I move—

On the face of it this Bill appears to be rather lengthy, but with the exception of 23 clauses, to which I will return in more detail, the provisions of this Bill are aimed at tidying up the text of the principal Act. Hon. members will observe that various expressions such as “Union”, “non-Union”, “Union Government”, “Union port”, appear in the principal Act and it has not been found possible, in view of the language used in the principal Act, to amend these expressions, by means of a blanket provision, to accord with the changed constitutional position. Hence the multiplicity of clauses in this Bill.

Even some of the 23 clauses mentioned contain provisions dealing with the tidying-up process which I have just described and I will not deal again with those particular provisions of those clauses.

To turn now to Clause 1. Paragraphs (a) and (f) are consequential in view of other amendments. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) replace existing definitions with simpler definitions of the same terms which are aimed at obviating further amendments to the principal Act if amendments to the particular international conventions should be accepted by the South African authorities.

As regards paragraph (b) of Clause 2—the present English text of Section 3 (ii) of the principal Act is the correct one and the opportunity is now taken to bring the Afrikaans text into line with it by the omission in paragraph (a) of the words “in ’n deel van” and in paragraph (b) of the words “in die geval van skepe van ’n vreemde land”. The English text as printed in the Bill is in no way changed except for the substitution for the word “Union” of the word “Republic”.

Clause 7 aims to amend Section 30 (1) so as to empower the Secretary for Transport to issue a provisional certificate of registry to a South African ship at a port abroad where there is no South African proper officer at that port. Experience has shown that the lack of this power causes inconvenience to shipowners.

Regarding paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 11 and Clause 12, I wish to point out that Section 75 of the principal Act at present provides for two certificates, viz. chief engineer-officer and second engineer-officer. These certificates apply to both foreign-going ships and coasting ships and the same standards applicable to both. It has, however, been found that the standards relating to engineer-officers on foreign-going ships are too high for engineer-officers on coasting ships. This results in very few persons on coasting ships being able to qualify for certificates, which in turn results in numerous applications being received from owners for permission to sail without properly qualified officers. It is the intention to separate foreign-going ships and coasting ships in respect of certificates of competency as engineer-officers. This has already been done in the case of deck officers. The present standard in respect of foreign-going ships will be maintained, but a lower standard will be fixed for engineer-officers of coasting ships. There is of course no question of endangering life or property at sea by making the standard for coasting ships so low that persons who are unable to perform their duties as engineer-officers will be able to qualify for the new certificates. But it will give some deserving candidates an opportunity, which they do not have at present, of qualifying for a certificate of competency.

The effect of the amendment contained in Clause 13 is to empower the Minister to grant an equivalent certificate to a South African citizen who holds a certificate of competency issued by a State other than South Africa. It may happen that a person who is adequately qualified obtains South African citizenship but, possibly owing to his age, he is reluctant to requalify for a South African certificate. Now a South African certificate can be issued to such a person but, where there is the slightest doubt as to the value of the foreign qualification, use will be made of the provisions of Section 77 (3) of the principal Act—the applicant will be required to take the appropriate examinations.

The intention of Clause 14 is to make it possible for certificates of service to be issued to persons who served on unregistered vessels prior to the coming into force of the principal Act. At present this cannot be done and the lack should be remedied. That is also why this amendment is being given retrospective effect.

The present provisions of Section 81 of the principal Act compel my Department to print and keep duplicates of all certificates of competency or certificates of service which are issued. The amendment contained in Clause 15 is aimed at removing this obligation and permitting the record to be kept in a more modern manner.

As to Clause 23—Certificates as able seamen are issued to seamen of any nationality and South African seamen who have obtained such certificates outside South Africa may now in consequence of this amendment acquire South African certificates.

Clauses 25, 26 and 27 contain no substantive amendments. They are merely intended to bring the terminology up to date.

In regard to Clauses 33 and 35 I may state that it has been found unreasonable to apply the load line provisions to craft such as harbour craft belonging to the Railway Administration and small partly decked craft operating along our coasts. The amendments in this clause will introduce a measure of discretion into the provisions and the whole matter can be dealt with on a proper basis.

Clauses 37, 38 and 39 are intended solely to correct the Afrikaans text of the principal Act and to effect consequential amendments necessitated by Act 30 of 1959.

In paragraph (b) of Clause 53, advantage is taken of the opportunity to introduce the word “port”, which is defined in the principal Act, in place of the word “harbour”.

Clause 54 contains no new substantive provision. In consequence of the changed constitutional position it has become necessary to omit reference to a British Act and it has been found convenient to re-enact the section of the principal Act.

In Clause 59 the opportunity is taken to correct the Afrikaans text of the principal Act and to delete a sub-section which is no longer necessary. The regulations referred to in the sub-section, which is to be deleted, have been replaced by regulations made under Section 356 (2) of the principal Act to give effect to the International Collision Regulations.

The intention behind Clause 60 is to empower the State President to ratify any amendments to the International Collision Regulations, the Load Line Convention or the Safety Convention (which form Schedules to the principal Act) and then by proclamation in the Gazette to amend the appropriate Schedule of the principal Act. The amendments are often of a highly technical nature and it will not then be necessary on each occasion to take up the time of this House in order to have amendments to those Schedules effected by amending Bills.

