still his attitude to-day that he will protect the Whites there. Let me say immediately that he is one of the persons who have long held the opinion that the two-mile radius should be abolished. He and other people in the Transkei have repeatedly raised this matter in the past. We pointed out to them in a nice way that this rule was in the interests of their own people. It is a matter in regard to which they feel deeply. They themselves would like the opportunity to make the fullest use of the trading rights in their territory. I therefore say that hon. members are not being fair when they make these accusations.

Now I just want to deal with a few points raised by hon. members. They will understand that it is impossible for me to deal with all of these points, but I think I owe it to them, in such an important debate, to deal briefly with a few of the important points they raised. I come first to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member made a few ugly statements here. Well, we know that the hon. member’s blood sometimes becomes heated, and I am therefore not going to react to his statements, but he did touch on one matter which is important. He expressed his concern that we would perhaps replace the White magistrates by Bantu too soon, now that the Transkei is going to take over the administration of justice and will probably appoint Bantu there. Well, that is a danger, but I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that it will not happen. If there is one thing about which those people are serious, it is that the administration of justice should be maintained at a high level, and only as and when efficient, trained Bantu come to the fore who can do this work will the White magistrates be withdrawn and Bantu be appointed in their place. To-day we have a number of Bantu who are highly qualified legally and who, with the necessary training, will very soon be able to fill these posts. It is very unfair simply to write them off as being people who will never be able to perform such important duties. Mr. Speaker, we also had to serve our apprenticeship. Many of the Bantu, particularly the chiefs, have had sound experience in regard to the administration of justice.

The hon. member expressed doubt as to whether we really consulted the Bantu in the Transkei. I think that the quotations read out here by hon. members on this side from various reports is sufficient proof that that accusation is not well founded. I think that we, to the best of our ability, consulted the Bantu of the Transkei, even more than any Government in Africa consulted the people concerned, and I challenge anybody to deny it.

I deny it. Why did they at the last session ask that they should be consulted by the Minister?

Who asked that?

The chiefs.

The hon. member is now evading my challenge. I am saying that the Government of no other country in the whole of Africa consulted its people to the same extent that we consulted the Bantu of the Transkei. But what is more, the majority of the people in the Transkei are quite satisfied that we consulted their people sufficiently. Surely one cannot, where a person jumps up and says that he must first go and consult his people, allow the matter to drag on in that way, particularly if one has legal advisers like Mr. Vigne and Mr. White.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said a few things with which I want to deal. He reproached us and said that he had often offered his co-operation in regard to this great problem and that we refused to accept it, but the hon. member has always refrained from adding that he had in mind a certain pattern according to which his offer should be accepted; his offer was not unconditional. But what is more, the hon. member knows that there is such a great difference between the approach of the United Party and that of this party that there is no possibility of co-operation. There are a few things on which we agree, and one really hopes that there will be co-operation in that respect. I refer, e.g., to the economic development of the Bantu homelands. There the hon. members can render great assistance, but what do they do to-day when we develop those areas? The hon. member for Drakensberg and others go from platform to platform telling the public: Just look; this Government simply does everything for the Kaffirs and nothing for the Whites. That is the sort of thing they say.

Did you not say that also in 1948?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition deplored that a separate citizenship was being created for the Transkei. He stated that there should be only one citizenship and that only one patriotism should be established, because of the basis of a single patriotism one could ensure the allegiance of all the national groups in South Africa. Sir, if the Leader of the Opposition reads the report of the anthropologists of UNESCO which was published a few years ago, he will see that this is Recipe No. 1 they recommend for the process of equalization. As one of them correctly stated in one of his articles, there are few things which so quickly lead to a process of equalization as a common patriotism or a single state; in other words, the implication of this thing is that it must necessarily help to eliminate all differentiation.

But there is another matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not bear in mind, and that is that every person loves his own environment best. The Bantu loves his own homeland better than any other part of the White area. Even the Bantu in the cities love their homelands. Before I go further, I immediately want to state this proposition: I am not one of those who believe in Black nationalism. What we have to-day in Africa is the growth of Black imperialism, Black colonialism, Black domination; it is not nationalism. Nationalism is linked to a nation; it is the key to the heart of a nation. Therefore I have always maintained the standpoint that one can get true nationalism only in a national group. Nationalism is one of the strongest forces in the life of every nation. It has given rise to the most splendid and the greatest ideals of humanity. Just think of what Churchill achieved for England. Why? Because he was such a good English nationalist. Nationalism stirs what is best in the human being, and I want to say here that this Black imperialism can best be combated only by nationalism. Give the Bantu the opportunity which every nation in the world has fully to express its national aspirations. That can best be expressed in their own territory. That satisfies their souls.

I want to refer the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to her own people. For more than 2,000 years they have refused to become integrated in other communities, such great nationalists were they. After 2,000 years they have obtained their own country, and here I am reminded of a Jewish friend of mine in Johannesburg who received an income from his businesses of about £1,000 a month. To-day he is working in that Jewish state with a pick and a shovel and has a very small income. He wrote to me: “Now I am happy; now I am working for my nation.” Why does she oppose us so much? She wants to have a homeland for her own people, but she does not want the Bantu to have one. That also applies to many of the hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, let us give the Bantu the right to give expression to his national feelings in his own areas. You get the best co-operation when the Bantu is tied to his own areas on a national basis; that is why you have this cooperation with the White area to-day and that is why I am convinced in my own mind that this is the only pattern we can follow in order to get friendly co-operation with the White people of South Africa. Dr. Malan rightly said that “a nationalist is also the best citizen in the world”.

The hon. the Leader of the United Party held it very much against us for giving symbols to the Bantu, namely, their own flag and their own national anthem. He says that that will only again lead to unnecessary strife and estrangement. Mr. Speaker, those people themselves asked for it. Would it have been right on our part to refuse? Had we refused that—and we had no good reason to do so— would we not have been the cause of a struggle as we have already had in South Africa? What happened between South Africa and Great Britain is no parallel because that is the basic desire of every nation. Give it to him then. It can only promote good race relations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition objected to Clause 20. He is afraid that the Bantu might possibly be dissatisfied if the State President should refuse it if they asked that their Parliament should be dissolved. Well, anything can happen, of course, but it is obvious that we shall act with great tact and it is our policy to satisfy the wishes of the Bantu to the greatest possible extent; we shall not be indifferent to their desires but we know that it does happen that things are sometimes done too hastily. But the wonderful thing about it is that the Bantu themselves asked for this. Should we have refused? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said something which is not quite correct. He said that the right was conferred upon the Bantu in the Transkei in Clause 37 to make all sorts of laws covering the citizens in the White areas in the Transkei. No, that is not the position at all. It is stated very clearly in the Bill. They are only given the right to make laws in connection with two things. The one is taxation. That, however, is an old tradition which is observed everywhere. The hon. member for South Coast knows that many Bantu who work in the White areas pay taxes to their chiefs. The South Sotho who work in South Africa pay taxes to their chiefs in Basutoland. That is an old tradition. Surely we could not do away with that. Does the hon. member deny that that is the position? He shakes his head.

Do these people from Basutoland who live and pay taxes to their chiefs in Basutoland pay those taxes in terms of an Act passed in Basutoland which is of force in the Republic? That is what your Bill provides for.

They are doing so in terms of an Act passed in Basutoland—as we are doing here. We are giving them that right. We have always given that right. A representative from Basutoland has been here in Cape Town all these years to collect those taxes. Surely I will not say something which is not true.

There is a second matter in regard to which the Transkei can make laws and that is in connection with elections—and I think that it is a very natural thing.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member expressed his doubts about Clause 40 in terms whereof the State President has to act; that question is very clear. According to the constitution of the Republic it is clear that the executive authority concerning all internal and external matters vests in the State President and not in the Transkeian Government. The position is stated very clearly in the Interpretations Act, Act No. 33 of 1957, namely that any reference to the “State President” must be deemed to be a reference to the State President acting on the advice of the Executive Council.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a very comprehensive speech and he will realize that I cannot reply to all the points raised by him. Some of the points which he has raised have already been dealt with by the hon. the Prime Minister and other members.

I have already dealt with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He said a few other things but I am afraid time does not permit me to react to those. I now come to the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). We also heard a host of scare stories from him. He said that we were creating a number of Cubas along our borders. That is not quite the position, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked, in passing, in the previous debate whether we should not consider destroying all Hansards after five years. I quite understand why he expressed that idea. The hon. member only tried to frighten the people; he did not make any positive contribution. He said that it would be possible for the Transkei to lay a charge against us at UNO and he added “admittedly unofficially”. Well, that can happen; it is happening to-day. Any fool who is incited here by Whites can go and lay a charge against us at UNO. These things are possible; do not let us have any illusions about that.

The hon. member for East London (City) accused us of being frightened of our policy and that this Transkei plan was an attempt to get away from it. No. that is not the case. We would not have taken such a step had we not really believed in it. He even made the statement that the Bantu were more favourably disposed than they were 100 years ago and he wanted to know why we were taking such a step as this to-day. But the fact of the matter is simply this, Sir, if I may give an example: The hon. member is not farming the same way as he did 100 years ago. Mr. Speaker, we are to-day experiencing what is known as the revolution of the 20th century and anybody who loses sight of that fact is stupid. We are acting here according to the dictates of our conscience; we are convinced.

The hon. member for Houghton said that we would not satisfy the world with this Transkei plan. Nor do I expect to do so. There is only one thing that will satisfy the world and that is her policy which will mean capitulation on the part of the White man in South Africa and nothing else. I am not referring to the policy which she pretends to be advocating, but the policy which she favours in her heart. That is the only way in which you will satisfy world opinion, Sir, and we cannot, therefore, pay any attention to that. The balance of her speech she devoted to sowing suspicion. She wanted to know whether there would be more than one candidate in the elections in the Transkei or whether the Russian system would be followed.

It is not worth while taking any notice of her.

The object of this Bill is not, as has been suggested, to prevent the Xhosa from coming to work in the Republic.

I want to deal with a final point. Some people go about making propaganda against this Bill; they are not putting the facts of the Bill to the Bantu, but they are trying to make them believe that we are going to throw them to the wolves. Members of the Progressive Party are doing that. That is being done on a large scale by the Black Sash. It is scandalous. I cannot help but think of something I saw in Adderley Street a year or two ago. A number of children were walking down the street; they were talking loudly and one of them said: “Thank God, my mummy is not a Black Sash.” The thought immediately came to my mind that from the mouth of the babes you shall hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my old college friend, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is not here. I knew him very well in those years. He was a good boy and I knew him as a good pilot but he was not even a good politician in those years. We were great friends. I knew him as a brave boy. I notice, however, that now that he is getting old he is getting afraid. He says he is afraid we shall have to withdraw the army from the Transkei, that we shall have to withdraw the police, that we shall lose all communication with Natal, that they will no longer provide us with labour and that they will start undermining organizations in the Republic. He has many fears.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) held it very much against me that some Bantu made statements and that I did not rap them over the knuckles. Surely that is not a procedure which is followed. If I were to rap the hon. member for Durban (Point) over the knuckles for everything that he says I shall require a whole staff to do so. Within 14 days he will not have a knuckle left—that is how I will have to rap him. Surely that sort of thing is simply not done. He was also very concerned about the border farmers. But surely they are not in any danger; they are still enjoying the same protection which they enjoyed in the past. He is the one who went and frightened them.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Peninsula; I do not want to repeat what I told him. He had the bright idea that there should be a National Native Assembly. That was more or less what General Smuts had in mind with the Natives’ Representative Council. That Natives’ Representative Council degenerated to such an extent that even Mr. Hofmeyr said that it did not serve its purpose. Such a council will never work. I have already dealt with the other points which he raised.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) was very concerned about our heritage. I do not know the history of the forefathers of the hon. member but I just want to tell him that my forefathers and the forefathers of my nation did not come from the Transkei. I believe that those Bantu in the Transkei feel the same in their soul about their heritage as we do. They also want their children to inherit that which they themselves have inherited.

I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). I do not want to be too severe with him because the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) has already dealt with him. He has, however, said a few things with which I want to deal for a moment. He said that he could not support this legislation because it was concerned with the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. Surely the hon. member knows that that is not so. This Bill has nothing to do with the Bantu in the Western Cape.

I was quoting the Minister of Finance.

This Transkei plan is independent of the Bantu in the Western Cape. Our policy is this that as the Transkei develops we shall place the Bantu in the Western Cape in positions there where they will be able to live decently. I might just tell the House that we had discussions with some Bantu leaders here in the Western Cape Province and that they told us that if they could get decent employment there they would leave immediately and not wait a day longer.

Let me give an example. I had to remove a Bantu and his wife and child. There were good reasons. He was very unhappy about it. It is a principle with the Department not to dump them in the veld there in the Transkei. I have instructed my officials to ensure that that did not happen. We found employment for him there. His wife is a trained nurse and we found work for her in the hospital there. His son is at school there. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that two of the old women of the Black Sash went there and begged him—they even offered him money—to sign a statement that he was unhappy there and that he wanted to return here? He told them that he wanted nothing to do with them. He told them that he was happy there and that he was sorry he had not gone there long ago. That is the sort of result we achieve. Why is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout sowing this suspicion?

I was quoting your Cape Provincial leader.

The hon. member said a few nasty things. He accused the Government of having turned a somersault after Sharpeville under pressure from London. Once you depart from the road, Mr. Speaker, you find pleasure in besmirching your fatherland. Is it necessary to say things like that in public? Had it been true what he said I would have understood it, but he knows as sure as he is sitting there that it is not correct. The facts are these: The basis of this policy was already laid in 1951 and he knows it. The Transkei Proclamation was promulgated in 1956; in terms of that Proclamation Territorial Authorites were instituted at their own request. The Bantu Self-Government Act, which really forms the basis of this Bill, was piloted through this House in 1959. And Sharpeville was in 1960 and the London conference was in 1961. How can the hon. member make this stupid accusation, an accusation which benefits neither him nor South Africa? That is unfair. This sort of behaviour is not to the credit of anybody, particularly not to the hon. member. I knew him in former days to be a person who sought the truth. When I find him making himself guilty of this sort of behaviour, however, I feel deeply sorry for him.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) was very worried about the coastal areas and the defence in the Transkei. He referred in particular to those vulnerable parts. He spoke about East London, Port Elizabeth and Durban. We know the hon. member as a brave soldier; I pay tribute to him for that. I just want to tell him that he should not forget his cards in his old age. He must still take his cards into account. He must first make sure of the facts. Surely he knows that we are retaining Defence. Surely he knows that our defence is a very serious matter with us.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) expressed concern about the Coloureds. I have already replied to that. The hon. member for Outeniqua also raised that point.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) stated that our economy was based on “White brains” and “Black labour”. He accused us of placing this “Black labour” in danger. One of the things which I deprecate is this that we are continually just looking upon the Black man as an object to provide labour; many of us do not regard him as a human being; particularly members opposite. They are concerned about this “Black labour”. They want to sacrifice South Africa for this “Black labour”. The selfishness which we see in this attitude, Mr. Speaker, is one of the things which worry me when I think of the future of our country. We must at least remember that these people also have certain rights. They are sufficiently developed to ensure that sufficient labour will be available. I see no danger in that respect.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said that we were departing completely from the principle laid down in 1910 with Union as far as the Bantu areas were concerned in that we did not consult the Bantu. But we consulted more with the Bantu in this case as was done in 1910.