Paragraph (a) of Clause 61 merely corrects the Afrikaans text of the principal Act. Paragraph (b) of that clause clarifies a matter about which there has been some dispute. As the principal Act now stands the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is collecting stamp duty on bills of lading on the grounds that they fall outside the provisions of Section 357. A number of shippers are unhappy about this position and the matter is now put beyond doubt by specifically providing that bills of lading are excluded from the effect of Section 357. Stamp duties will, therefore, be payable in respect of such bills. That leaves only Clause 63—the short title—and on that I need not elaborate. I hope that my explanations have made it clear to hon. members that this Bill is not contentious and that it will bring about some very necessary amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I can put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest straight away in regard to his last remark. We agree that the Bill is not contentious and that it is a necessary piece of legislation and we are supporting it. But there are one or two points on which I would like some enlightenment. I might say that I fully appreciate the Minister’s remarks in regard to the language difficulties. Language has always been a matter of difficulty in anything connected with the sea, and it would be difficult to find sea terms in language suitable to put into an Act such as this. Apart from that, it is as the hon. Minister stated merely a question of textual alterations. I want to touch for a moment on the Minister’s remarks with regard to Clauses 33 and 35. relating to load line certificates and the general safeguarding of vessels, where he pointed out the difficulties of applying them to certain types of craft, even if you are going to have some relaxation in regard to certain of the smaller harbour craft. I take it that in the place of the issue of formal load line certificates which are originally prescribed in the Act, some alternative form of control equally satisfactory and effective and equally able to be administered will be applied. There is no question about it that that is one of the most difficult features of control to apply, as well as being amongst the most important. We have had a number of casualties along our coast in some of the smaller craft owing to the difficulty of enforcing requirements of such a certificate in practice. It is one thing to issue a load line certificate for these small craft and quite a different thing to enforce them to carry out its provisions. The reward for ignoring the rules is sometimes great and it leads to a risk being taken which has resulted. around this portion of the coast, in the loss of many valuable small craft. Particularly amongst the class of vessels used for pilchard fishing, where overloading is sometimes carried to dangerous extremes. The catch is there and they overload the boat. The deck is not completely watertight, a couple of seas break over the decks, and next day we read in the papers that another vessel was sunk by heavy seas. But many of them are not sunk by heavy seas; they are sunk through neglecting the loading rules. They are overloaded and cannot ride the seas and so they sink.

Another feature I want to bring to the Minister’s attention in that regard, also applicable to many of the large wooden fishing craft and some coasters.

This will not be applicable to those vessels.

Then I think the clauses of the Bill dealing with that feature of control should be very carefully examined, because if ever there was need for tightening up it is in that regard. The Minister mentioned the difficulties of applying load line rules to the Department’s own harbour craft, like the tugs. One appreciates that. They are used for a different pur pose and under different conditions. But you do also have vessels amongst them like the dredgers where loading limits are important and I take it that where the Minister permits relaxations he will substitute something equally effective in control. I would commend to the Minister’s attention the other matter I raised, because it is important. I will refer to it very briefly. It is the question of wooden vessels where the load varies considerably, as in the case of fishing craft. They dry out in light condition for about a fortnight. Then they take on a full load of fish and submerge deeper in the water. It takes eight or nine hours before their wooden sides swell up and stop the water from coming in at their seams. By that time they have a full load of fish plus the water coming in. Their pumps cannot work because the inlets are submerged in fish and another valuable craft is lost. That happens all too frequently and the lives of many people are thus endangered. I think it is something which warrants special attention. To a lesser degree in other parts of the Republic some, weird types of vessels are being used to-day for commercial fishing, like the ski boats in Natal for instance, where due to their particular design it is practically impossible to apply the load line regulations to them. But it is even more important in such cases to apply some satisfactory control. I can appreciate the Minister’s practical difficulty, because it is almost impossible to apply ordinary regulations to many of these vessels.

I want to refer to one other portion of the Bill that the Minister has dealt with. That is the question of the relaxation of the standard in regard to the issue of engineers’ certificates in the smaller type of coastal craft. From the one point I can see the Minister’s difficulty. It may well be that as far as the actual mechanical control of the machinery is concerned, there is some justification for relaxation. But I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in these small craft it is perhaps more important than in the larger ocean-going craft that there should be the closest co-ordination between the engine-room and the deck staff. We have had numerous cases of ship casualties where the order of the man on the bridge to the engine-room is not obeyed quickly enough. That is a feature which must be taken into consideration in any relaxation of the standards required of the man employed in the engine-room. It can mean the difference between a “collision or running ashore” and not doing so. A quick response to the order from the bridge by the engine-room is essential. Therefore any relaxation should take that factor into account, when assessing the standard of a man before he is authorized to perform that kind of engine-room work. It is not just keeping the machinery going; what is even more important is the control of the machinery in an emergency.

Other than that, we will support the Bill. I was very taken with the Minister’s remark in the beginning, about the difficulty, even in the English text, of finding suitable words for this type of legislation. Clause 26 is one of the best examples of that difficulty. It reads that—

Well, we know what it means, but it is one of those phrases which typifies the Minister’s difficulty in finding, even in the English text, words to convey the meaning he wants to convey. The Bill itself is very complicated and anyone who can see his way clear through it in moving such a number of amendments is to be congratulated. We support the Bill and give it our blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that it requires quite an effort to wade through the principal Act. It is the most comprehensive and bulky Act on the Statute Book. As the hon. member says, this is an improvement on the existing Act.

In regard to the first point he made, I can assure the hon. member that this will not be applicable to any craft which carries cargo. In other words, coasters are excluded from these provisions in regard to the load-line exemptions. Clause 33 of the Bill reads as follows—

1. (b) the Secretary may, either unconditionally or on such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt from the provisions of this Part (other than those of this section and Sections 211 and 212) any South African ship which does not carry cargo and is not intended to be engaged in any international voyage.

In other words, coasters are excluded. It is only applicable to harbour craft.

You referred to vessels carrying cargo. How do you apply it to a vessel plying for hire and carrying passengers?

Those cases will not be exempted, whether for passengers or for cargo. The intention is merely to apply the exemptions to harbour craft belonging to the Railway Administration, which do not carry cargo or passengers.

The second point the hon. member made was in connection with certificated engineers. This is the position I am faced with. We do not have sufficient certificated men who can be employed on these ships, and it happens almost daily that I have to grant exemptions. But the standards will not be lowered. For coasters a lower standard will be required than for ocean-going craft, but it will be a sufficiently high standard to ensure the safety of the ships. I agree with the hon. member that there must be the closest co-ordination between the engine-room and the deck. I can give the assurance that the standards will not be lowered, we will be enabled to get more applicants. The standards will be maintained and I can assure the hon. member that the safety of the ship will not be endangered.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will recall, I stated in my Budget speech that I intended introducing legislation this Session to empower the Railway Administration to construct and operate a pipeline for the conveyance of petroleum products: and that the pipeline would follow the route Durban, Pietermaritzburg. Ladysmith. Bethlehem, Kroonstad. Sasolburg, Johannesburg.

I have tabled a memorandum in which the effect of the amendments embodied in the Bill is explained; I shall, therefore, only recapitulate the salient features of the various clauses.

Clause 5, which is the main clause, expands the Administration’s existing functions by adding thereto the power to construct, work and maintain the pipeline. The amendments contained in the other clauses are all of a consequential nature designed to bring other aspects relating to the pipeline, such as expropriation of land, within the ambit of existing legislation.

The object of Clause 1 is to ensure that claims for compensation arising from the construction of a pipeline over private land shall be preferred and enforced with the same expedition as is required in the case of claims arising from the expropriation of land for ordinary railway purposes.

Clause 2 provides for the noting in the deeds registry of expropriated servitudes over private land or other rights. A large number of servitudes will of necessity have to be expropriated in connection with the construction of a pipeline, and this clause will ensure proper public notification of the existence of the Administration’s rights over the land affected.

In terms of Section 13 of Act 37 of 1955, the Railway Administration has power to carry out work connected with the construction of a railway line over any land. The amendment embodied in Clause 3 brings the construction and maintenance of a pipeline within the scope of the purpose for which the powers conferred by Section 13 may be exercised.

Clause 4 provides for the deviation of a pipeline and the removal of works used in connection therewith in the event of such a course becoming necessary in future.

In terms of Section 37 of Act No. 70 of 1957 it is a criminal offence to break, remove, destroy or injure any property forming part of a railway line, or to do any act which obstructs or might obstruct the working of a railway. It is considered advisable that these provisions should also apply to a pipeline, and Clause 6 provides for the necessary amendment.

In conformity with usual practice the proposed amendments are made applicable to the Territory of South West Africa, vide Clause 7, although the powers conferred by the amendments may never be exercised in that territory.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has introduced this Bill with a very short speech and that is undoubtedly because, in the course of many years, and during the recent Budget debate, we have covered most aspects dealing with the construction of the pipeline. We made it very clear that we wanted a pipeline; that we approved of its being built. We feel that it should be constructed with all possible despatch consistent with economy and proper control of expenditure. It is many years now since we urged that a pipeline should be built between Durban and the Reef, and we are glad to see that this project is now coming to fruition.

But this Bill is something more than merely a Bill to take rights of expropriation and arrange for the acquisition of land and property, and for the settlement of claims and the establishment of servitudes. It is something more than just to give the Minister the powers which the Administration already possesses in connection with the conduct of the Railways and apply them to the construction of the pipeline. To my mind—and I seek the Minister’s reassurance on this point—questions of appropriate parliamentary control of public expenditure and transport planning are involved. It is clear that the Minister does not consider himself bound by Section 105 of the Republic of South Africa Act. He regards the building of the pipeline as something quite different from the building of a railway line. He said in a previous debate, as far back as 1958, in regard to the construction of a pipeline, and he spoke in no uncertain terms—

The only possible way will be if the Railways control it. To me the clear implication was that the Minister regarded the running of a pipeline in exactly the same way as he regarded the running of the Railways; that he regarded the two as synonymous. He regarded the pipeline as merely another means of transporting petroleum. I had taken it for granted that he would subject himself to the same controls and the same precautions which Parliament, in its wisdom, has seen fit to lay upon him for the building of the pipeline as well as a railway. As this Bill now stands, the Minister will not need to put the project before the Railway Board for report of justification, to be accompanied by plans and route maps and costs and all the formalities which are a necessary prelude to obtaining parliamentary approval for the construction of a railway line. He may say that we have already had the van Eck Report. That is true. But what of future pipelines he may build? He may say that speed is of the essence in this case. That may well be so, but I do think that he has introduced a new principle in the construction of a new means of transport. This is the first pipeline we have had. The Minister need not come to Parliament for subsequent approval and financial appropriation by means of a special construction Bill. All he has to do, and indeed all he has done in this case, is to put a nominal item of R250,000 on the Brown Book for a R20,000,000 project. Parliament has already accepted this in principle and approved the expenditure on the Brown Book. He will go on from here to build his pipeline and to call for tenders. At this stage, although we are empowering the Minister to construct a pipeline of over 400 miles, we have no plans, no details, no charts, no Railway Board approval, and yet this project is about to be approved and the expenditure authorized, whatever it may be.

I have been disturbed about this situation and would like, if I can, to get certain assurances from the Minister. We would be very reluctant, but would do so if we were compelled to take other steps, to take steps at an appropriate time to ensure that closer parliamentary examination and control of such expenditure. We feel it should be controlled by Parliament. I am sure we will get such assurances from the Minister. I believe that he should undertake to advise the country and Parliament well in advance and timeously of his detailed plans; of the surveys; of the cost; of the course which this pipeline will take. I noticed in the Government Information publications that we already have detailed plans, diagrams and maps of the pipeline between Beira and Umtali. This House should like to feel that members are advised of all similar facts in connection with our own pipeline project as soon as such surveys have been carried out. We would like to have laid before us all the relevant information so that we can discuss and criticize and differ, if necessary, from the Minister in regard to what he proposes to do. I might say that we are not “petty cash-minded” on this side of the House—but we do feel that it is essential that Parliament should properly control and approve all the major plans and great items of expenditure. I think it is necessary to proceed in this way, and I ask the Minister whether he will supply us with all the relevant particulars and details as the project develops, so that we can have all the facts at our disposal and either approve or criticize or disagree with either the plans or the progress made.

We are informed that the cost of this project will be some R20,000,000, and that it will take three years to complete. I do not know, but I presume that R20,000,000 is not by any means a fixed estimate. The Minister will be calling for tenders, and undoubtedly, some time before Parliament meets again, we will have more detailed costs available to us. We know that the cost now will be less than was originally estimated, mainly because much of the material, including the steel pipes, can be locally produced and very little material will need to be imported. I understand that the Minister is building the pipeline to a carrying capacity of some 600,000,000 gallons a year by 1975. I think he is starting off on the basis of 425,000,000 gallons a year, but I wonder whether he is taking proper cognizance of the potential growth of the inland centres which will be stimulated by a project such as this. I know that Sasol has many plans in connection with this project. Sasol will itself import, through the pipeline, many of the crude products from which it will make the refined petroleum. If the Minister in his reply can give me some details of his eventual long-term planning in regard to this project I shall be glad.