The main complaint of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) is that we are not allowing White private capital in the Transkei to develop it. He is not so much concerned about the Bantu as he is about the riches which can be derived from those areas. The hon. member wants to make money there. The hon. member knows that this is a matter of principle with us. It is a matter of principle because we want to preserve those riches for the Bantu so that they themselves can develop them. This Government will provide the necessary skill and guidance. We cannot, however, allow a repetition of what happened in other parts of Africa and of what is happening in the Protectorates, namely that the Bantu accuse the White man of extracting the riches in those areas for his own benefit and that the Bantu will eventually only be left with empty holes. The Government will make the necessary capital and so forth available to those people so that they can develop the Transkei properly.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) referred to a few historical facts. I do not really want to react to that. I have one difficulty with the United Party, Sir, and that is that they do not know their history. I do not think the hon. member knows his history well.

I want to deal for a moment with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). She levelled an accusation at us in regard to the national anthem. She accused us of not having given sufficient attention to this aspect. She says we have chosen a Zulu national anthem for the Xhosa. Like the hon. member for South Coast she said that that national anthem had an ugly meaning. She went further and said that the word “sikelele” was wrong; that it was “ele” which was derived from the word “cut”. When I think of the fragmentation of the United Party I think they should adopt this national anthem of the Xhosa with the word “sikele” and not “sikelele.” I just want to give the history of this national anthem in brief once again. This song was composed by Enoch Sontonga. He was a Xhosa and he expressed it very well when he said that nostalgia for his homeland had inspired him to compose it. He only composed the first verse. A Xhosa called S. E. Krune Mqhay composed the other seven verses. This Mqhay is one of the prominent Xhosa writers. As a matter of fact a work of his is to-day regarded as one of the outstanding works in the Xhosa language. I admit that it was sung for the first time in Zululand. At that time there existed what was called the Uhlanga Choir who devoted themselves particularly to singing their own songs and to the building up of their own national language. The person who translated it from Xhosa was the Rev. Dube. I just want to deal briefly with the contents of these verses. Here is the correct translation; I will summarize the verses in a few words—

1. 1. God bless Africa.
2. 2. Bless our tribal heads and let them fear the Creator;
3. 3. Bless the men of the tribe and the young men;
4. 4. Bless the mothers of the tribe and the young girls;
5. 5. Bless the preachers and the missionary societies;
6. 6. Bless the lands and the stock and ban famine;
7. 7. Bless our efforts to educate ourselves and mutual harmony.
8. 8. Bless Africa and destroy everything that is wrong and her sins.

But the hon. member says it is really on appeal that Africa should be given to them. That is not so.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said that the Transkei did not have a hope of succeeding. We know it will call for great effort to develop their area but the Bantu themselves must be harnessed for that. That is the only way in which to achieve good results. The hon. member also said that the medical services would suffer because all the doctors would go to the White areas. The hon. member knows, however, that medical services are not included. They asked us not to include them because they could not undertake them. They decided that unanimously.

As usual the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) made a few nasty remarks. I want to ask that hon. member to remember one of the beautiful things of life is decent manners. If the hon. member is not sure of his case it does not behove him to tell somebody else that he had said something which was false. That is something ugly. The hon. member must remember that we are living in the same country and that we must work together. If he says things like that he cannot expect me to have any respect for him. There is another and a more beautiful way of treating a fellow being no matter how bad he is. The main point that he made was that segregation was not really a policy. Well, we on this side of the House think that it is one of the best policies that there has ever been. It is a question of difference of opinion; I grant him the right to say that it is not a policy but let us respect one another.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said that he envisaged this danger that if the Transkei became independent South Africa would be threatened. That was a general statement made by many members. He went on to say that the majority of the Transkei voters lived outside the Transkei. He said that propaganda would be made in the White cities whereas that was not the position to-day. Anything is possible, Sir; that is already happening to-day. The fact of the matter is, however, that when these people have ties with their homeland they will develop a sense of responsibility. We really want to encourage that sense of development. The hon. member also expressed the further fear that the Transkeian areas would be treated as a colonial power. The hon. member for Springs said the same thing. I just want to point out the following facts to hon. members: they should read Article 74 of the Charter of the United Nations Organization. There a clear difference is made between self-governing areas and metropolitan areas. The General Assembly of UNO adopted a resolution at its first sitting in 1946—it was a 66-1 decision— that those areas affected by Article 73 (e) should be indicated. They took the following further resolutions—

1. (3) That none of the areas which had been indicated formed a physical part of the metropolitan country or mother country; that in most cases they were thousands of miles away from the mother country;
2. (4) That as a result of subsequent uncertainty a special committee of UNO was appointed which formulated 12 principles in terms whereof it had to be decided whether or not an area came under Article 73 (3) of the Charter.

The recommendations of this committee were approved by the Fifteenth Sitting of the Fourth Committee. The first principle was this that those who drafted the United Nations Charter had in mind that Chapter 9 should apply to areas which were then known to be the colonial type. Principle four was to the effect that there was an obligation to supply information in respect of “those areas geographically separate and ethnically and culturally distinct from the country administering them”. I think it is stated very clearly here. The Transkei will always continue to be a part of South Africa. Hon. members should not see ghosts in the distant future and say things like that in this House.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) expressed doubts about our policy of moving Bantu to the Transkei. He said he saw no difference between Cato Manor and Umlazi. There is, however, a big difference. The difference is this that Umlazi is a Bantu area and the people are very happy there. They are much happier than they were in Cato Manor. Cato Manor was one of the ideals of that hon. member and you will remember what happened there, Sir? Conditions were so bad there that I was begged to step in. That is why we are also considering taking over the other locations there. It makes all the difference in the world because the Bantu are happy in the Transkei, they are developing tertiary industries and so forth. Surely that is a sound policy.

I have already replied to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field). Time does not allow me to deal further with his remarks.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said a great many things. It was noticeable, Sir, that when he raised those matters he pushed the Bill aside. He relied for his authority, his norms, on old newspaper cuttings. He did not challenge me on the Bill. What sort of Member of Parliament is that, Mr. Speaker? The Bill which he has before him contains facts. Surely a Member of Parliament should be somebody who respects facts; he acts according to the facts before him. Why does the hon. member drag in extraneous matters on which to base his criticism? I want to advise the hon. member not to indulge in that sort of thing. It does him no credit.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) confined himself to the Protectorates. He tried to explain this principle that we were prepared at that time to incorporate the Protectorates into the Union. That is quite right. But when the Union Government tried to take steps in that direction at the time they were left scandalously in the lurch by the United Party. If the hon. member wants to quote he should also quote those other things. The question of the Protectorates is such a delicate one that I do not want to dwell on it.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Capt. Henwood) wanted to know why we were not also starting with the other seven Bantu states. We know that the Bantu in the Transkei have already had managerial experience and that is why we started with them. Obviously the other areas will still have to gain a great deal of managerial experience.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) moved into the economic field where I unfortunately cannot follow him because I am not an expert in that field. Certain economic laws always apply, however; certain economic laws which can be adapted to circumstances. We find that in Europe to-day where those states got together to promote trade. They got together without in the least sacrificing any of their political rights. It works beautifully there. The hon. member wanted to know why we were starting with economic separation instead of political separation. We are realistic. We realize that for generations to come the Bantu will still need us and that we shall still need them. Hence the fact that we are exerting all our powers to lay the foundation for good neighbourliness, also in the economic field.

I have already dealt with the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). I think I have now dealt with the important points, Sir. Many of the points raised have already been dealt with by other speakers on this side.

I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is really a matter of faith as far as we are concerned; it is a matter of sincere conviction. This Bill is the direct result of experience gained over the past 300 years; it is the direct result of the moral code of the people of South Africa. It is a moral code which we are prepared to defend against any part of the world. Therein lies the very proof that the people of South Africa are sincere when they say these things. Hence this beautiful spirit of co-operation. It is extremely regrettable that certain elements try to do things which have never been fitting in South Africa. I want to say this, however, and I say it with a full sense of responsibility, that it is my sincere conviction—I have no positive proof for it— that White brains are behind all this and that the poor Bantu are being used to commit these despicable deeds in South Africa and that people are even sent overseas and to other parts of Africa to be trained in that sort of thing. We are convinced that with this measure, we are creating a pattern for the future, a pattern in which each racial group in South Africa will be able to give full expression to his personal and national aspirations, in which each national group in South Africa is given the opportunity of carrying on on the road of prosperity, happiness and peace. I am firmly convinced that the day will come when other states in Africa will follow this pattern, because I maintain that there will never be peace in Africa until such time as the African states have been reclassified on a national basis. Just look at the Congo to-day, just look at Ghana! There you have national groups which come in conflict with each other. And that will not cease. A nation which is worth its salt does not hoist the white flag. That is why I am convinced that this pattern will still one day be followed by other African states and that it will be followed in other parts of the world. We also believe that it offers the only basis on which good neighbour liness can be established; the only basis on which the dignity of the human being is recognized. We are not playing a cheap game to curry favour but we are recognizing the basic principle that every nation has the right to exist. We see in this the basis on which we can in the future work together in a spirit of mutual respect and in a spirit of co-operation, a spirit of confidence and collaboration, to promote the welfare and peace between every national group in the Republic of South Africa.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—84: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.: Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—46: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg. A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje. F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood. B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland. M. W.; Hopewell, A.: Hourauebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.: Lewis. H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.: Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P. Radford, A.: Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: C. Barnett and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett dropped.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; plew R. R.P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Sir de Villiers Graaff dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp)—

This amendment is a matter of definition, or rather description of the kind of officer who should be the head of the Coloured Education Department. The Bill itself says that he shall be “an officer who has expert knowledge of education matters”. The amendment describes this officer much more clearly. I think there is some confusion running right through the Bill as to what type of man is head of this Department, because throughout the Bill one finds that the head of the Department, an important officer, is described as “secretary”. The secretary in this Bill is not the Secretary for Education, but is the Secretary of the Coloured Affairs Department. Now in the organization of any Education Department, the head of the Department is a professional officer, an officer of high professional standing, and there is in addition a secretary of education who is an administrative officer. In order to see that distinction, I refer hon. members and the Minister especially to our minutes of proceedings of to-day where we have the position in the Bantu Education Department described. There we make a clear distinction between an administrative officer and a professional officer. Now the head of this Department should be a professional officer. He is called in Natal, the Transvaal and the Free State, a director of education, and in the Cape he is called a superintendent of education. I think it is most important that this matter should be put in order early in this Committee Stage, because later in the Bill when we come to Clauses 16 and 17, hon. members will see the is a great deal of confusion. It is not the Secretary of the Coloured Affairs Department who should exercise disciplinary control over teachers. He is secretary of the Department in the same way as the Secretary of the Bantu Administration and Development Department is secretary, but a professional officer is the head of the Bantu Education Department. He is a professional man. Therefore we first of all in this amendment describe a professional officer and deal with the whole question of the definition of the head of the Department. I have mentioned in criticizing the clause I think it would have been a very wise thing if the hon. the Minister had referred this Bill after the second reading to a Select Committee which could have licked it into shape. The principle is now accepted of a Coloured Education Department, and a few educationists here could have put this Bill into shape within a week. It is quite obvious that this Bill has been drafted by administrative people, not by professional people.

I want first of all to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and what he said in regard to the head of this Department. The other matter which arises out of this clause is the reference to the Division of Education, with a capital “E”, which indicates that the Department as such within the Coloured Affairs Department will be known as the “Division of Education of the Department of Coloured Affairs”. I hope the hon. Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Assuming that is correct, I want to put it to the hon. Minister that whereas hopes have been held out to the Coloured people that as a result of this legislation they may look forward to improved educational facilities—better schools, better feeding and so on, better conditions of service for the teachers—it is a fact that the hon. Minister up to now has given no guarantee that any of these things will be made available. On the other hand, it appears that it is intended to continue the system of what the Minister himself called in his second-reading speech “parallel education for the Coloured people”, but the significant point here is that there is a reference only to “Division of Education” and not to “Arts and Science”, which are always coupled with Education in the other system of education, that for the Whites, with which Coloured education is supposed to be parallel. I put it to the Minister that since one assumes that in this new system of education which he says merely perpetuates a system of parallel education for the Coloured people, it is first of all going to be equal—although it has been held elsewhere that “separate but equal” is not a possible situation, I am not going to argue that. I assume it will be equal.

Order! What the hon. member is discussing now falls outside the scope of the clause.

Sir, may I not discuss the title of the Department, which is referred to as the “Division of Education”, in order to make the point …

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. The hon. member is now discussing the amendment that he has placed on the Order Paper, but which apparently he is not moving.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to circumvent your ruling. I now put it very simply and briefly to the hon. the Minister that he should give serious consideration to calling this Department within the Coloured Affairs Department not merely “a Division of Education”, but a “Division of Education, Arts and Science” as a better indication to those people who have been given the hope of better educational facilities, parallel to or with the White system of education, as reasonable hope of instruction in those two allied branches of education, viz. Arts and Science. I think the Minister will agree that this broad reference to “a Division of Education” goes a long way towards confirming certain suspicions, which he could dispel, if he so desired.

As regard the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) I wish to say only this, that we are not taking over from the provinces a department or functions in regard to Education, Arts and Science. We are taking over from them “Edication” as such, and the question of Arts and Science is something that will have to be dealt with on its own. It is not included in this. We are dealing here with an Education Act and one does not make provision for those things in it.

Where will provision be made?

It is not relevant now.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow, moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) I regret that I am unable to accept it. May I just explain to the hon. member what exactly is proposed here, namely that we have a Department here which is so organized that we have a Secretary of the Department, but we have various divisions in that Department, and one of those divisions is the division that will deal with educational matters. Now the arrangement has been made thus because we already control education to some extent, such as special education and higher education. Therefore steps have been taken for this particular division to have a Deputy-Secretary in the Department who is concerned with the ordinary administration of the Department, that is to say, the other activities. But there is a Deputy-Secretary also who is concerned with this Division of Education, and that Deputy-Secretary is a professional man, and that is what is contemplated here. He is a senior official. He is subordinate to the departmental head only, and for the specific task entrusted to him, namely education, you appoint a professional man as proposed here who will have the rank of Deputy-Secretary. So I cannot see any reason why I should accept this amendment, for what the hon. member has really urged here is that the Secretary of the Department should be a professional man, but I cannot agree to that. The Secretary of the Department is not concerned with education only, but with the whole Department. But I have seen to it that a senior official, who is a professional man, is appointed to take charge of the Division of Education, and the persons who are taken over from the provinces, as well as the officials that are taken over from the provinces, will be incorporated into this Division of Education. I do not know what the future holds in store for us, and to what extent this Division of Education may still grow, but that is not relevant at the moment. But we have treated this Division of Education completely fairly by earmarking the most senior official possible for it, a professional man with the rank of Deputy-Secretary.

The hon. the Minister does not grasp what the organization is. The Head of the Bantu Education Department is a professional officer. The Head of the Education Department comes under the Minister of Education, and he is a professional officer. The Secretary of the Department is an administrative officer. There may be a junior administrative officer as well in the Department of Education, but the Head of the Education Department should be a professional officer. He should exercise discipline in terms of Clauses 16 and 17, and appeals should be made to him. This officer should not be in an inferior position to the administrative officer, who is the Secretary for Coloured Affairs. You should never place a professional officer in an inferior position to an administrative officer. If one looks at the Bantu Education Department and its organization, the distinction is made very clear. They say there are administrative and professional officers. I think it is essential that the Head of this Department should be a Director or a Superintendent, and he should be a professional officer.