This legislation, as I have said, empowers the Administration to construct and operate a pipeline. The Minister has deferred building this line in the past because, as he told us in 1958, the carrying capacity of the Durban-Johannesburg line was such that he would be able to cope with all the traffic that was offering, as he thought, for the next five to ten years. But increased traffic has led to the hastening of pipeline plans. We know that Amcor have a contract with Japan for some 560,000 tons per annum of pig-iron for the next ten years, up to 1974. That has made extra demands on the Railways, particularly the lines running into Durban. We know that the Minister expects the maize exports through Durban to continue for many years on a vast scale. Add to this the fact that we have two refineries in Durban soon coming on tap; Sasol needs products which can conveniently be conveyed by pipeline. All this means that we must have a pipeline quickly and urgently. We know that it is the best means of conveying liquid products, and that the project is economically justified. We support the construction of this pipeline and in fact we commend the Minister for hastening on his plans. Our quarrel with the Minister has been on other questions; on the actual running of the pipeline; on his policy of taking all the savings which will be attained by using this cheaper and more advanced method of transportation and putting them into his own pocket and passing none of it on to the public. We are disturbed that the Minister has this attitude of mind towards the national welfare as distinct from railway surplus. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) faced the Minister with a concrete question. He asked whether the Minister would be prepared to involve the Railways in a R20,000,000 deficit if he could save saddling the country with a transport bill of R 100,000,000. The Minister said: “Certainly not.” I thought that was a distressing answer to give. It showed a philosophy of railway management which was entirely wrong. The Railways must be regarded as a section of our economy, as one of the sectors that should be co-ordinated in all our budgeting for the proper running of South Africa as a whole. The Minister should not merely think on narrow railway lines. The Minister also said another significant thing in connection with Sasol to which I shall refer presently. Meanwhile may I say that we approve of the idea that Sasol should flourish and thrive. We think that it is lucky and fortuitous that this pipeline will convey fluids which Sasol will use with advantage as an industry. But we are distressed that all this cannot be done in addition to leaving the Railways with their present profit of some R 12,000,000 to R 15,000,000 a year, by passing on some of the saving to the inland users. The Act of Union specifically laid the obligation upon the Minister to supply “cheap transport” so as to develop the inland centres. The Minister said this about Sasol; he said that he took it upon himself to act as the protector of Sasol. He said that he would not allow the price of petrol to drop because he thought that he must protect Sasol. Sir, it is not his function, it is not the function of the Railways, to act in this way. It is the general taxpayer who must contribute to the cost of any protection given to any industry. The Minister contradicted himself when he said in connection with other requests made to him “you cannot use the Railways for subsidization In the same speech he said—

We know that Dr. Verburg says that “direct subsidization of the Railways for unremunerative services (i.e. for industries which cannot produce at a lower price) which are not instruments of the Railways’ commercial policy but instruments of Government policy”, should be paid for by the Government. I ask the Minister therefore not to use the Railways as an instrument of protection; to leave that to other Departments; not to call upon railway users to pay for such protection, and to leave it to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to the general taxpayer to foot the bill.

With those few remarks I conclude by saying that we are glad that this pipeline is being built. We hope that the Minister will be persuaded by our arguments to change his policy to the degree that I have indicated. We hope that he will use technological advances to lower prices to the public, with the consequent aid to our economy. I ask him, finally, to give this House the assurance that he will keep us in touch, stage by stage and step by step, with his plans for the development and construction of this pipeline.

I have only a few remarks to make in connection with the question of the conveyance of petroleum products by pipeline, and in that regard I propose to be very brief. The hon. member who has just sat down has pointed out that there is no detailed survey yet in regard to this pipeline, the cost of construction and so forth and that the final estimate of cost is one which may well be exceeded. Costs may rise against us and in any case we have no detailed estimates. But, of course, it is a fact that we on this side of the House want this pipeline. The hon. member has dealt with the supervision which we will expect to exercise in regard to the cost of construction and so forth. Whether the Minister will be permitted finally to keep all the profits for himself in terms of the monopolistic powers which he enjoys in regard to the transport of petroleum products to the inland centres is to my mind very questionable indeed. When I see the way in which the motoring public reacted to the delayed-action reduction of a cent per gallon in the price of petrol announced by the Minister, I cannot see the motoring public of South Africa staying quiet and undisturbed for very long while the present proposals of the hon. the Minister of Transport go on their way regardless. That is in the lap of the gods, but I want to warn the Minister that he is in for a very tough time in that regard when once the petroleum products start to flow. His position may be almost as inflammable as the product which he conveys along the pipeline.

Sir, I want to deal at this stage with a few of the clauses in the Bill because it is not so easy to do so in the Committee Stage owing to references to other sections and also to the original Act. I want for a moment to deal with provisions of Clauses 3 and 4. The White Paper which the hon. the Minister has given us in connection with this Bill, in dealing with Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill, refers to the amendment of Section 13 of the Act and goes on to say that in regard to certain aspects of the Bill before us, the powers conferred upon the Administration in terms of Section 13 are likely to be utilized by the Department for the purpose of this Bill for some considerable time because the Minister will not have time to carry out the necessary surveys, issue the necessary expropriation orders and take possession of servitudes and other real rights in lands. That I quite understand. I do not think there can be any real objection to that. It is obviously quite impossible within a matter of a few months to survey the whole of the route to be followed from Durban to Kroonstad and so forth and to prepare diagrams and to take out and to register servitudes. We appreciate that that is impossible. But the use of Section 13 for dealing with the question of the taking of land and rights in land—real rights in property— is a matter that we will have to watch with a very great deal of care. Let me deal for a moment with Clause 3 (2) (a) which amends Section 13 of the Railways Expropriation Act. This clause provides that the pipeline where it is laid through certain properties shall be at no less depth than 15 inches below the surface of the ground. It is not quite clear precisely in what areas that provision is likely to apply. I realize that in some sections of the country to be traversed by the pipeline there will be very considerable difficulty in excavating the trenches in which the pipes are to be laid. I accept that and I think it is common cause. Sir, when a matter of 15 inches below the surface is laid down by law as being the maximum …

The minimum.

… as being the minimum permissible then I want to say to the Minister that I think that is quite inadequate. I do not know what standards the Minister or his Department is proposing to lay down where cultivated lands are concerned and in connection with lands with rural homesteads and so forth and where the pipeline may traverse the demesne itself. To my mind 15 inches is quite inadequate. We can have circumstances where erosion and that sort of thing is taking place which is unnoticed where cultivated land is concerned or in the case of lay land and, as I say, within the precincts of the demesne itself and where the top-soil may be wasting at a rate which will leave that pipeline possibly even exposed within the course of a very few years. In the period that it is not exposed but when the 15 inches has to a great extent or partly disappeared, or even if it remains, then heavy, deep cultivation, if it does not wreck the pipeline can go a long way towards doing it. I would like to ask the Minister to visualize for a moment what is taking place in regard to mechanization on our farms and to think of heavy subsoil ploughs drawn by a 120 tractor going through a pipeline like that, with the possibility of metal on metal setting off a spark; Sir, you can set alight the whole of the pipeline. The point I want to make—and I am not going to labour it—is that I think 15 inches is quite inadequate. I know the cost of putting it deeper; I know the cost of trenching. I have had experience of that sort of thing myself and I know it only too well, but under certain circumstances where there are going to be particular difficulties then perhaps special arrangements will have to be made. In the case of farm lands which comprise cultivated lands, lay lands, the demesne itself. I think special provision should be made to see that the pipeline is laid much deeper than 15 inches from the surface.

The farmer might strike oil and sell the farm.

Then I come to Clause 4 of the Bill. Sir, here we have big trouble. This clause substitutes a new subsection (1) for sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Railway Expropriation Act. The new sub-section reads—

That is word for word what is in the existing Act. It merely replaces the provision of the existing sub-section. Then the new sub-section goes on to bring in the relevance of the pipeline, which is the relevance of the Bill that we have before us. The new sub-section goes on to say—

In the existing Act provision is made, where a railway is concerned for a deviation without further reference to Parliament; the necessary authority is conferred in the Statute. This Bill now purports to allow the Minister in connection with the deviation of the pipeline to have the same powers to effect a deviation without reference to Parliament. Sir, when we look at the original Act, particularly in regard to the powers conferred under Section 13, we find that one of the powers conferred upon the Administration is to construct, maintain, alter or repair any railway. Paragraph (d) of Section 13 provides for “the power to erect, construct, alter, repair or demolish such buildings and structures and such machinery, plants, apparatus and other works and conveniences” as it (the Administration) may think proper, and it then goes on to provide for a lot of other powers. Those provisions will also apply now to this pipeline. Sir, I want to say this with regard to this particular power that the construction of railways together with other national works, which include national roads, has been the subject of many speeches in this House over the years. I do not dispute the fact that there are practical benefits that accrue to some people as a result of national roads or railways being put through their farms in the rural districts. What has been called in the past the “value of betterment” which is attached to farms and so forth when public works are constructed as a result of the expenditure of public money, has been a matter of argument for decades. In Great Britain and other countries there are special laws dealing with the taking into account of the value of betterment when compensation is paid.

We do it in the case of railways but I do not think in the case of roads.

That is right. In this very Act a modified form of provision is made for the value of betterment to be subtracted when compensation is paid.

The same will be applicable to the pipeline.

It is in reference to the pipeline that I am making this point. Notwithstanding the fact that it is already provided for in the law as regards the railways complaints have been made in this regard. The point to be emphasized here again is that we are not now dealing with a Railway Construction Act; we are not dealing with a Pipeline Construction Act where surveys have been made and servitudes have been taken and registered and where the people concerned therefore know what is happening. We are dealing with a case where—more power to his elbow—the Minister is getting on with the job and where he says in the White Paper: “I cannot come now with the usual processes associated with surveys and the taking and registration of servitude; I must use Section 13 of the original Act and exercise the powers conferred upon me in Section 13.” That is the only way in which the Minister can get on the land and get on with the work. Now, what is applicable to the Railways is applicable to the pipeline. Here it is a matter of compensation. Sir, let me give you an example; I could quote dozens of examples. In our farming areas, if a farmer is so situated, he gets a railway or national road—not so much a pipeline, but the pipeline has now come, attached to the railway—over his farm. He keeps the land; his claim for compensation is modified so far as the railway is concerned because of a claim by the Railway Administration for the value of betterment. He has to put up with any inconvenience and in his own mind and in his own balance-sheet he has to show the practical advantages that come from having a railway or a national road, as the case may be, traversing his property. It may traverse his property in such a way that it stultifies his farming activities very considerably indeed. But, Sir, if that line is sufficiently close to the border then the farmer just on the other side of the fence is going to get all the benefits of the railway or all the benefits of the national road and he is not going to get one inch of it on his land and he does not pay anything for betterment.

But how does it apply to the pipeline?

It applies to the pipeline in exactly the same way. The hon. member for Drakensberg is not here but she has mentioned this point several times before and she has a number of cases where you have certain deviations—and that is the point that I want to come back to here; this is not a Construction Bill before Parliament. The Minister in this Bill takes the power to make deviations in the pipeline without coming back to Parliament. Provided it is a deviation he need not come back to Parliament. If it is a deviation in a railway line he need not come back to Parliament, and it is quite clear that if he deviates the railway it is going to mean a deviation of the pipeline.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, we are not going to have an opportunity of dealing with it here and the question of compensation now becomes the crisp point.

But when a Construction Bill comes before Parliament we do not deal with the question of compensation.