I really do not think it is necessary to argue about this too long. Briefly it amounts to this, that Bantu Education and Bantu Administration fall under two different Ministers, for they are two Departments but there is only one Department dealing with Coloured Education, and that is the Department of Coloured Affairs. Now that this Department is taking over Coloured Education, provision has to be made within the framework of that Department for a division for Coloured Education. If we concede what the hon. member asks, we first of all have to establish a Department of Coloured Education. Is that what he wants? I do not think it is necessary. It may come to that, but let us first see whether this will work. But we have seen to it that the professional officer who will be in charge of this Division of Education, will have the rank of Deputy-Secretary. Surely it is obvious that the administrative head of that Department, the Secretary, cannot be a person who has no knowledge of Coloured Affairs.

I want to take the unusual course at this stage of moving—

Order! I shall permit the hon. member to move that progress be reported, but he must confine himself strictly to his reasons for moving the motion.

Very well, Sir. The reason for my adopting this unusual course is that I do so at the unanimous request of the National Council for Coloured Affairs, who have asked their representatives in this House to take this step in view of the fact that the representations which they themselves have made to the Minister, through the officials of the Department, have not met with any favourable response. At a meeting of the Council held this morning it was indicated that the Council, which the Minister himself has declared to be the only official Coloured organization in this country, has not yet had an opportunity of considering the details of this. Bill. The matter was submitted to an educational committee set up by the Council, but that Committee has not yet been able to report to the Council on the details of the Bill. They therefore ask that steps should be taken to persuade the Minister to defer the proceedings in the Committee Stage of this Bill until such time as the Council has had an opportunity of discussing those details. I submit that this is absolutely essential, because from the Government’s point of view the Government has declared time and again that the Council is the only official Coloured organization and that their view should be taken heed of before proceeding with a matter which affects the Coloured people.

In a report which appears in this afternoon’s Press on this very issue, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this, that Councillors pointed out that the Bill was almost in the Committee Stage, and expressed alarm that the measure might be adopted before they had an opportunity to put their views. They have not yet had an opportunity of dealing with the details of the Bill. The Council decided to ask the Minister to delay the Committee Stage so as to give its Education Committee time to discuss the matter with the Director of Coloured Education, Mr. Kobus Louw, to-night, and the Committee will report back to the Council to-morrow morning. They went on to say that some of the councillors were concerned because none of the guarantees they asked for when they agreed in principle to the transfer of Coloured education has been incorporated in the Bill. They then proceed to enumerate the guarantees, and in deference to your ruling I will not deal with them at length, except to say that they regard as “ominous” the fact that provision is made in the Bill in regard to various matters which were never put before the Council. Sir, I think that this matter is of such importance that the hon. the Minister might very well agree to defer this matter until the Education Committee of his own Council has had an opportunity to discuss the details of the Bill and to report back to the Council. They are doing so to-night. It only means deferring this debate for 24 hours to enable the Council to put its views before this Committee. I urge upon the Minister to accept the suggestion.

I regret that I cannot accept the motion. The second reading of this Bill was concluded on 4 March. A month has now elapsed during which all interested parties have had an opportunity of coming to interview me, and have had an opportunity to propose amendments if they wished to do so. I may just point out that the four representatives of the Coloureds in this House do not have a single amendment on the Order Paper. In other words, I have to accept that they, who are in touch with their constituents, were satisfied with the Bill. [Interjections.] If they were dissatisfied with the clauses, they would have had amendments on the Order Paper, but they have left it to other hon. members to move amendments.

Order! The hon. the Minister must confine himself to the motion.

I am merely making the point that they do not have an amendment on the Order Paper. In the third place, the Union Coloured Council put this request to me this morning. I had them informed that I was not agreeable to that because I could not permit an outside body to dictate to Parliament how it should arrange its business. I further caused them to be informed that there is sufficient time for them during their session, if they could persuade me at all to adopt a different attitude on specific matters, and clearing the passage of this legislation there is sufficient opportunity for doing so. Accordingly I am not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, may I just point out to the Minister that this request does not emanate from the Coloureds’ Representatives in Parliament, but comes from the Minister’s own Council.

Order! The hon. member cannot take it any further.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

AYES—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—76: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Motion accordingly negatived.

It appears that the Minister has in mind that his Department should be controlled by a head who shall be an officer who has expert knowledge of educational matters. As a matter of general principle I should like to ask the Minister this, and I do so in the hope that he will give this matter careful consideration and will state what Government policy is in this regard. If in fact there can be found a Coloured educationist who has the expert knowledge of educational matters which is contemplated in Clause 2, will the Government be prepared to appoint such a Coloured person as the titular head of this Department?

And if not, why not?

Naturally.

In reply to my question, the Minister said, “Naturally that the Government will he prepared to appoint a Coloured expert educationist if one can be found, as the Head of this Department, and that is the policy of the Government. Well, I am very glad that we have got this assurance from the Minister. It now goes on record, contrary to some of the assurances that we received from the Minister in the past. I am glad that it is now on record that the Minister will give effect to this promise to appoint such an individual if one can be found.

Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem then? Surely the hon. member knows that we are appointing Coloureds in the various posts in that Department, and that I have repeatedly stated in public that the road is open for any Coloured person who has the ability, the administrative and other knowledge, and that in this Department he can aspire to any position. Now I do not know why he suddenly wants to have it on record, for it is on record already.

Question put: That the words “expert knowledge of education”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labusohagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R. Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Fourie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Sir, I will not move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper on page 67 because I understand it is in fact out of order inasmuch as it would involve additional expenditure which would require the State President’s recommendation, but I would like to say a few words about the clause instead. I want to say that I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that future Estimates are so worked out that it will be possible for him to establish sufficient schools to cater for all the Coloured children of school-going age. It is a long time now since the Coloured Education …

Order! The hon. member is discussing her amendment which she has placed on the Order Paper but which she cannot move because it would involve additional expenditure. The hon. member can raise that matter under the Minister’s Vote.

I cannot, Sir, because, if I may point it out, I would have to ask for more money there too. I will simply say then that I hope it will be the Minister’s intention to erect as many schools as possible so that many more Cape Coloured children of schoolgoing age will be catered for than are at present catered for, because in a later clause I intend moving an amendment to try to enforce compulsory school attendance rather than to leave it permissive. This is naturally dependent upon sufficient schools being established, and, of course, on enough teachers being trained. I would therefore draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is necessary to go a great deal further in erecting and establishing schools for Coloured children than his Department has gone up to the present time.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

With the inclusion of the amendment the clause would then read—

The hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech was at pains to create the impression that the Coloured people as a whole favoured this change-over in education.

I never said such a thing.

The Minister implied it.

What right have you to place an interpretation on what he said?

Sir, I do not wish to cross swords with the Minister over this. I think I am entitled to my opinion. The position is that this side has many amendments of which this is one in which a genuine attempt is being made by this side of the House to soften certain provisions which may be accounted harsh, or to embody, wherever possible, the principle of consultation with the Coloured people in any steps which are taken in the implementation of this Bill. Now, Sir, a body has been appointed under clause 30 of the Bill, to which I will not refer in great detail, a body known as the Education Council for Coloured Persons. As the wording of this particular amendment implies it is intended that no steps should be taken in the implementation of this clause without consultation with that body. I want to make it quite clear that this particular clause deals only with the closing down or disestablishment of schools and the ancillary services connected with these schools. I believe that if at any time rights should be taken away from the Coloured people, as could well happen under this particular clause, which would involve the closing down of certain services, the Coloured people themselves should have an opportunity to offer advice or to discuss the particular steps in view with the Minister himself. The constitution of this Education Council for Coloured Persons is such that it will provide the best and highest opinion. It provides for a nominee of the Minister’s Department who shall be an expert, and at least eight members of the council must be people who are appointed for their knowledge of Coloured education. If it is felt in certain instances which may be of a more trivial nature, that it is not necessary that the full council should give its attention to those matters, then the Education Council for Coloured Persons could well delegate such powers to a sub-committee, the powers for which are provided for in a clause later on in the Bill. I appeal to the Minister therefore to accept this amendment in order to bring about this spirit of consultation which will be so important in the implementation of this Bill when it becomes law.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise under this clause the question of Coloured schools which may be destroyed by fire or in some other way during the transition period. I raise this matter with the Minister publicly because I have had representations made to me in regard to a school at Vasco which was burnt down. Apparently there is some difficulty about rebuilding it; the Province says—“ We will not rebuild it because the Coloured Affairs Department is taking over at the end of the year.” I would like to know from the Minister whether that is the attitude that should be adopted, or whether he can give us some assurance that he will make representations to the province to rebuild that part of the school which was burnt down. I understand that another reason why they refuse to rebuild the school is because it is in an area …

You can raise that under my Vote.

Sir, the Minister must not postpone this matter. He can make a declaration here to allay the fears of the people in this area. Here is a glorious opportunity for him to say that he will rebuild the school or see that it is rebuilt. The school is standing there to-day in that destroyed state.

He should raise it from the ashes rather.

The Minister does not seem to be sympathetic at all. These children have to go to another school altogether now and they are being prejudiced in their education because this school is not available. I ask the Minister to make a statement in this connection and I would judge his future approach to Coloured education by the reply he gives us. Is he prepared to see that this school is rebuilt?

As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) I just want to say that in this clause I am asking Parliament for certain rights, but at the moment Coloured education is under the control of the Provincial Administration, and I am not prepared to express my views here across the floor of the House on a single case mentioned by the hon. member here. He should raise it with the body controlling education at the present time.

And if they refuse to do so?

Then the hon. member has other channels through which he may negotiate with that body, but this is not the place for it. As regards the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), I merely want to say that I cannot accept her amendment.

I did not move it. I could not do so, but I should like to hear your views.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) now wants to introduce a different principle. He now wishes to use an Education Council which has been established to advise the Minister on broad educational matters, as well as their powers, to interfere with the administration of the Department, and that I most certainly am not prepared to permit. An Education Council is there to advise the Minister on broad matters relating to the directions and the general interests and the principles of education, but these matters dealt with in Clause 3, are matters concerning the administration of the Department, and there the Minister has at his disposal all the requisite expert advice that any Minister receives through his Department. I cannot make the administration of a Government Department subject to the recommendation of a subcommittee of a council or of a board, for then the greatest confusion will arise in the administration, and for that reason I am unable to accept the amendment.

I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s argument now. He says that he cannot make the administration of the Department subject to the advice of the body that is to be established, namely the Coloured Education Advisory Council. Mr. Chairman, surely the division of Coloured Education will not be subordinate to the Coloured Education Advisory Council if the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is accepted. The Minister will only be able to close those schools or clinics after he has consulted the Advisory Council. That does not mean that he must have the approval of that body. Why is this Advisory Council for Coloured Education created? Surely they must take an interest in Coloured education. Will that body not be the best body to consult when a particular school or clinic has to be closed? The hon. the Minister has said that this will not be the function of that body. This body, because of the position the hon. the Minister himself is going to give it, will be the body par excellence to advise the Minister on this matter.

I can imagine that this Advisory Council may be asked to investigate whether a certain school should be closed or I could imagine that the Minister’s Department itself will make an inquiry and then subsequently consult this body. They may then tell us that certain things are wrong, or that the clinic or the school is not necessary, and that their recommendation is that the school or clinic be closed. If this amendment is accepted, and the words “after consultation” are inserted, even if the Advisory Council were to say to the Minister that he should close the school, or that he need not close it, the Minister need not listen to them. If his Department has other reasons for believing that that school should indeed be closed, and the Advisory Council recommends that the school should not be closed, the Minister need not listen to them because all the hon. member for Berea is asking is that whatever is done should be done only after consultation. I think it is a very practical suggestion. I think it will give this Advisory Council a better status if this amendment is accepted, and that they will also show greater interest in the establishment or the closing of certain Coloured schools.

I am really at a loss to understand the hon. the Minister’s attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. the member for Berea (Mr. Wood). Under this Bill the hon. the Minister seeks to establish an Education Council for Coloured Persons and that council will have certain functions. I should imagine that one of the main functions of the Council is to advise the Minister on all matters pertaining to Coloured education, otherwise it would appear to me that the establishment of this council is a mere sop given by the Minister in order to indicate to the Coloured people that their advice is going to be taken although he does not intend to take the advice. Is this more window-dressing on the part of the Minister to establish this council? If the council is going to be established for the purpose of advising the Minister on matters of Coloured education, as we were told in the Minister’s second-reading speech, then surely there can be no valid reason why the Minister should reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. Sir, I want to go a little further. I am going to move another amendment to test the bona fides of the hon. the Minister. I move—

In other words, if my amendment is accepted it will mean that the Minister may after consultation with the Education Council for Coloured persons and after consultation with the Minister of Finance and out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, establish, erect and maintain schools, colleges, etc. In other words we hope that the Minister will consult with the Education Council for Coloured Persons on the question of erecting schools and on the question of closing schools, otherwise what purpose is this council going to serve? What valid objection can the hon. the Minister have to that? It does not detract from the powers that the Minister has under this Bill. All we ask him to do is to consult with the council that he himself is establishing and which will consist of his own nominee so that they will have some function to fulfil. I really cannot understand why the Minister should reject this amendment.

[Inaudible.]

If my hon. friend looks at Clauses 30 and 31 of this Bill dealing with the establishment and constitution of the Education Council for Coloured Persons and their functions, he will see that they are there to advise the Minister on matters pertaining to Coloured education.

Is there anything which prevents them now from advising the Minister?

My hon. friend does not understand the position. The hon. member for Berea has asked that before any school is closed the Minister should consult with this Council which has been established for the specific purpose of advising the Minister on matters of general education. Why should they not be consulted? I want to go further and say that before the Minister establishes a school—in all fairness to the council if they are going to carry out the work which we envisage they should carry out—they should be consulted. The council will consist of eight Coloured educationists appointed by the Minister himself, persons who will have a profound knowledge of educational matters and local conditions. They would be able to advise him as to the best places for the siting of schools and they would be able to advise him on 101 matters pertaining to Coloured education, in respect of which the hon. the Minister himself, with the greatest respect cannot be expected to know the answer. Why cannot he provide in this clause that this council must be consulted with regard to the erection and maintenance and establishment of these schools and that they must certainly be consulted on the closing of schools. Sir, I really urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude. He will be giving nothing away in accepting this amendment. All that we are asking him is to consult with the council that he himself is establishing; we ask him to consult with the council on this matter of closing schools. I go further and say that on the question of establishing, maintaining and directing these colleges and high schools, etc., this council should be consulted.