If we have a Construction Bill before us it gives us an opportunity of dealing with matters of that kind because we are now dealing with the construction, and while it is perfectly true that this Bill gives us the opportunity here now—I am taking the opportunity—1 nevertheless want to make the point that it is my last opportunity. The Minister has the power to deviate the railways; he now takes the power to deviate the pipeline. I repeat that if he deviates the railway hereafter in an area where it is accompanied by the pipeline, he must individually deviate the pipeline as well. Sir, you have farmers to-day who have perhaps given more than one slice of their farms already because there has been a deviation of the railway line. That is in the public interest and I am not complaining about it. I am not arguing that side of it at all. I merely say that those people have given up some of their land. The hon. member for Drakensberg has referred to a case where one farmer has given no less than three separate pieces of land for railway construction; in other words, two deviations have taken place. If you get u. national road on the farm as well and you are now going to have the pipeline as well, I say that under those circumstances the provision made here for compensation is quite inadequate. A group of people in the rural areas are really going to carry the cost of this pipeline by providing the land for it, under circumstances where they are always likely to be in trouble notwithstanding the provision of the Bill that when the pipeline has been laid the surface of the land above that pipeline shall be left in as near as possible the same condition as the condition in which the construction gang found it. If it was land that was nicely smoothed off for the purpose of cultivation, it must be left smoothed off. Unless there is any particular difficulty that I have not come across, even cultivation will be permitted in the area of a servitude provided that regulations that the Minister may lay down are complied with. That may be so but nevertheless it is a factor the whole time, and if it is not going to be permitted and certain types of agriculture cannot be permitted—you could not be permitted to plant trees over the pipeline; that kind of thing would be forbidden—so that here again that group of farmers who have already made their quota to public progress in the past, are going to be asked in terms of the present conditions specified for compensation to make this further sacrifice. Sir, I repeat that this is our last opportunity to voice our view on this matter and I think that by and large the provision here for compensation is quite inadequate in the circumstances and I still hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the conditions which are now coming de novo, because we are living in a new age where there is a new dynamism; we are going forward; the old days are going and we must adjust our idea to what is happening in terms of modern transport by pipeline as well as by train and so forth. Our ideas in regard to compensation. when these new ideas are being put into practical effect, should keep pace with the new concept and with the fact that the Government sector of our economy is bursting at the seams. It is the only sector of the economy in South Africa that is bursting at the seams. I do not blame the Minister for keeping his eye on the economy of the Railways. As Minister of Transport and Minister in charge of Railways he is entitled to do it, and if he says to other Government Departments that they should pave their way well and good, but that, after all said and done, is still in the family. The Government sector to-day is bursting at the seams with wealth and that being so I submit that there should not be a small section of our population who are going to suffer the enormous disability associated with the possibility of a pipeline being laid and then deviated again thereafter and possibly re-deviated, which they are in effect going to pay for because the compensation provided for here is inadequate.

The Bill we have before us this afternoon is a comprehensive Bill authorring the Minister to construct not only the pipeline from Durban but to construct and maintain any pipeline. Sir, it is true to say that when we on this side of the House passed the Estimates in the Brown Book, there was an initial amount of R250,000 provided for the construction of the pipeline from Durban but I think it is also correct to say that this House was under the impression that the Minister would come with a comprehensive Bill to this House setting out the approximate total cost of the pipeline and the surveys, and setting out other details in the laying of this pipeline. But what do we find to-day? Having provided the money in the Brown Book we now find that we have authorized the Minister to go on spending money until the scheme has been completed. We have no idea what the ultimate cost is going to be. It may cost R20,000,000, R30,000,000 or R40,000,000. We on this side of the House support the idea of a pipeline but we also have a duty to perform; we have to look after the taxpayers and before any scheme of this magnitude is brouaht before the House, we feel that full details should have been placed before the House. I know that the Minister has not had time. He did not heed our warning years ago and he wants to get on with the job, but at the same time there must be a considerable amount of detail within his office and I think he could have given this House much more information than he has done. Personally I am disappointed that he did not come forward with a comprehensive Bill and give us an idea what this undertaking is going to cost. Sir, we have dealt before with similar large schemes. You will remember that when the Orange River scheme was put before the House, we were furnished with a White Paper and with considerable detail as to the estimated cost, the planning of the various reservoirs and things of that kind. I mention this just to give you an idea how far another Department was prepared to go to furnish this House with full information, but here the Minister comes forward with this Bill and we are given very little detail, and actually we are being asked to give him a blank cheque to establish any pipeline wherever he likes, and we are in this position that having voted the money provided for in the Brown Book we have also authorized him to go ahead spending this money year after year. We will be in this position that if provision is made in the Brown Book next year for, say, R 10,000,000 we will not be able to argue about this. We will have no details and we will have to rely absolutely upon the Minister’s bona fides and his assurance that this money has been spent correctly, that he has followed the best possible route and that he is saving money wherever he can. I would like to suggest, in support of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), that he should furnish this House at the earliest opportunity with full information regarding the possible route and the estimated cost of the scheme for our guidance. I do think that we owe it to the people who have put us here, the taxpayers, to find out where we are going as far as the financial aspect of the scheme is concerned.

I would also like to support the hon. member who spoke about the ultimate results of this scheme. I say too that this pipeline will be used to boost the production of Sasol. There is a possibility that Sasol may now become one of our major refineries. At the present moment Sasol, because of its small production, is not able to distribute its product throughout the whole of the Republic and I can foresee that when this pipeline is completed Sasol itself will become an important producer of petroleum products which could then be distributed throughout the whole of the Republic. The man in the street could also benefit from the profits of this new venture. The Minister of Transport should not grab the lot for the running of his particular Department. I feel that when the pipeline has been completed he should pass on some of the profits that he makes from this pipeline to the motorists by way of a rebate on petrol. It does not affect us here at the coast, but the people in the inland centres pay a very high price for their motoring.

I do not want to say much about this Bill at this stage, but I think there are two points in connection with which the Minister should give the House some information. The first is the part which has been played in the planning and estimating in regard to this pipeline by the head of the Planning and Productivity Division of the Railways. I assume that this body has been brought into the picture and that a report has been submitted by this body to the Minister before he took the decision to proceed with the pipeline. In view of the fact that we have learned to place considerable reliance in the work of the Planning Department of the Railways I think it is important that the Minister should indicate what part they have played in the planning of the pipeline itself, in determining the route, in estimating the cost and the general desirability of having that pipeline.

The second point in regard to which I think the Minister should give us some information is the utilization of this pipeline for the further development of Sasol installations. Has this factor, which is a new factor, been a major factor in determining the date on which this pipeline should be commenced? In other words, is Sasol going to take on new activities …

It is a synthetic rubber company; it has nothing to do with the pipeline.

Is that the only new development? There is no intention of pumping crude oil for Sasol?

No, it is not a refining company.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from a perusal of the various reports that because of this new activity of Sasol it became desirable at an early stage to proceed with the pipeline. I think if the hon. the Minister would indicate that that is so it would help to explain away the change in policy regarding the construction of the pipeline.

I just want to say a word about the importance of this pipeline to the Witwatersrand complex. I should like to say that I believe it had to be built some time and I am very glad that steps have now been taken to get on with the job. I think it will be common cause in this House that the progress of that area, especially now that the value of our gold production is dropping, is of very great importance. I should just like to express the hope that as a result of the installation of this pipeline in the due course of time it will be possible for that area to enjoy a petrol price very much nearer to that which is enjoyed by other areas than is possible at the present time. I realize that wide implications are involved. I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is absolutely essential for any Government of this country to maintain the economic health of that complex. I believe that the building of this pipeline will help very much to preserve the position and to provide for the further development of the great services which that area is rendering to the country industrially and otherwise.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) extended me the courtesy of discussing this matter with me just before the lunch hour, the question as to whether there should be parliamentary control by way of a Construction Bill for the building of a pipeline. I am inclined to agree with him. I do not see any harm in applying Section 2 of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act to the construction of pipelines, namely that a pipeline can only be constructed after a special Construction Bill has been passed by Parliament. I will consider it and possibly amend the Act during the next session of Parliament. But I want to get on with the job; I hate delays. It is quite impossible to submit a comprehensive report to Parliament at this stage giving the exact estimate of the costs, indicating the route by way of a map and giving engineers’ reports and the report of the Railways and Harbours Board which is usually required in the case of the construction of a railway line.

Hon. members have had the opportunity of discussing the principle of the building of a pipeline both during the Budget debate and today. But I am quite prepared to give the hon. member and the House this assurance that directly the survey has been completed and the route has been decided upon I shall give all the particulars in my possession to the House for its information. I can give that assurance because there is nothing to hide. I should like Parliament to be perfectly aware of what is happening and the progress of the work. At the present time we are considering the appointment of consulting engineers. That is necessary because the engineers on the Railways have no experience of the building of a pipeline. After the appointment of those consulting engineers an aerial survey will be undertaken. That is the only possible way of establishing the route. When the aerial survey has been completed and the route decided upon then the specifications have to be drawn and tenders called for. I hope that that will all be completed before the end of the year so that construction can start immediately thereafter. Construction will possibly start before the end of the financial year. That is why provision is made in the Estimates for a certain amount to be voted by Parliament this year. I hope hon. members will understand the reason why I have not given consideration to amend the Act providing for the introduction of a Construction Bill at this stage. In regard to the construction of future pipelines that will probably be done, because as I say, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. I will consider amending the Act next year to provide for that.

The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to know whether I had taken into account the possible expansion of the inland areas as a result of the construction of the pipeline. In regard to this aspect I also want to reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). He wanted to know whether the Planning Division was consulted and whether they had any part in the decision to build the pipeline. What I did was to appoint a special committee consisting of senior officials including the chairman of the Planning Division and one of the Assistant General Managers to inquire into the matter; to take as a basis the van Eck Report; to take into consideration the increase in traffic that has taken place and the probable increase over the Natal main line over the next few years. They also had to inquire into the probable cost of the pipeline, to compile statistics in regard to the increase in petroleum products to be conveyed over the next five to seven years and also to recommend, based on the probable increase in the transport of petroleum products, the size of the pipeline. I might inform hon. members that only a difference of two inches in diameter results in a considerable increase in the volume of petrol pumped through the pipeline. We have to decide whether it should be of 10 inches or 12 inches diameter. The report was submitted to me and after giving consideration to it I decided to construct the pipeline. The Planning Council was taken into consideration. As I say, possible future development, normal increase in consumption annually and the possible consumption over a period of five to ten years and even 15 years—as far as it could be established—was taken into account.

I agree with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that a depth of 15 inches might be quite inadequate. I will instruct the management to bear that in mind when the line is constructed over cultivated lands. Of course in the case of land where there is no prospect of cultivation it will not make much difference. But over cultivated land I agree with him that the pipeline should be at a much deeper depth than 15 inches.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He is dealing with certain areas where it will not be necessary to go much deeper than 15 inches, but will the hon. the Minister bear in mind the danger of lightning. I recently read a treatise on the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the new oil pipeline in Algeria and the Sahara. It was found there that 15 inches was quite inadequate from the point of view of that particular danger.

That will be taken into consideration. My people have little knowledge of the construction of a pipeline. It may be when the consulting engineers are appointed, men who have experience of the construction of pipelines, that they will recommend a much deeper depth than 15 inches. But the matter which the hon. member has raised will be borne in mind.

In regard to compensation I can only say that Section 6 of the Expropriation Act will, of course, be applicable. I do not think that farmers or owners of land will suffer the same inconvenience and loss as the result of the construction of a pipeline as they do suffer as the result of the construction of a road or railway line. We have had very few complaints in regard to the amount of compensation that has been paid to owners of land resulting from the construction of railway lines. I think the approach of the Railways Administration has been generous. We take into consideration not only the loss of improvements but also the decreased value of land when it is cut into two by a railway line and which becomes almost unworkable as a result. All these factors are taken into consideration and we have had very few complaints, if any. The matter is usually settled by negotiation. We ask the owner of the land to submit his claim. The Administration might either accept that claim or submit its own value of the land. It is then a question of negotiation; it is very seldom that it has to go to arbitration. They are usually compensated adequately for all land that is being expropriated. This will also apply in the case of the construction of a pipeline.