It is clear to me that hon. members opposite are sowing suspicion. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) revealed a wonderful mentality to-day. He wants to test the bona fides of the hon. the Minister. I am putting it to him that he is sowing suspicion and I shall tell you why I say that. Hon. members opposite usually come along with the argument that they want for the Coloured as regards his education exactly what the Whites have. They want Coloured education to be exactly the same as White education, but now they come along with this amendment in which they want to go much further than the position is in regard to White education. The White Education Advisory Council that has been established does not possess the powers which hon. members wish to confer upon the Coloured Advisory Council in terms of this amendment. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman that an Education Advisory Council should decide administrative matters, about the closing of a school and the closing of a hostel. There are many instances I can recall where schools have become empty in the past in the case of Whites and other population groups. From the nature of things, such a school is closed when it becomes empty. There are many schools in this country that are still unoccupied to-day, schools that formerly were big schools. There are many hostels and school clinics that are unoccupied. Imagine that the hon. the Minister now has to consult the Education Advisory Council before he may close such a school. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard in this House.

Will you tell me what the functions of this Coloured Advisory Council are going to be?

They are there to advise the Minister when he wants to consult them, but those hon. members now want an Education Advisory Council to advise the Minister on administrative matters. This clause only deals with administrative matters. The closing of a school is not an educational matter; it is a purely administrative matter and I cannot see why the Education Advisory Council should be consulted to close a school.

I would like to make it clear that the point of view of the United Party in so far as Clause 3 is concerned is neither that of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) nor that of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). It did occur to us that if there was going to be consultation with the Council concerned, the question of consultation might also arise in regard to the establishment, erection, etc. or schools, but we feel that whereas the Education Council for Coloured Persons need not necessarily be consulted before a school is established we certainly feel that it should be consulted where it is proposed to close a school.

We cannot hear you.

Sir, I can well understand the Minister adopting the attitude that if he wants to establish a primary school, which costs a great deal of money, that he should not have to consult this Council about the need to establish such a primary school. On the positive side the Minister may well have an argument that he need not necessarily ask the advice of this Council when he proposes to establish a primary school.

I have not yet heard any argument from him or from you.

The hon. member must understand the difference between contributing something to Coloured education, such as the establishment of a primary school, and taking something away from Coloured education by the so-called disestablishment of a school. If the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) cannot see the difference, then I cannot either. I can understand the Minister saying that he does not see why he should be held up by any sort of consultation with this Education Council for Coloured Persons when he proposes to give something to Coloured education by establishing a school or an institution, but then I must say to him that I cannot see any reason why he should refuse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, because that is a very different thing. When he seeks to disestablish or to destroy something that exists, he must have very good reasons and, as has been pointed out, he may not necessarily be in the best position to know whether such a school should be disestablished or not, or whether a hostel or any other institution that comes within the ambit of his department should be disestablished. It seems to me and to us on this side that unless this Education Council for Coloured Persons is going to be consulted on a matter such as the disestablishment of a school, it would be very difficult to know just what the Minister is going to consult the Council about, because he has appointed them for their knowledge of the people, for their knowledge of education, for the benefit of Coloured people. If in a certain area the closing down of an institution should be considered, then surely that is something of which this Council should have special knowledge, both as Coloureds—more than White people would have—and as educationists. I know that the Minister can easily say that he is not prepared to accept the amendment. In fact, he finds most amendments amusing. Sir, I want to deal with what was said by the hon. member for Malmesbury. In referring to the hon. member for Peninsula he said that the hon. member was engaged in “verdagmakery”. Sir, if criticism of anyone of the clauses of this Bill, if any attempt to give the Minister a considered opinion and to voice the opinion of people outside this House is to be regarded as an attempt to create suspicion, then I can only say to the Minister and the hon. member for Malmesbury that there is going to be an awful lot of suspicion created about this Bill. Sir, we are only at Clause 3 and I ask the Minister in all sincerity not to take this attitude. He knows that the principle of the Bill has been accepted. So far we have not raised a single point which the Minister can say is motivated by a desire to create suspicion, whatever his supporters on that side of the House may say. There is a case to be made out for consultation with his own Council otherwise he would not have created it. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether the Council should be consulted about the closing down of a school, but when we ask the Minister to consult the Council, surely nobody can say that is an attempt to create suspicion. The hon member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) may shake his head, but I ask the Minister again, that in order to achieve this object of creating a division of Education within the Department of Coloured Affairs, (the principle of which we on this side of the House support); in such a way as to ensure that the Coloured people who have certain reservations—I am not talking about suspicion—will be given the impression that in fact they are going to benefit their representatives, this Education Council should be consulted. I say that if the Minister wants that to be achieved, then I suggest with great respect to him that he should rather pay heed to the opinions expressed by the United Party than the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Malmesbury, because that would get him exactly nowhere. We can ramble on about the provisions of this Bill, through every clause of it, for as long as we are permitted to do so, and the only answer that hon. member can give us is that we are trying to create suspicion. But that does not alter the simple fact that the Minister himself should know where this Council, which he himself says is necessary, should be allowed to have a say, and clearly here is a matter, where there is any possibility of the closing down of a school, let alone the actual closing down or disestablishment of a school or hostel, etc., where his Council should be asked what they think. I want to remind the hon. member for Malmesbury that we do not say “without the consent” of this Council. The amendment of the hon. member for Berea does not say “with the consent of the Council”, yet that is what makes that hon. member bridle! Fancy the Minister having to ask the consent of this Education Council for Coloured Persons! The hon. mover does not say anything of the sort; he asks for consultation. We are very well aware that consultation does not mean that the Minister has to abide by the decision of that Council, but if he accepts this amendment he will at least show that he has a certain regard for their opinion; that he is carrying out what he asks for as a mandate in terms of his own Bill. If he cannot accept that point of view, then I must say frankly that I shall become very despondent about our prospects of persuading the Minister to accept any amendment for the improvement of this Bill.

It was the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) who started talking about bona fides. I do not wish to react to that. If the hon. member enjoys discussing this Bill in that way, I grant him that. I know the hon. member well enough to know that I shall not be able to move him from that point of view by talking nicely to him. I do not think the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) was referring to the hon. member who has just spoken when he referred to the sowing of suspicion. What is the position now? The position is that it is a purely administrative matter to decide whether a particular school should be closed or not. If the hon. member does not have sufficient knowledge of administrative matters, I cannot help him. A very important person not so long ago wrote in a book that the trouble with the Opposition is that they have been out of the Government benches for such a long time that they no longer know what it is to administer. Much of their criticism in fact is based on the fact that they have forgotten what administration is. What can happen now? Let me illustrate it with an example. Suppose you have a State-aided school, for instance a church school, which is accommodated in a very poor building. There may be a very great need for a big State school in that vicinity. You can then negotiate with that church body and place all those children in a larger school, a school that is more effective and which is accommodated in a better building, and a school that will serve the needs of the community better. Now hon. members want me first of all to run to the Advisory Council to ask them whether I may close that miserable little school. Can you see in what an impossible situation the Department will be placed? We have competent officials and experts in the Department who after consultation—and I say that advisedly—come to the Minister and recommend that such a school should be closed. The Bill provides in Clause 32, which I do not wish to discuss now, for the establishment of regional boards. When these regional boards have come into existence, it will from the nature of things happen that when such a school has to be closed, the Department will consult that regional board or school committee concerned, for the sake of the co-operation and the goodwill of those people. That is the body that has to be consulted. I cannot accept the principle that the authority of the Department, its administrative authority, should be subordinated to a body which is not responsible for the administration of this department. What is more, I cannot run the risk that I as Minister should be told how I should handle these matters, otherwise than by this Parliament to whom I am responsible. If I were to act in an irresponsible fashion and were to close schools in an unfair manner, hon. members will be at liberty to attack me in this House. Let us look now at the bodies I have to deal with. There is this House in the first place. Will a Minister now be so mad as to close 150 or 200 schools just because he feels like closing schools? I do not believe there is anybody in South Africa in his right senses who would do such a foolish thing. In other words, this provision is there to facilitate the administration. If you wish to serve the community whom you pretend you wish to serve in this Bill, you will necessarily consult interested parties; you will try to persuade them that the step you propose to take is in their interests. That is how the administration does things at the present time. Why should we now act differently? Why should outside bodies be called in and be given administrative control of a State Department. It is not permitted in the case of any other State Department.

I do not object in the slightest to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) or any other member criticizing this Bill, but please do not use absurdities here to make the Bill suspect, as the hon. member for Peninsula has done. They are doing it with only one object and that is to destroy the co-operation we have had from the Coloured people on this matter. I shall deal with the hon. member for Peninsula on a later occasion. I do not have the time now. I have much to say to him. I should like to appeal to hon. members of the Opposition who have come forward with amendments and who have indeed shown that they are interested in improving this Bill—I appreciate that—not to have themselves misled by stories of imaginary and sinister motives that are alleged to be behind this provision. It is purely a matter of easy administration that is contemplated here, and that is why I cannot accept this amendment either.

I do not know why the hon. the Minister should get so annoyed about people thinking of base motives and so on and I do not know why he should claim that he has had such a measure of co-operation from the Coloured community in regard to this Bill. We all know that he has had no co-operation whatsoever; he has had no cooperation whatsoever from the Coloured teachers; he has had no co-operation from the Coloured Affairs Council who has accepted it only under certain conditions and none of those conditions has in fact been fulfilled. He has had no co-operation from the churches which is the third body of people concerned with Coloured Education. The hon. the Minister must not now come to this Committee and make such a fuss because he feels that his bona fides is being questioned. There is every reason to question his bona fides when he gets up in this House …

Did you hear what the member for Peninsula said?

I do not think he descended to personalities. The hon. Minister said he was prepared to take criticism and he must take it.

The hon. member must return to the clause.

I will come back to the clause, Sir; I was replying to the remark of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Peninsula has moved an amendment to the effect that the Education Council must be consulted before schools are erected or established. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood) moved an amendment to the effect that the Council must be consulted before schools are closed down. I think both these are important amendments and I do not understand why the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) who in fact supported the amendment of the hon. member for Berea did not also support that of the hon. member for Peninsula. To me the erection of schools is as important an issue as the closing down of schools. What the hon. member does not realize is that limited funds are available. It is therefore a matter of great importance which schools shall be established and where they shall be established. That is why it is important that the Minister should consult the Education Council about the establishment and erection of schools. If adequate funds were available and schools could be erected everywhere there might have been some point in what the hon. member for Hospital said. But that is not the case.

I did not say that I did not support him.

If words mean what they are supposed to mean then I understood the member for Hospital not to support the amendment. That was the impression which all of us here got. The point I want to make is that this is a matter of choice, that there are limited funds available and that the Minister has to choose where he is going to build his schools. What worries me is that we know which way the Minister is thinking. I say that because he made a speech last year in which he said the following about Coloured education and about the sort of schools he intended to erect. He was not talking about ordinary education, primary and secondary education; he was not talking about academic education as we all understand it. The Minister placed the emphasis on a totally different type of education. He said—

I have already started that.

The Minister sits there with a smile on his face and tells me that he has already started it. In other words, instead of building more primary schools for whcih there is a most pressing and urgent need so that Coloured children can be taken off the streets and put in primary schools where they should be, with the limited funds at his disposal the hon. Minister is concentrating on the setting-up of elementary agricultural schools.

Where do you get “concentrate” from?

From the hon. the Minister’s own words. He said “I will start off by educating the Coloured people …

[Inaudible.]

As far as I am concerned when you start with a course of action that is what you are concentrating on and it is quite obvious from what the Minister said during the second-reading debate and from this speech from which I have quoted, which he delivered to the Namaqualand Regional Development Association, which way he is thinking of educating the Coloured children. Therefore, Sir, as far as I am concerned I shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula because I think that where it is a matter of choice and where limited funds are available it is very important that the funds devoted to education should in fact be chanelled in the right direction; namely in the erection and the establishment of more primary schools and more secondary schools for Coloured children.

I am aware that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) certainly does not know what Paul wrote in his wisdom. She could learn one lesson from him, and the hon. the Minister has already learnt it, and that is that one should do the one thing and not omit doing the other.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that I take it amiss of him for having doubted the honesty of the Minister on two occasions. He asked whether, if a Coloured professional man were available, the Minister would appoint him. The Minister replied “naturally”. And what was the reaction of the hon. member for Peninsula, he who represents a Coloured constituency?

The hon. member may not revert to a previous clause.

Then I immediately return to the second occasion where the hon. member challenged the hon. the Minister’s bona fides. The hon. member proposed an amendment to this clause, and to use his own words, he said that he was proposing the amendment to test the Minister’s bona fides. He did not propose the amendment in order to improve the clause, not to render a service to the Coloured man, but to test the bona fides of the hon. the Minister in respect of this clause. The speaker who spoke immediately before him, appealed to the Minister to use his influence with the Provincial Council in respect of certain schools that are about to be dosed; he asked the hon. the Minister to intervene now already while at the second reading he voted against this Bill. What is the effect of the words of the hon. member for Peninsula when he says that he proposes an amendment to test the bona fides of the hon. the Minister? During the ten years I have been sitting in this House, this is the first time I have heard such a thing in this House. It is the first time I have heard somebody moving an amendment to test the bona fides of a Minister; that the amendment was not intended to improve the clause in order to render a service to the community concerned. I think the hon. member owes the Minister an apology. Has this Minister given him any cause in the past to propose such an amendment to test his bona fides? I want to make a very urgent appeal to the Minister not to accept one of these amendments. These amendments aim at binding the hands of the Minister. These amendments seek to compel him to consult this Coloured Education Council or Advisory Council. Can you imagine what the position will be if the Minister and his administration were to disagree with that Advisory Council? Can you imagine how those disagreements will be exploited in this country; how the Coloureds will be whipped up and how the Minister will be played off because he disagrees with the Advisory Council.

That is the point. Why then do you have an Advisory Council?

I am very glad about that interjection. If Clause 3 were to be adopted in its present form, is there any provision in that clause that debars the Minister from consultation with the Education Council? Now you want to force the Minister to consult.

He need not accept their advice.

Why should he? Now he can do so if he wishes. There you have it now from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). We have become clever in this House and in this country already; we have become shrewd enough to know what political capital the Opposition will derive from it if the Minister and his administration were to disagree on three occasions with the recommendation of this Advisory Council. For instance, suppose it is something that must be done administratively, and the Minister and his administration disagree with the Coloured Advisory Council who have adopted a certain attitude, and the Minister were to say: “No, it must be done in this way because it is in the interests of the administration and because it is practical.” Can you imagine how this Minister will be denounced. It will be used as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Coloureds and the administration, the administration that means well by the education of the Coloureds. If Clause 3 is adopted, there is nothing to stop the Minister from consulting the Advisory Council.

What both these amendments seek to do is to compel the Minister to consult. There may be times however, when it will be in the interests of the Coloureds and the Administration that the Minister and the Department should decide. There is nothing which debars the Minister from consulting now if he chooses to do so. I believe the amendment of the hon. member for Berea is well-intended. I repeat what I said at the outset, namely that I am sorry that the hon. member for Peninsula, who represents the Coloureds in this House, and who acts as the Leader of the Coloured Representatives, is in his seat so seldom that he does not know what goes on in this House; I regret that he rose to move an amendment which is not in the interests of the clause, to use his own words, but purely in order to test the bona fides of the hon. the Minister. I think he owes the Minister an apology.

Our motive is merely to assist the Minister; it is not a question of doubting his bona fides. Clause 32 is indefinite about the establishment of school boards and school committees. Had the establishment of school boards and school committees been laid down definitely in this Bill then this whole question of consultation would have been solved. If the hon. the Minister will explain to us whether he intends to establish school committees and school boards within a reasonable period, say six months or a year, I think our difficulties will have been met. Clause 32 does not say that he shall; it says he may. It is so indefinite that this question of consultation which the hon. members for Peninsula and Berea have raised, is bound to arise. They are anxious to have some body to which the Minister can go for advice and who can recommend disestablishment of schools. We are anxious to help; there is no question of trying to make it difficult for the Minister.

We who know something about Provincial Council Education should like to urge the Minister to keep this clause as it is now. The reason why we are asking that is that all of us who have experience of the matter, know that when a school has to be established or closed, there is a vast amount of wrangling between the various bodies that have to advise the Administrator. Those bodies do not advise in the interests of the child, but in their own interests. They want to foist their wishes or their unwillingness upon the Administrator. That is why I feel that the fewer the bodies or authorities to be consulted the better it will be for that community. The Minister will act only in the interests of the education of the child. The greater the number of bodies concerned, the more confusion there will be and the greater will be the opportunities for agitation not to have the school there or to have it at another place, or to close or not to close it. The fewer the people involved in the opening or closing of a school, the better it is for that community.

In reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I want to tell her that I said that the point of view of the United Party in respect of Clause 3 did not coincide with the view of either the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) or the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) that was what I said. I did not say that I did not support the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member for Houghton says this is an “extremely important amendment” by the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member for Houghton has a number of amendments on the Order Paper; in fact she has an amendment to this very clause, that “in line 75 to delete ‘ may ’ and to substitute ‘shall’.”

I did not move it.

Very well, she could not move it, but that amendment still illustrates her approach to this particular clause. In regard to this question of consultation, if she really believed that it was “extremely important”, as she now claims to do, suddenly, she would have moved the same amendment which the hon. member for Peninsula has moved. We on this side of the House believe that there is very little chance of the Minister accepting all the amendments which have been moved, and we see the matter in this light that, despite the penny lecture which the hon. member for Houghton read me about limited funds, etc., the Minister is as well aware of the limitation on funds as anybody else. Whatever else we may think of the Minister, we believe that he is not deliberately going to establish institutions where they are not required, in order to make quite sure that he has not got the funds to establish an institution where it is required. That is my opinion, anyway. Whereas the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula may be desirable, we believe that it is very important in relation to the closing down of existing institutions that there should be consultation, because in that case the ouestion of limited funds does not arise. In that case the matter is not one of whether something will or will not eventually come into being. The facts are considered: the fact, for example, that there is no longer a community to support that school. Let us assume that in the first half of any calendar year there is good reason to believe that a school in a particular area is no longer required, then there is ample time to close that school down. It is not as though the Minister decides to-day that a certain school must be closed, and then it is closed the next morning at 8 a.m. These things take time. Because there is this time lag between the decision to close a school and the actual closing down of that school, we believe there is no good reason for the Minister to reject this amendment, as he will have ample time to consult the Advisory Council.

I hope the Minister will regard the appeals from his side of the House to reject these amendments more objectively. I want to say that whatever arguments he may raise in connection with the amendment moved by the member for Peninsula, they do not apply with the same force to the amendment moved by. the member for Berea. It is a totally different situation, leaving out the principle of consultation. The situation is totality different in regard to the time factor and even the mechanics of consultation. Regardless of the accusation that we want to raise suspicions, we believe that Clause 3 will be improved in that the Minister will show that he intends to make use of this Council. For those reasons, we ask the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the member for Berea.

The hon. the Minister should really not be so sensitive. Just a few days ago the hon. the Minister of Justice told the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that he should like to test his bona fides and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) did not then object at all. That is simply the language of politics and I really think we should stop being so sensitive and touchy and confine ourselves to the crux of the matters before the House.

I must admit that I was originally not over-enthusiastic about these amendments but now that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and other members before him have spoken I think it is necessary that these amendments be accepted. The reason advanced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad why we should not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood) was that if the Minister were to consult the Education Council and there should be a difference of opinion on a few occasions that would be “exploited” by this side of the House. In other words, he is afraid of the effect of consultation; and when you are afraid of the effect of consultation, Sir, I regard that as an indication there are very good reasons why there should be consultation. That is why I am now 100 per cent in favour of this amendment. I think it should be accepted. We are dealing here with one of the kernels of the Bill. This clause deals with the creation of educational facilities and if an Education Council is appointed to advise, it is exactly when those facilities are created, more so than at any other time, that advice should be sought. That can very easily be done by submitting to the Education Council from time to time what the Minister intends doing in connection with the closing or erection of a school etc. The final decision still rests with him and his Department. It is a very simple matter and I think the amendment ought to be accepted.

May I ask the hon. member a question: Has the Minister not got an opportunity of consulting as the clause stands at the moment?

Of course he always has the right to consult. We think it ought to be compulsory for the Minister to consult because the creation of educational facilities is the crucial matter with which we are dealing. Why do we have an Education Council?

I think this whole discussion is stupid. You have to establish administrative machinery for the whole question of Coloured education. May I remind the Opposition that when we dealt with the establishment of an advisory council for White education in this House one of their difficulties was exactly this that they were afraid that the council would be given administrative powers which would conflict with the administrative machinery which existed at the time or which might be established. They are now turning a complete somersault and this Education Council—we do not know at all what its functions are going to be—must suddenly be given great importance. That is something which we ought to discuss later when we come to the relevant clause, but it gets dragged in here and it must suddenly be given administrative powers. I simply cannot understand what we are quarrelling about. There are going to be school boards and school committees and those are the bodies which will be consulted when you want to establish or close a school. You simply cannot saddle an advisory body with this sort of function.

The hon. the Minister tried to create the impression a few minutes ago that if he first had to ask the Coloured Education Advisory Council it would take a very long time before they came to a decision.

No, I did not say that.

Let me rather put it this way that the hon. the Minister tried to create the impression that it would hamper him and his Department administratively if he had to act through the council. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with sub-section (3), with the closing of certain schools. Let them rather wait a little longer before they close the school than close it too soon. Surely that ought to be our approach. The Department should rather take some time about such a matter than decide too quickly. The hon. the Minister asked us how it would work in practice. He says that in practice he will consult those boards or certain committees whereby the Coloured parents can show their interest in education after he has established them in terms of Clause 32. Let me put it this way to the Minister: If I were to read an amendment to him so that he can consider it, will he be prepared to accept that in line 20, after the word “time” the following words be inserted “after consultation with a board, committee or other body established in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 32”?

And if there is no such board?

We have been talking about bona fides the whole afternoon. The Minister says that that is how it will work in practice. He was the one who presented it in that light, not I.

Exactly. I told you what we envisaged. Say for instance that we cannot establish such a body at a certain place.

What does the Minister mean by that? You have a Coloured community in most places on the platteland, in most towns which I know and surely it will not be impossible to establish such a control board or committee consisting of Coloured parents who are interested in education. The hon. the Minister said that in practice the position would be that he would indeed consult those people. Very well, and now let me put it this way “that after consultation with a board, committee or other body established in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 32”. What happens in practice in the case of a White school? Does the Provincial Department of Education close a White school summarily?

The school dies naturally.

If a school dies naturally there is no difficulty. But this does not deal with the school alone, it also deals with clinics and hostels and other amenities.

They die with the school.

Circumstances make it necessary for the Minister to consider closing a school, but local conditions do not as yet justify it. How is he going to decide without consulting those people, the parents of those children, the members of the school board for instance? Is he not going to consult them at all? He tells us that he will do so. He must accept that we are prepared to help him and he should accept this amendment.

The hon. member has made quite a case out of something which I have supposedly said. Had the hon. member listened properly he would have heard that my objection right from the outset was that I was not prepared to give a body outside my Department administrative powers. That was my main objection. I said that it was of necessity the policy of any good Department to try to have the goodwill of a community when it acts. That was what I said. But I do not want to tie myself down beforehand because that will mean that the administration of my Department will be subject to the decision or to the will or displeasure of a body which does not form part of the Department.

Consultation is not “will”, is it?

The danger which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) mentioned is a real danger. Let us be frank. I always speak in plain language when I deal with Coloured affairs. The fact of the matter is that there are people within the ranks of the Coloured community who misuse the schools, and the hon. member knows it.

Do you only find that amongst the Coloureds?

The hon. member knows that there are schools to-day which are in a terrible mess because of the activities of people there. I am hot referring to the teachers, I am referring to influences in those schools which make the lives of those teachers impossible, schools which are not under our control.

You will always have that.

Very well, but I cannot subject my administration to the will or displeasure of such people. I shall consult as far as I possibly can and the hon. member knows that the Department of Coloured Affairs is known to go out of its way to consult. I cannot, however, entrench those powers in the Act. In that case I will be tying my hands just as the Provincial Administration found that its hands were tied in certain respects. I am not prepared, therefore, to accept this amendment.

At the outset let me say that the attack on the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) was as unworthy as it was baseless. Everybody knows that the principle of this Bill has been accepted, and to accuse any member of this House of trying to wreck legislation because he honestly and sincerely believes in an amendment which he puts forward, is new to me in this House, and I say the attack is as unworthy as it is baseless and immoral. It must be clearly understood that we represent the Coloured people and we act bona fide in our desire to see that legislation which affects them, particularly in this regard, is legislation which we want to make as perfect as possible, to enable the Minister to carry on with Coloured education. That principle of the Bill has been accepted. I am not at cross swords with the hon. Minister in regard to his bona fides.

Why then the challenge?

I cannot read the hon. member’s mind, but we did get an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he would give us all assurances publicly, and he went back on his word.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member is accusing me of breach of faith?

Scandalous!

Then I will withdraw that, and I say that he changed his mind.

You should apologize.

I want to say this that the hon. the Minister gave us certain assurances.

No, I did not.

If the Minister says he did not, I will accept that, but it is contrary to the view held by the four of us. But I accept it. The position is that we had a little chat with the hon. Minister, privately, as he will remember, and he how says that what we said took place, did not take place.

If you go on like that, you need never come to me again.

I accept that. I say there was a misunderstanding.

Order! The hon. member and also the hon. Minister must confine themselves to the clause under discussion.

The point is here that under Clause 30 the Education Council for Coloured Persons is established. The people elected to the council …

Order! The hon. member cannot now discuss Clause 30.

The point is that the hon. Minister will have the advice from people throughout the province, people who will be members of that council, and he then surely will be in a position to say that he will consult them. They will be able to advise the Minister as to what should be established, and all the hon. member for Peninsula now asks is that it should be accepted that the members of the Coloured Council will be in a good position to know whether a school should be established in the Transvaal or in the Free State, or in the Cape Province, and whether it should be a college or primary school, having regard to the spread of population and to the necessity for such a school. These people representing as they do the various parts of the province and being educationists, if I may put it that way, would surely be the people who would be sincere in their advice in regard to the establishment of schools or colleges. The Minister does not need to accept what they say, but he should consult them.

Order! That point has been raised over and over again. The hon. member should now advance new arguments.

I suggest, Sir, that it should be the intention of this Act in regard to the Educational Council to provide that the Minister will consult these people.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bloomberg put and the Committee divided:

AYES—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: C. Barnett and H. Suzman.

NOES—61: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.: Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nieror P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Wood put and the Committee divided:

AYES—37: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—61: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. Clause 4 to stand over.

Clause 5 put.

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

Evening Sitting

I move the amendment standing in my name on page 384—

This amendment of course is more than just the substitution of two words for one word. We are dealing here with the clause which contains empowering provisions for the transfer, management and control of certain private educational institutions to the Department of Coloured Affairs. As the preceding clause indicates, the type of institution which will be transferred will be a college, a school, a home or continuation classes for the education of Coloured persons, including any nursery school. We are well aware that the majority, if not all of these private schools, are church schools. Once transfer takes place certain consequential results follow. I must draw attention to one of them by referring to Clause 10, which is such a consequential provision, because if a transfer of a private school takes place the rights of certain individuals are also affected. Any person who immediately prior to the taking over of one of these institutions is on the establishment thereof is then also transferred as a teacher and shall be deemed to have been appointed in terms of the provisions of this Act. The intention of the Minister, I am sure, is that there shall be proper negotiation between the Government and the governing body of the school concerned before the transfer takes place, the purpose obviously being that there should be proper negotiation which leads to agreement. The Minister in the preceding clause confirmed that impression because he spoke there of negotiations with church bodies. The purpose of my amendment is to make it quite clear that there will be negotiation and there will be agreement before the empowering machinery of this clause is brought into operation. If that is to happen, as the hon. the Minister himself implied in the language he used, then the word “consultation” is of course quite foreign to such an arrangement because consultation alone may result in simply unilateral action, whereas an institution such as this should—and I hope it is the intention of the Minister that it will—only be transferred by a bilateral approach to the matter, i.e. that there will be a form of bilateral agreement between the Department and the governing body of the school in question. The clause relates to what are called State-aided institutions, and I think that is an indication that it will be a body which is a responsible body, which is carrying out a satisfactory form of educational instruction, and which therefore well merits not merely a consultation and then taking over, but a bilateral arrangement by which there will be negotiations leading to agreement. Merely to use the word “consultation” is insufficient if all that is to take place, because it is possible simply to ignore the approaches made by the other party in regard to the matter. I am not suggesting that the Minister will ignore it, but I say that Parliament should be careful and ensure that there will be this negotiation and agreement before the taking over takes place. As I have indicated, it is far more than simply taking over the brick and mortar of an institution. Once the brick and mortar are taken over, the rights of individuals are affected as a consequential result. That alone shows there must be more than just consultation; that there must be very careful consideration and some form of agreement. My purpose is simply to provide for that because Parliament must be accurate and definite in defining the machinery by which some private institution is taken over by the State. I hope therefore that the Minister will give consideration to this amendment in the spirit in which it is moved.

I do not wish to be long. I merely wish to say that I support the amendment and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to the amendment because the churches play a great part in the education of Coloured children, and I think that they are at least entitled, not only to compensation, but that agreement shall be arrived at before the school is taken over. The Director of Coloured Education, Mr. Louw, gave the assurance when he spoke to 300 Coloured principals and teachers in October last year and said: “The church will certainly not be compelled to transfer to the Department, but there will be openings for negotiations if they wish to do so”. I think that gives the impression that it was the intention originally, at any rate, that church schools should not be taken over against their consent. I hope the Minister will insert this into the law itself. I see the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper as well, and I would like to ask him whether this will in any way put into the Bill provisions for compensation where schools are taken over. The Minister’s amendment reads, “after consultation with the Minister of Finance”. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands at present to lay down the terms of compensation. Under common law, if the State takes over a school, there will be compensation, but does the Minister’s amendment in fact bring that into the Bill, and will the Minister tell us exactly how the common law provisions apply to the question of compensation for schools which are taken over?

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

It only means that when taking over State-aided schools, and additional expenditure is incurred, the Minister concerned will have to consult with the Minister of Finance. I think that is only right.

*As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is concerned, I should like to point out that that if I accepted this amendment it would mean that if a State-aided school has to be taken over and anybody makes unreasonable claims with which the Department cannot comply such a body will make it absolutely impossible for that school to be taken over. As I see the position, if this provision is inserted it would rather cause trouble and difficulty than anything else. Our approach right from the outset has been that the relationship between the Department and the various church organizations should remain as it was under the Provincial Administration and that is why we have left it like that in the Bill. All we are doing here is to empower the Minister to take them over but he can only do so after consultation. If, however, you were to give the power to such a body by saying not only after consultation but also after it had approved of it, we shall be disturbing the spirit which has always existed between the Provincial Administrations and the churches, a spirit which we want to retain between the Department and the churches. Assume that it can only be done subject to approval, as the hon. member wants it, I want to point out to the hon. member that the Minister will in any case still have the power to withdraw that school’s subsidy and to establish a Government school there, that is however not the spirit in which I wish to approach this matter.

I accept that.

That is why I want to approach the whole matter in a spirit of good faith. I just want to add this. I do not want to mention any names specifically but I have been interviewed by practically every church organization in connection with this matter and I think we have satisfactorily explained to the churches what our approach to this matter is. I hope the hon. member will not insist on this. I appreciate his point of view namely that he wants to prevent the churches from being confronted with a fait accompli but I want to assure him that that is not the intention at all. We appreciate the value of the churches and we realize that the churches will still for a considerable time have to play a major role and that it is impossible to take over all church schools to-morrow. There are a few instances, however, where the churches come to us and tell us that in this respect or in that area they do not see their way to continue rendering those services. All we are doing here is to make it possible to negotiate with them.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has raised the question of compensation but that need not be provided for in this Bill because we shall take over land and property from the churches only through the Department of Lands which does these things on behalf of the State in which case provision is made for appropriate compensation. If agreement cannot be reached as to the compensation it is submitted to arbitration. The common law and the procedure followed by the Department of Lands offer that guarantee. Nobody will lose anything. I do not, however, wish to approach the matter in that spirit. If I did I think we would be disturbing the spirit which has always existed between the churches and the provinces, a spirit which I want to retain.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is a very reasonable one. When we dealt with Bantu education as it was taken over from the provinces, the Minister stated that definitely it was the policy of the Government not to subsidize schools, but if schools wished to exist without a subsidy they were free to do so. I think this Minister’s approach is much more reasonable, and if he were prepared to accept this amendment I think it would establish an excellent case. It is quite obvious that he has the whiphand. It is easy for him to enforce his will because he can withdraw the subsidy. Therefore when my hon. friend says that by negotiation and agreement these schools should be taken over, that is eminently the right spirit. I think the Minister is approaching the transfer in the right way, much better than they did in the case of Bantu education. So why not accept the amendment? It is reasonable and fair and there will be agreement, because the hon. the Minister can say in the end: If you do not agree, obviously I must withdraw the subsidy. And of course, it is his own Church. It is not the same position as in regard to Bantu education, where the Church concerned was mainly the Catholic Church. That is not the the position to-day. The Minister can obtain agreement quite easily with the schools.

I will not be dealing with one Church only.

I know, but the main Church is the D.R. Church, the Minister’s own Church, and I think the amendment proposed is reasonable and the Minister’s stature will increase if he accepts it.

I appreciate the manner in which the Minister has dealt with my amendment, but I want to make this clear: He is afraid that it might disturb good relations, whilst I, on the other hand, feel that it would confirm what the Minister says he intends to do, and establish that those good relations shall remain. The Minister, in effect, accepts that there will be negotiations and agreement, but when he insists on this word “consultation” instead of negotiation and agreement, he indicates that he is legislating for the few and not for the many. I am concerned with Parliament’s approach to the matter where private rights are concerned. I do· not think the Minister should take up the attitude that we must legislate for the few. The Minister mentioned quite fairly that he has two weapons in regard to unreasonable bodies concerned, because,he has the weapon of refusing the grant-in-aid, and he has the weapon of expropriation. I prefaced my remarks by saying that these were State-aided institutions, which indicates that they have an association with the Government which they obviously would like to maintain. They know that they are dependent on the Government for support for the running of the school, and the Minister admits that he will not take them over holus-bolus all at once, but that it will be a steady process. But I ask the Minister to reconsider his views, because by the substitution of those words I think he will *confirm the goodwill he intends showing to these Church institutions, and the good relations which exist to-day.

I again want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), for the same reasons which applied in the previous clause. All reasonable opportunity is given by the Minister in the clause as it stands. It refers to consultation. The object of the amendment of the hon. member is to substitute negotiation and agreement for consultation. That ties the hands of the Minister. He will not be able to act if, after publication in the Government Gazette, there has not been agreement.

What is wrong with that?

There may be a great deal wrong with it, but we are not so short-sighted that we cannot foresee it, because it will not only be Church bodies with which we shall have to negotiate; there may also be other bodies and that is why I welcome the amendment of the Minister that it is not only a school which is concerned, but schools. Why should we run the risk of placing the Minister in a position where good relations will be disturbed—it is true that the State subsidizes those schools and that those subsidies can be withdrawn—if hon. members are serious that good relations should be retained. In what way does it change the clause if we substitute “negotiation and agreement” for the word “consultation”? Agreement is final. In that case there has to be agreement, agreement which is not brought about administratively but which is entrenched in the Act. Why should we tie the hands of the Minister and his administrative officials? When there are negotiations we know that some inconvenience may be caused when those schools are taken over, no matter how good the intentions are, but why should we make it administratively difficult by inserting a word in this clause which makes agreement compulsory? Why not leave it to the Minister to do it after consultation? The Minister binds himself in this Bill that he will consult and he must consult. I want hon. members to realize that something may obstruct the consultation which will not lead to agreement. Must the administration be bound, by law, as it will be if this amendment is accepted, so that it cannot take over such an institution? If the Minister accepts this amendment that there must be agreement it will mean that not only his hands but the hands of his officials will be tied. If there has to be agreement and demands are made by both sides the Minister will have to reach agreement when he negotiates. It may amount to this that the Minister will have to make certain concessions in order to reach agreement. I do not think the Minister can accept this amendment. The whole principle of the Bill is involved in this clause namely the transfer of schools to the Department of Coloured Affairs and if these words are added there must be agreement. The words “negotiate” and “consult” have the same meaning in my opinion, but I cannot understand why the hon. member insists on having agreement. It can only lead to bad relationships or to the sacrifice of certain principles in order to reach agreement.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third clause of the Bill we have discussed, and on every clause it seems that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has cast himself in the role, in relation to the Minister, of what the French call “bête noir”, or the evil genius. Whenever it seems that we on this side have approached the Minister in such a way that he may possibly concede the point, it is that hon. member who appeals to the Minister to give no heed to it. I do not say he is not correct but I would like to point to the attitude he adopts. Here be boggles over the word “agreement”. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister and the hon. member that the Minister himself, in his second-reading speech, said this—

The Minister himself referred to negotiations. Therefore I say to that extent, with great respect to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, he is completely wrong in arguing against the amendment in so far as the negotiations are concerned. His main objection, therefore, is the question of agreement. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has pointed out, the Minister has two powerful weapons, which make it absolutely clear that except in desperation, no Church institution which operates a school would hesitate for long before coming to that agreement with the Minister because they know very well that, to use a colloquial term, he can cut off their water. If that is the case, then surely in this spirit in which the Minister himself says the Church institutions approached him, in the same atmosphere of “negotiations”, in the desire to get the co-operation of those Church institutions which no one will deny have made a very solid contribution to the education of the Coloureds, surely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will see the merit in making a concession, if necessary, as far as this clause is concerned. But he is afraid that if the Minister accepts the amendment, he will have to make concessions in order to achieve agreement.

Prevention is better than cure.

There is no danger in making concessions, because it will have been made on very good grounds towards a Church institution which, before the Minister came into the picture, made its contribution towards the education of the Coloured people, and that concession will have been made in a proper spirit of negotiation to which the Minister himself referred.

I agree.

Then I hope the hon. member will not continue to antagonize the Minister towards our amendments, because nothing can result from this except good. [Interjection.] I do not speak on behalf of any particular Church. The Minister himself said that the Churches have played an important part firstly in the education of the Coloureds, and secondly, in regard to the negotiations that preceded this Bill. In the same spirit I would like to ask him not to pay undue attention to the representations of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad …

Order! The hon. member has repeated that sufficiently often and he must come back to the clause.

Then I just ask that the Minister accept the amendment.

I just want to tell the hon. member what I have been trying to bring home to his limited brain. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I was not referring to any member in particular, Sir, but as far as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is concerned let me try to bring this home to him. We are not quarrelling over the words “negotiation” or “consultation”. Those words have the same meaning in this clause; the word we are quarrelling over is the word “agreement” contained in the amendment; that is the sting, that agreement must be reached. Hon. members keep on saying that the hon. the Minister has two weapons in his hands. Of course the Minister has certain powers but why must the Minister be compelled to use these weapons? Will anything like that lead to good relationships? Or will it disturb good relationships? Why cannot we accept this clause as it stands so that there will be proper consultation and negotiation and so that we do not force the Minister? Surely hon. members admit that a time may arrive when the Minister will have to use those two weapons and that will only disturb good relationships. Otherwise he does not require those weapons. Why must this Committee accept a clause which will force the Minister to exercise those powers while it can be done by means of consultation and negotiation. No, it is very clear that there is a sting in this amendment and we noticed it timeously. I cannot agree that this amendment be accepted.

I do not doubt the honest intentions of this amendment in the least, but I have certain doubts about it. I do not agree with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that there is a sting in it because I do not believe that that is the intention. The Coloured Representatives moved an amendment in the second reading and paragraph (d) of the amendment read: “implementing a uniform system of administration for all Coloured education, including church and mission schools”. The position is that those people want those schools to have a uniform system of administration. What do we have at the moment? We have our church and mission schools and let me say clearly that I do not wish to detract from the value of the wonderful work which the churches and mission institutions have been doing over the years. But for them, Coloured education would have been, at an even lower level that it is to-day. They were the pioneers in the development of Coloured education and I do not wish to detract from the value of their work. The stage has, however, been reached where Coloured teachers want to fall under uniform system of administration and not under the existing system. The position is to-day that a single parson or priest has more power than an entire school board. Take a district like Riversdale. Think of the number of English church schools in that district alone. There are more schools there than are often controlled by an entire school board; there is one priest or parson and he is what they call the “manager” and he is vested with the administration of those schools. It is unfair towards the Coloured teachers that some of them should be subjected to the religious concepts of a single person who is the manager of those schools. It often happens that teachers apply for a post which has been advertised at such a school and then their merits are not taken into account but the appointment is made on the basis of the church to which the applicant belongs. This clause provides for it that these schools can be taken over as far as their administration is concerned; it does not provide for the school to be purchased. It would be a public scandal if we were to have the position where the Department concerned, having decided that a certain school must be taken over and placed under a uniform system of administration, the church is entitled by law to refuse in which case the Minister has to “cut off their water”, as was said here. I do not see my way clear to allow that to happen. There may possibly be such cases. Experience has taught me that I can say with certainty that there will be cases where church bodies will refuse and I do not see my way clear in those cases to allow the subsidies to be withdrawn, to allow the Coloured children to suffer as a result or to allow the salaries of the teachers to be withdrawn. I take it that the Minister will exercise discretion and tact, but the fact remains that as far as the Coloured teachers corps is concerned, they want these schools to fall under a uniform system of administration. In view of this I cannot understand why force should be applied by threatening to withdraw the subsidy because the Coloured teacher’s salary is paid from portion of this subsidy. In other words, you withhold the salaries of those teachers and they become unemployed. You want to force or persuade the church bodies in this way to transfer the administration of the school to the Department. On the strength of my experience I do not see my way clear to allow that. We should be careful that we do not create a position which might lead to a public scandal.

I think this amendment is in conflict with the principle which was accepted at the second reading. The object of this Bill as a whole is for the Department of Coloured Affairs to take over Coloured education from the Provincial Administration. That is the principle. If we were to substitute the word “agreement” for “consultation” in this clause, you will be destroying the principle of take-over because it will be impossible for the Department to take over Coloured education if there has to be agreement. Let me give a practical example.

There are many instances where there are more than one church society conducting schools in one town. Say, for instance, there are three such societies. We who served on the Provincial Council in the past had the experience that two of those three church societies requested the Provincial Administration to take their schools over because of certain factors, amongst others because of the application of the Group Areas Act as a result of which the Coloured were removed from the White town to their own town areas. That meant that the children had to come from a long distance to attend that church school. Two of those church societies therefore asked the State to establish a Government school and they expressed their willingness to transfer their schools voluntarily to the Provincial Administration. One, however, refused to do so. It will not be possible, therefore, to remove the children from the town with the result that they will have to walk a long distance on account of the stubbornness of one church society. They will have to attend school under very unfavourable conditions because many people will regard them as a nuisance. I even want to go further and subscribe to what the hon. member for Outeniqua has said. The bodies who have to be consulted here are not managerial bodies; the bodies with which hon. members opposite want the Minister to come to an agreement are not democratic managerial bodies; they do not consist of people who have been chosen by the parents of the schoolgoing children, but people appointed by a church society. What will happen under this clause of the Minister is that there will be consultation with those school boards which are to be established for the Coloured for the first time in our history. They will be school boards which have been democratically elected and on which the parents of the school-going child will have a say.

As I read this amendment I maintain that this is an attempt on the part of the Opposition to give effect to the amendment which they moved at the second reading when they opposed the principle of take-over. They want to make that impossible with this amendment of theirs.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is casting a reflection on the Chair by suggesting that this amendment which you have found to be in order, does not conform with the Rules.

Order! The hon. member for Malmesbury may continue.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said a moment ago that he thought there was a sting in this amendment although he was not quite sure yet where it was situated. There is a sting in it, Mr. Chairman, and the sensitiveness of the hon. member for Durban (Point) proves that that is so.

I hope, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his decision regarding this matter because it is a matter of some considerable importance. I should like to ask the Minister to look at it in the following light: This clause affects a fundamental principle, namely the right to manage and control a school. The power is now to be given to the Minister to remove that right from a school. That is very important and because it is so, our amendment is justified. This amendment will ensure that the right to manage and control will not be removed except with the agreement of the school concerned.

My second point is that that right should not be removed in the way in which the Minister proposes to do it, namely by consultation merely and without agreement, unless there are good reasons why he cannot ensure agreement.

He wants to use the big stick!

The Minister has said that there are at present good relations between the provinces and the schools concerned and that he wants to preserve that situation. I accept his own good faith in this regard, but I would suggest that by accepting the amendment from this side, he would demonstrate the Government’s good faith, because, after all, with the clause as it stands, the Government is not required to take the schools on good faith because the Government is not obliged to get agreement. It is only State-aided schools which have to exercise good faith—in other words, to take the Government on good faith. I do not suggest that they do not do so, but I suggest that it would demonstrate the Government’s good faith if it did accept this amendment. It has been pointed out that there are two ways which the Government can follow in the event of no agreement being possible. The hon. the Minister has given us his reasons for not accepting this amendment—that is simply the fact that there may be schools which make unreasonable demands and that he does not want to be put in a position where he has to remove the subsidy in order to negotiate with such a school. But such a situation would be, I believe, quite the exception and I do not think we ought to legislate for exceptions, but we ought to do so for the rule. In the majority of cases, the Minister will be able to get agreement on a reasonable basis.

If he is not, he will have recourse either to a withdrawal of the subsidy, or come back to Parliament for an amendment to the Act giving therefor as reasons the fact that there have been so many cases where schools took up unreasonable attitudes that he has been unable to operate under the Act. But, as I said, that will be an exception. What is more, the hon. the Minister, in what he said a moment ago, himself showed that he himself believed that that would be the case.

As regards the arguments of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, I need only say that the reason why this amendment ought to be accepted, is because agreement should be sought in a matter of such great importance, i.e. where the power to transfer the management and control of a school is to be given to the Minister. If the Minister is quite adamant that he will not accept this amendment, I should like to ask him to give the assurance that as far as he is concerned, his aim will be to strive to obtain agreement wherever possible.

I gave that assurance already.

I accept that, but urge him to reconsider his decision and to accept the amendment.

If this amendment is accepted it will have the effect that the Minister’s hand will be tied in all respects and that it will be impossible to carry out this policy.

That will be the effect of it and that is the effect which the Opposition envisages with this amendment. If this amendment is passed the Minister will be powerless, the moment it is impossible to reach agreement, to implement this legislation.

Order! I want to warn the hon. member that that particular argument has been used over and over. He must try to advance new arguments.

Although it has been used over and over, Mr. Chairman, it has apparently not yet penetrated the minds of members opposite. As a matter of fact, it was clear that the last speaker did not know very much about this matter.

Do you not have faith in the ability of the Minister to reach an agreement?

It is for that very reason that we are opposing the argument so strenuously—it is for the very reason that we know how efficient and able the Minister is that we know that he will achieve the greatest possible degree of co-operation by means of consultation. That is why we want to leave the road open to him merely to consult without stipulating that agreement should be reached. The attitude of the Opposition is based on this that every time the Minister takes certain powers they want to hamstring him. We had the same argument in regard to Clause 3. There again they wanted to introduce consultation. Where provision is made here for consultation they want to replace it with something stronger. That is how they wish to tie the hands of the Minister so that he cannot move. If that is done the Opposition will succeed in making this legislation fail.

The Minister himself has indicated that he would want to come to an agreement. As a matter of fact, he indicated that that was the whole basis on which he intended proceeding in the matter. The Minister has not, therefore, associated himself with this so-called sinister motive behind the word “agreement”. I should have thought that if there was a word having nothing sinister about it, then that word is “agreement”, because the only way you can deal with an issue where two parties are concerned, is by way of agreement between them. Here is such an instance, and surely the only procedure to prescribe in law is to say that there shall be negotiation and agreement. It is as simple as that. It is not we who are trying to introduce sinister motives into the matter; I am afraid that that was done by the hon. members opposite who spoke just now because they have a sinister mind about the whole issue. I am glad therefore that the hon. the Minister himself did not associate himself with this type of argument.

The hon. member for Wolmaranstad as well as the hon. member for Randfontein have both been nurtured in the tradition of Transvaal education. I myself am familiar with that tradition. We passed through this phase as long as 60 years ago.

Order! The hon. member must not now take too wide a course.

I am trying to find common ground with my two young friends from the Transvaal.

Yes, but in doing that the hon. member must confine himself to the clause!

As I said, we have passed through this already, and we have learned to be accommodating, sympathetic and tolerant. Then the C.N.O. schools were taken over in the Transvaal …

Order! Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause!

That situation is exactly similar to this to-day. But then there was no compulsion, no force was exerted, and we waited for the genius to come …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

The Minister has made it very clear that he wishes the position which existed under our provincial administration to continue. In other words he wants to retain te position which obtains to-day in the Cape Province. Hon. members opposite say that they have no objection to the word “negotiate” but only against the word “agreement”. The question I ask myself is this: If you negotiate are you prepared to do it? Do you not do it in order to come to some or other agreement? There are two parties, namely the Minister’s Department and a State-aided school. If these two parties negotiate with one another surely their object must be to come to some or other agreement, is it not? If the Minister is not prepared to accept this reasonable suggestion of ours it is our duty to protect the interests of these State-aided schools. For that reason we shall vote against this clause.

We are dealing here with the transfer of education and in such a matter there is something essential for us all, namely agreement. My hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said that for this there must be negotiation and agreement. We have emphasized that the Minister can in the end still enforce his will, because he has the right to withdraw the subsidy …

Order! That argument has been used already.

And what if the Minister does not succeed in enforcing his will?

Then there is a simple course open to him. He can say “I hold the cards, because I have the money”.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

Yes, Sir, and I hope the Minister has listened to it.

Question put: That the word “consultation” in line 35, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—67: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman dropped.

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

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Flertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiems tra E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter. H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl. P.; Warren. C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 6.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Sir, who are the managers of the schools who might contravene this particular section of the Act and invoke, by doing so, a penalty, upon conviction of a fine up to R100 or possible imprisonment? Which are the schools who will be guilty of this contravention and who will have to suffer? I think it can be safely said that it will be the schools on the platteland and those in the out-of-the-way places, where news travels slowly, those who seldom if ever see a Government Gazette and those who seldom if ever see newspapers regularly.

That is not the position in Somerset East; we are civilized there.

I am glad that the area from which the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) comes is so civilized. But I do believe that there are areas where news does not filter through so fast. I believe that under those circumstances it would be unnecessarily harsh. Another case which may arise is that of a manager of a school whose total enrolment is less than 14 and who in those circumstances is not required to register. It may be that the number of pupils may increase beyond the minimum of 14 and quite inadvertently the manager of the school may neglect to carry out the necessary application for registration,in which case he will, quite inadvertently again, be contravening the law and become liable to the penalty imposed in sub-clause (3). I feel that under those circumstances this provision could be harsh on those least required to be dealt with in such a harsh manner. I suggest to the Minister that in order to soften the harshness of this particular provision a period of six months’ grace should be allowed; this would give all those schools which may fall under the provisions of this clause an opportunity of becoming aware of the requirements and not run the risk of being liable for a fine and even imprisonment.

If the hon. member will look at Clause 6 (2) he will find that “any school for the education of Coloured persons which at the commencement of this Act is registered with a provincial administration under any law, shall be deemed to have been registered with the Department under sub-section (1). In the Cape Province and in Natal a private school must register when it has more than five pupils. In the Orange Free State every school must register under the existing Ordinance. In the Transvaal and in Natal schools with 20 pupils must register.

I cannot see what purpose the hon. member’s amendment serves. I think his amendment will open the way for malpractices. I think Clause 6 (2) which says that any existing school will be looked upon as registered at the commencement of this Act gives them sufficient security. I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The reason for this amendment is Clause 8 (1) which reads—

In the Public Service the Public Service Commission makes the recommendations for the establishment of staff. I think it is only fair to assume that the members of such staffs will be civil servants under this clause. It is logical therefore that Clause 8 (2) should be amended, in order to bring it into line with Clause 8 (1), by providing that the appointment of any person to any post, as well as the promotion, the transfer and the discharge of such person, should be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. I think it is logical that while the establishment of schools is given to the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission that the same rights should be granted to the personnel, the human beings, the teachers, appointed to man these schools. Why should they not receive the same rights which are incorporated in Clause 8 (1) which deals with the establishment of buildings? As the Minister is aware here in Cape Town the Coloured department of the Technical College is staffed by both White and Coloured staff. Now that the principle of this Bill has been accepted they will be given the option to continue to serve the Department of Coloured Affairs. The White teachers on that staff will be able to elect whether they wish to remain with the college on this basis. The Minister will be giving both White and Coloured teachers a guarantee of security if he accepts this amendment to Clause 8 (2). I hope the hon. the Minister will agree that this is a reasonable and fair provision. It is not a new principle; it is an improvement in this clause and a safeguard to the appointees. As such it will contribute considerably to the successful recruiting of staff. I therefore move this amendment and I hope the hon. the Minister will seriously consider accepting it in the interests of the staff of the Coloured schools and it will protect their well-being in future.

The fact that nobody on that side of the House has spoken to this amendment may indicate that silence means consent. I hope that is the case. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has made out a very good case, on the wording of the Minister’s own clause, for the insertion of that phrase which refers to the Public Service Commission. There is ample evidence later in the Bill to show that the Coloured teacher is to become a civil servant. The hon. the Minister recognizses that in Clause 8 (1), where he says: not only in consultation with the Minister of Finance but on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. He seems to have overlooked the fact that he should have introduced the Public Service Commission in Clause 8 (2) as the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) seeks to do. I do not want to dilate on the amendment; I think it is a very simple proviso. On the face of it there seems to be nothing objectionable to the Public Service Commission having that standing in regard to Clause 8 (2) which the Minister has already given it in Clause 8 (1). I, for one, would be very interested to hear the Minister’s reasons, not aided and abetted in this case by the objections of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg), why this amendment which I support cannot be accepted.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that the word “establishment” in this clause means “personnel”. It is quite clear in the Afrikaans text.

*As far as the amendment itself is concerned, I am sorry but I cannot accept it. The first reason is that the Vocational Education Act of 1955 contains precisely the same provisions. We are not only dealing here with schools which are being taken over from the provincial administrations, we are also dealing with the vocational schools, special schools. This clause agrees with the Vocational Education Act. Secondly it will create an impossible situation for the Public Service Commission; it will not be possible for them to deal with each of these cases. It will create an untenable position. It will lead to the greatest chaos imaginable. The hon. member knows herself how the schools are scattered all over the country. If the Department has to approach the Public Service Commission in every instance it will lead to frustration and absolute stagnation. The manner in which the Department has always acted towards the staff under the Vocational Education Act and the other laws which it administers ought to be sufficient guarantee to these people. From a practical point of view it will create an impossible position; it will create chaos. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister is perfectly correct in saying that Clause 8 (1) deals with the establishment of the personnel posts of the school. I am glad that the Minister is not opposed to the principle contained in this amendment. He has dealt with it purely from the practical point of view. He has said that the Public Service Commission cannot handle this work. The fact that the Public Service Commission becomes seized of the situation as regards the personnel provided in these schools is the very reason why the hon. the Minister should reconsider the matter. You see, Sir, the Public Service Commission is seized of the situation in this Bill by having to decide what the posts, the grading and the numbers, of staff have to consist of in each school. They have to know the requirements in detail. The Coloured teachers are now becoming a new category of public servants. I have already indicated that one of the fears that has been expressed, in the Press at any rate, is this fear that they are now becoming a new type of public servant. The Minister should therefore give consideration to this basic and sound principle in Public Service circles. It ensures firstly that there is no nepotism; it ensures that there is no favouritism. If you want a contented public service those are the two factors which you must make quite sure are always eliminated. The Public vice Commission is the body to do that. It is entirely independent of the Department itself. This body is given functions under the Bill so it is the appropriate body to do so. I do not myself think that it is impracticable. It should at any rate be given a trial. We are setting up a new form of public servant; we are taking into the public service people who have been associated on a contractual basis with private institutions.

Do you want us to create chaos first?

No, I think you want to avoid chaos. The task will not be such a great one. The department does not appoint and promote people every day. If the Public Service Commission can deal with the whole of the public service this additional work constitutes really a very small factor.

As I said I am glad that the hon. the Minister did not oppose it in principle. I would ask him to consider this amendment. I personally do not think it is impracticable so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned. The hon. the Minister has not told us that they have said so. Had the Minister told me that he had interviewed them and that they themselves had said that they could not undertake it, I would have found it very difficult to ask him to reconsider the matter.

We have consulted all departments concerned.

I accept that but not in regard to this aspect. It has never been suggested that they should do this. Has the Public Service Commission been consulted since it has been suggested that their functions should just be extended one stage further than the Bill now demands?

I am informed that they have been consulted.

With what results?

With negative results.

If the hon. the Minister is satisfied that they said that I would say that he should put before them the suggestion which has now been made to him. We do not want to evade responsibilities and I am afraid that might be the position if the Commission may not be impressed with the duty it owes to this new branch of civil service.

The hon. the Minister has established a very important principle in Clause 8 (1) which I think will receive the support of the whole of this Committee and the support, I think, of the Coloured teachers who are now willy-nilly to be transferred to this new Department. The Minister has accepted in Clause 8 (1) that he can only establish any State school etc. after consultation with the Minister of Finance and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In other words, it is not only after consultation with the Public Service Commission but on their recommendation that he can establish these State schools. I think it is a very wise precaution that the Minister has taken, a precaution that will receive the approbation of the whole Committee. It is right that the Public Service Commission which is vested with the power to deal with the public service of this country should be the determining body in the setting up of any establishment such as is envisaged in this clause.

It affects the Department.

Yes. I want to point out that the Minister has gone further in this clause than he has gone in any of the clauses with which we have already dealt where he has only talked about consultation. Here he burdens himself to the extent that he can only proceed with the establishment of any State school etc. after he has received a recommendation by the Public Service Commission. It is not after consultation with them, but on their recommendation. I think that is right because that body has had many years of experience in these matters.

When we come to Clause 8 (2) we find the hon. the Minister suddenly departing from the principle which he himself has initiated in Clause 8 (1). In Clause 8 (2) the Minister takes unto himself the power to appoint any person to any post in the establishment. He has the final and the only say in the matter. He also takes the exclusive power unto himself to promote, transfer or discharge any person occupying such a post. He can do this without consultation with any one. He is the final arbiter as to whether a man is going to receive promotion, whether a man is going to be transferred or discharged and the individual affected will have no recourse at all to anybody to have his case thoroughly investigated. The Minister will be the final artbiter. I say that that reeks of nepotism. It gives the hon. the Minister an opportunity of dealing on a basis of favouritism with those people whom he wishes to promote. I do not think the Minister should insist upon those powers.

I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) is a reasonable one. If he wants these powers then he should go to the body on whose recommendation that institution was established also in regard to promotions, transfers or dismissals. I cannot see any reason why the Minister should depart from the very sound principle which he himself initiated in Clause 8 (1). The only reason advanced by the Minister why he could not accept the amendment was that it would involve the Public Service Commission in too much work. I do not think that is a reason at all, Mr. Chairman. The Public Service Commission is there for the purpose of dealing with the public servants of this country. If these Coloured teachers are to become public servants then they are entitled to the protection of the Public Service Commission. We are entitled to say that they should not fall under the direction of one Minister, and I do not care who the Minister is. There is nothing personal about this; I do not care who the Minister is. I think it is wrong that they should be at the mercy of one man who will not be answerable to anyone in relation to his decision to promote, transfer or discharge any of these public servants. We are denying the Coloured teachers who are now to become public servants in terms of this Bill the rights and privileges which are extended to European public servants. I think the Minister is taking a dangerous step in eliminating entirely from the provisions of this Bill the protection which the Public Service Commission should give and is there to give to all public servants of this country. I urge upon the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. I say it is wrong that one man, without consultation with or reference to any other body, should hold the destiny of public servants in his hands particularly in regard to the question as to who is going to be promoted, transferred or discharged. He may transfer a man whose family live here in Cape Town to somewhere in the north and the man will have no say in the matter. He may promote or demote or discharge any person without that person having any right of appeal to any other body. That is a wrong principle and I urge upon the Minister to reconsider the matter and accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North).

Clause 8 (1) deals with the posts in the Department. It does not deal with people. It provides that with the agreement of the Public Service Commission and the Minister of Finance posts can be established in these various schools. In terms of Clause 8 (2) the Minister has the power to fill those posts. In terms of Clause 33 the Minister can delegate his authority. The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: How does he propose to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Clause 8 (2), that is the power to fill the posts. Clause 8 (1) establishes the posts and Clause 8 (2) establishes the persons. The posts are created by consultation with the Public Service Commission and the Minister of Finance. The Minister is given the power in Clause 8 (2) to fill those posts but Clause 8 (2), I think, should be read with Clause 33 where the Minister can delegate his powers. It is the practice in the Provincial Administrations to have what is called a staffing section but for practical purposes it is the Administrator who has got the power. Does the Minister propose to have a staffing section in regard to Clause 8 (2) which will be charged with the responsibility of placing the personnel in the various posts and of transferring, promoting and discharging them and so forth? I should like to have that clarified because I do not think that is clear at the present time. Some hon. members may not have the practical experience of what the procedure has been in the past.

May I just tell the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that Clause 11 (1) lays down the conditions of service. I am informed that in the Cape Province alone plus minus 600 posts were set aside for Coloured teachers at the beginning of 1963. Those were new posts. Hon. members can think for themselves that if the Public Service Commission has to decide in the case of every one of those how far we would have been into the school term before all those posts had been filled. A body which is as overloaded with work as the Public Service Commission and which has so many duties to perform throughout the entire Public Service will find it impossible to perform this task as well. It will cause stagnation in the Department; the position of the teachers will be stagnant; it will create chaos.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. B. Mitchell) quite rightly asked what I had in mind. In the first place I want to tell him that I do not think it will be the Minister personally who will appoint these people. The deputy secretary is at the head of the education section and a personnel committee will have to be established to handle these matters. It will not be done by one person; it will not be possible for one person to appoint and transfer these people and to carry on just as he pleases. Responsible officials will deal with these matters. And then the secretary of the Department is always in control. If any injustices take place the Minister always has the right, whether he delegates his powers or not, to step in. In other words, one person will not decide the destinies of these people. A committee of senior officials will decide that; they will be able to dispose of the matter efficiently and quickly. I think that is the indicated course of procedure. To entrust it to the Public Service Commission will be to promote chaotic conditions and maladministration.

May I ask the Minister a question? In regard to this staffing section does the hon. the Minister intend to appoint Coloured people, if they are available, in the main to this staffing section?

As far as possible yes.

Will there be limitations?

There are always limitations. To begin with the limitations now will be more than later on. I hope to take over a number of the administrative officials from the provinces, officials who have experience of these matters. We are already negotiating with the provinces in this regard in order to get the personnel concerned. We shall do everything in our power to attract people from the provinces who have experience of these matters.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has in mind that the school committees and the school boards will be making recommendations in regard to these appointments? Has he that in mind?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we can discuss that at this stage. We are not dealing now with school committees and school boards.

I shall allow the hon. the Minister to reply.

I just want to say at this stage that I told representatives of very responsible bodies that many of those things which are not clear in the Bill, because it deals with the conditions as they obtain in four different provinces, will have to be dealt with by way of regulation, but I gave the assurance to those bodies, and I wish to say that publicly as well—this also applies in respect of school committees and school boards—that where bodies are established by way of regulation I undertake—I have already undertaken to do so— not to promulgate those regulations before the interested bodies have been thoroughly consulted. I shall submit those regulations to church bodies; I shall submit those regulations to representative Coloured bodies; I shall submit those regulations to as many responsible Coloured teachers as possible. In other words, before those regulations come into effect they will have been submitted in such a way that there will be the greatest possible co-operation. If that is one of the ways in which we can do it, we shall certainly do so

This clause is not acceptable to many Coloured teachers because of the word “transfer”. If the Minister wishes to have the power to promote or to discharge and he alone wants that power …

What are you afraid of?

I am not afraid. I personally am not afraid of anything, but I put the point to the House …

Don’t try to be nasty now.

No, no. I merely say that the word “transfer” has given the Coloured people the impression that the Minister will have the power to transfer a man from Cape Town say to some country dorp.

What is wrong with that?

The point is that it is very expensive for a Coloured man to be transferred from a place where he has got his home and he is used to stay, to another far away place.

What about the teachers who will be discharged and lose their jobs?

What the Coloured want is some safeguard, or some opportunity to come to the Minister, an indication in this clause that they will have the right to come to the Minister and put their case. What I want to know from the Minister is whether these people will have an opportunity of putting their case before him before such transfer takes place, and I think that what the mover of the amendment has in mind, is that there should be another body such as the Public Service Commission, which should make recommendations to the Minister in regard to transfers and even discharges. I do not want to take the matter further, but I think it should be on record that we have warned the hon. Minister of these objections.

I thing that for the sake of the record and peace of mind of hon. members, I should say that as far as transfers are concerned, we are administering at present the Vocational Education Act as a Department. Now can the hon. member quote me one instance where we have acted in a dishonest or inhuman way? Can he quote me one instance? There we have the same powers that we are now taking under this Bill, and we have been administering that Act for the last couple of years already.

Don’t draw me too far.

Why do you want the power to transfer a man? Because you may have the position that one school needs a man with a knowledge of mathematics and you may have two people at another school in another place with the same degree or the same qualifications, and then you find it necessary in the interests of that other school to transfer one of these men to that other post. But suppose I were to start to transfer people in an irresponsible manner, what would be the first reaction? The Auditor-General would immediately take notice and the Treasury would take notice. We do not simply carry on without any check on a Minister or a department’s activities. If on a large scale 50 or 60 teachers were to be transferred without any reason, it would very soon be noted in the Auditor-General’s Report or the Treasury would intervene. You will only transfer people when it is definitely in the interest of a school, and when you can justify such a step. I hope that there will now be peace of mind as far as these hon. members are concerned.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

So far as the persons concerned in this particular clause can understand the position that the hon. Minister is creating, this may be called the “take-over clause”. We know that the design of the Bill is to take over Coloured Education, but this is the clause that I think the Minister will agree refers to the take-over of the establishment, of the personnel. As this clause stands it reads—

I want to pause there. The hon. Minister says in effect that regardless of what the attitude of the person concerned may be, he, a human being—not a piece of machinery, or a desk in a school, or a building, or the land on which the building stands—is taken over bodily by the Minister and the new Department, or rather the Division of Education within the Department of Coloured Affairs. Now before I pursue my criticism of this clause. I would like to be sure that that is in fact the Minister’s intention, because rightly or wrongly I give him credit for not having intended that to be the purpose of the clause. As he has had second thoughts about some of the clauses, as can be seen from some of the amendments that the Minister himself has put on the Order Paper, I would like to ask him whether he has not overlooked the importance of human dignity in this clause? May I put it to him in this way: When the United Party is returned to power, that party might well decide that he, the Minister, is a very good Minister of Coloured Affairs, and may want to take him over. I know the hon. the Minister is very amused at this prospect, because he will be getting it both ways!

No, but at that time I will be a very old man

Sir, age is no object if the will is there. What I am trying to tell the Minister is this: If such a position should arise, he, the Minister, would be the first to say “I must have a say in that; I must have a say in whether you can take me over merely because you have taken over the government of the country; I must have the right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question ‘Will you come into my parlour?”’ Now surely he will concede that that is exactly the right that the teacher to-day has, and if I remember correctly the hon. Minister himself has said that there are 10,793 Coloured teachers in the Republic of South Africa, and that there are 13 teachers’ colleges; therefore at a rough estimate there are between 11,000 and 12,000 people who can be affected by this particular clause. For those reasons it seems to me that the Minister should have no difficulty, in fact I think he should agree with alacrity, to this amendment which I now move—

1. (3). Any person referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be entitled to elect to retire with the same rights and privileges that he would have enjoyed had he retired from the service of the provincial administration or the institution by which he was employed prior to the commencement of this Act.

The clause will then read—

In other words, he can elect. And there is plenty of precedent for that.

But he can resign. This is a free country.

It is not a question of resigning. If the hon. member for Standerton says it is a “free country”, then I put it to him too that the person concerned whose freedom he says is beyond any doubt, should not be told “you can resign if you don’t like it”. That is not the issue. A man may have 25 to 30 years service. He does not believe that under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs Coloured education is something he wants to be involved in. He is entitled to that opinion.

But what do you want then?

The amendment is very clear. All I ask is that first of all by the insertion of the words “unless he elects otherwise” and by the addition of a sub-section, any such teacher shall be able to retire with the same rights and privileges that he would have enjoyed had he retired from the service of the Provincial Administration or the institution by which he was employed prior to the commencement of this Act. That is the point. Does the hon. member for Standerton support that at a certain stage, on the day of the takeover, that person of whom he says is a free man, shall be entitled to say “I am not coming into this”.

Then he will have it both ways.

No, he is not having it both ways. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Standerton now says that a man in that position would be having it both ways. As I said before, I can give him precedent for that, although it is not necessary to do so. Take for instance a local authority. I know of a specific case, which the hon. member for Standerton may recall even if I don’t mention names where a certain Department was disestablished because of certain governmental decisions. The head of that Department was given the option, he was given the opportunity to elect whether to continue in the service of that particular authority in another position with the same salary, or whether he would prefer to retire on pension as if he had reached pensionable age. And that with the consent of the Provincial Administration. I am not even prepared to argue about precedent, but the issue there, as the issue here, was that when a man who has spent years in the service of an institution, a public body, is confronted with an entirely new position from his point of view, and from the point of view of everybody else, he should be entitled so say “I elect to go out; I do not want to go along with this”. And then he should not be placed in a position of disadvantage, as he will be in terms of this clause. I think the point is sufficiently clear in terms of the amendment, or the two sections of the amendment as printed, and I do not want to labour it. I do want to say, however, in conclusion that there are many, many people who will agree entirely with the Minister that the Bill designed to take over Coloured education is necessary and desirable. I am not arguing about that. But by the same token the hon. Minister must be prepared to concede that there are people who do not see it from that point of view, and he should be prepared to give those persons the opportunity to go their own way. if they so desire, firstly, for the reason that I am sure the hon. Minister does not intend to take over human beings as he does the schools, lock, stock and barrel, and for the second reason that if he were to be adamant about this and refuse to consider the insertion of this simple amendment, he would in fact be taking over people who do not want to be taken over; he would be dealing with horses who may be led to the water, but cannot be made to drink; he would be introducing, if I may put it in that way, elements into the set-up, this very large division of education within his Department of Coloured Affairs, which will neither do the division, nor the Department of Coloured Affairs, nor Coloured education for that matter, any good whatsoever. Therefore I think the hon. Minister should consider accepting this amendment, and I don’t doubt that if he does, he will find that there is little harm done by accepting the amendment, and that it will show a great deal of reason and goodwill towards the people concerned, and thirdly, that he will create a position where he will be beyond and above criticism at least in regard to the inference here that he wishes to take over human beings as if they were part and parcel of the fittings of a school.

I want to say in the first instance that the persons referred to in sub-section (2) of Clause 9 are already all in the service of the Department of Coloured Affairs. So that that is one group which is already eliminated. In the second place I want to refer the hon. member to Clause 13 which provides for pension rights and retirement benefits of certain persons who are transferred to the department or who are deemed to have been appointed in terms of this Act, If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment what will become of those people? We have now taken education over. I think this provision in this Bill provides the very protection to those people. What the hon. member is really suggesting is that I should be less protective towards those people, because they will be suspended in mid-air if for some or other stupid reason they avail themselves of the rights which the hon. member wants to give them. To whom will they then turn? The channel through which they can be appointed, the purpose for which they are appointed, is being taken away from the provinces and placed under the control of this body. We shall be placing those people in a vacuum. I think the hon. member is harming the people concerned with this amendment of his and I think our measure, on the other hand, affords them protection. Their protection is contained in Clause 13. If those persons have been taken over and some of them want to act in terms of the law and resign they will be at liberty to do so but you can’t eat your cake and have it, and leave them in mid-air in addition. I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

Should these teachers wish to retire instead of going over to the new service, the service of the Department of Coloured Affairs, should they not be given the opportunity to do so?

There won’t be one.

Then it should be easy for the Minister to concede the point. The same thing happened at the time of the Union of South Africa. Colonial servants were told: You can either go over to the Union service, or you can retire if you wish to do so.

Is that the object of the amendment?

Should a man wish to exercise his option, he should be allowed to do so. I do not think it makes it any more difficult for the hon. Minister, and I don’t see any reason why he should not accept the amendment.

I would like to make one thing clear to the hon. the Minister. He may not have understood the purpose of this amendment. I say this with respect to him. He says in effect that what I am trying to do is to put the people he says I wish to protect, in a position of disadvantage.

In a vacuum.

To put them at a disadvantage, to prejudice them, and to counter my argument the hon. Minister quotes Clause 13. Now that to me is what the lawyers call a non-sequiter, because in Clause 13 the question of retirement is based on this that he has reached the age at which he would have had the right to retire on pension. He must first be of that age. It has nothing to do with election …

Do you want people to retire when they are not of the retiring age?

The hon. Minister has just said that there won’t be one. So in that case the Minister does not run any risk whatsoever.

Why then the amendment, by the same token?

For this reason that even if there is one person who, having spent some years in the Department of Education of the Cape Provincial Administration for instance, is convinced, for good reasons, from his point of view that under the new deal for Coloured Education he should not continue as a teacher under this system, he should be entitled—he did not bring this upon himself, he has no control over the situation—he should be entitled to retire or to bow out gracefully, and not at his own disadvantage or prejudice. Now whether the hon. Minister accepts the amendment or not, or whether he disagrees with it or not, he must understand one thing clearly and that is that I do not wish to put the persons concerned who elect to leave the service in a position of disadvantage. They may be rare cases, but I want to give those people who do not want to continue the opportunity, as they have been given in other similar cases where there has been a take-over, or where a situation has changed, the opportunity to leave without any disadvantage to themselves.

He becomes a civil servant now.

Yes, I was going to say that I do not want to anticipate the clause where it is made perfectly clear that he becomes a civil servant who cannot only be moved around throughout the Republic and South West Africa, but also in a capacity other than that of a teacher. Does the Minister deny that? I do not want to anticipate that clause, but I want to tell the hon. Minister that we on this side will have a great deal to say on that clause. But having regard to all the implications for the individual teacher it seems only fair and reasonable, and particularly as the hon. Minister has been heard to say “there won’t be one” to accept this amendment in order to show his confidence in the belief that there won’t be one, if nothing else.

I am very concerned about these pension rights, and we do not seem to be able to get any clear understanding. The hon. Minister says that Clause 13 will protect the people who either retire or leave the service, but what about the people the hon. Minister says he is going to discharge? There are people who have been working happily under the Cape Provincial Administration for many years and who have apparently been satisfactory teachers. The hon. Minister disapproves of their political activities, and he has already on several occasions told us that he intends to discharge certain people as soon as he takes over the Department of Coloured Education, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will carry out his threat.

He did not say that.

I want to know from the hon. Minister what is going to be the position of people who have been in the employ of the Cape Provincial Administration for many years, many of whom may be due to reach the retiring age, but whom the hon. Minister discharges under the powers he takes unto himself? Are such people going to be entitled to any pension? When the Bantu Education Act was introduced, where Bantu teachers lost their posts, they were not paid their pension rights.

I won’t act like a bull in a china shop.

I am very glad to get one assurance from the hon. Minister, and I hope it will not upset the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). But of course it may very well be that the hon. Minister’s interpretation of how a bull acts in a china shop and my interpretation thereof, may differ.

Amendment in line 10 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, F. C; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—66: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. G.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, H. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived and the remaining amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—66: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Nierop, J.; Van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Nierop, P. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, G. H.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.