There is one other matter I want to deal with and that is in regard to my statement that when the pipeline is in operation it will not necessarily mean a decrease in the price of petrol on the Witwatersrand. To show how wrong hon. members’ approach to this whole matter is I want to quote a few of their statements. The hon. member for Wynberg said that I put all the profits into my pocket; the hon. member for South Coast said that I kept all the profits to myself; the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) said that I want to grab the lot! Frankly, Sir, one gets the impression that I am the owner of the Railways and that all the profits made by the South African Railways goes into my pocket! That is the impression. Hon. members do not realize that the S.A. Railways do not belong to the Government or to the Minister of Railways; they belong to the people of South Africa and those hon. members are all shareholders in the Railways. The Minister is merely called upon to administer the Railways on behalf of the people of this country. There is no question of his putting the profits into his pocket. The Railways is a non-profit making undertaking. The Act provides specifically that all the profits of the Railways should be ploughed back into the Railways either by improved wages and working conditions or the lowering of rates and tariffs. That has always been done. [Interjections.] It does happen. In 1959 I reduced tariffs to the extent of £5,000,000. But hon. members must realize that it is a non-profit undertaking. I am administering the Railways on behalf of the people as a whole. My approach has always been what is in the interests of the economy as a whole and in the interests of the country. Hon. members are complaining about the fact that I make an excessive profit on the transport of petrol. But that is not only applicable to the transport of petrol. We make a reasonable profit on the transport of high-rate goods because rating is based also on the principle of what the traffic can bear. Traffic such as petrol can bear a higher rate than, for instance, maize and coal. What hon. members must realize is that if this principle is not applied the Railways will not be able to operate in the interests of the country. If the principle were to be applied that you can only charge your actual cost of conveyance plus overheads I would not be able to convey coal to Cape Town at a loss as I am doing to-day and which is in the interests of the economy of the Western Cape. Coal is conveyed to Cape Town free for the last 400 miles. If I had to charge an economic rate for coal what will happen to the industries in the Western Cape? I have to operate road motor services at a loss in the interests of the country and in order to give the farmers some form of transport. If I could not recoup that from the high-rated traffic I would not be able to do that. I have to run passenger services at a loss of R39,000,000 a year. Who has to pay for that? Must I raise passenger fares to such an extent that the services become economic? I must recoup my losses from the high-rated traffic. Hon. members do not seem to realize that the Railways are not an ordinary private profitmaking undertaking. The Railways are there in the interests of the country. To give another example: I have to employ 10,000 to 11,000 Europeans at uneconomic wages to do unskilled labour. It is in the interests of the country to do that. If the Railways did not employ those 10,000 to 11,000 Europeans at uneconomic wages they would be thrown on the streets and become a burden to the State. Consequently the Railways also have a socioeconomic function. The Railways are there in the interests of the country. That is why I say that the Railways must recoup their loss of revenue as a result of the construction of the pipeline. If that is not done then that loss of revenue must be recouped from other railway users and that will mean an increase in rates which is not in the interests of the economy. I want hon. members of the Opposition always to bear this in mind that it is not a profit-making undertaking. The Railways belong to the people of this country and the Railways are administered in the interests and to the benefit of the people as a whole and not in the interests and to the benefit of any particular section of the community.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is a consequential provision which follows on Clause 5 which was debated last evening. The fact that the hon. the Minister was unable to accept an amendment under that clause which would have made it quite clear that there would be no transfer without negotiation and agreement makes this proviso more important now than it might otherwise have been. Once one of these private institutions is transferred in terms of Clause 5 those persons who are employed as teachers in that institution become transferred to the Government service and are deemed to have been appointed as teachers in terms of the provisions of this Act. The effect of that, of course, is that the whole relationship of employer and employee changes, because they then become what is in effect statutory servants whereas they were contractual servants.

During the second-reading debate I made it perfectly clear that the statutory servant, the public servant, only has those rights which the law itself prescribe that he shall have. He has no other rights. It is important, therefore, in circumstances such as these that any rights which an individual had before he became a public servant because of a transfer under this legislation should be preserved and be adequately protected. As I read this clause the individual has no choice. He is automatically transferred. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that this type of thing has happened from time to time. It happened very clearly, of course, with the establishment of Union when officials of different provinces then became officials of a Union Government. I am not going to requote the provisions of the law as it applied then but a very clear provision was made in the Public Service Act of that day to ensure that there should be no diminution of or alteration to any rights, in any way, which already existed. If you want a contented body of teachers I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

My own impression is that it will be used very sparingly. My own impression is that there will possibly be few cases where it will have a very positive effect but that makes it all the more necessary why it should be there and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to have regard to that aspect of the matter as well.

The Department has gone into this matter and thoroughly investigated all its implications. In the circumstances I unfortunately cannot accept the amendment. The salaries, leave and pension privileges and conditions of service of teachers at State-aided schools are precisely the same as in the case of other teachers. There is no difference. If we accepted the amendment of the hon. member it would mean that we would be singling out this group for special treatment. We would actually be placing these people in a privileged position if the other teachers cannot enjoy those same privileges. That is what it amounts to. I can see no reason why these persons should be singled out as a group and given preferential treatment when they are enjoying the same privileges as the other teachers at the present time.

My Department informs me further that the provisions of sub-sections 11 (3) and (4) will only be applicable really to a few State-aided vocational schools. If those people had to be treated as suggested here it would not be possible to make the necessary readjustment in their case, and they would consequently be adversely affected. Let me give one example. Before the take-over they did not belong to a pension scheme. For all these practical reasons which have been very thoroughly investigated by my Department not only on its own but also in consultation with the Department of Pensions, we have come to the conclusion that what is provided for here is the best way to draft the Bill.

Amendment put and the Committee divided.

AYES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; 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. C.; 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, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, D. de K.; 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.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. E.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; 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 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, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

This is a clause which deals with what I called in connection with another clause yesterday “the take-over of human beings, the take-over of persons rather than property”, and I believe that here again the hon. Minister will be prepared, or more correctly should be prepared, to accept in good faith the plea from this side of the House for the reconsideration of this clause and especially the effect of sub-section (3) when read with sub-section (1) of Clause 11, and also against the background of Clause 10. It is perfectly clear that in terms of sub-section >(2) “any person, deemed to have been appointed to a post … as if he had continued occupying the post occupied by him immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, unless or until the Minister determines that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of this section shall apply in respect of him”, So the sting is in the tail of subsection (2) where his conditions apparently remain the same as they were in the post he occupied immediately prior to the commencement of the Act. Had the Minister stopped there with the clause, I would not be trying to discuss the matter with him, but having said that the hon. Minister immediately undermines, in fact, he demolishes whatever safeguard or assurance he gives the employee, the person affected by the take-over of the Department of Coloured Education. He undermines that provision completely by the proviso “unless or until the Minister determines that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of this section shall apply in respect of him”. Now in· the case of sub-section (3), it says “as from the date on which a person is in terms of the provisions of Section 10 transferred to the service of the Department, his salary shall be adjusted to the salary scale applicable to his post at such notch on that scale as the Minister may determine”. Again the position is controlled here by the Minister, without any reference to the rights of the individual who has had no part whatsoever in this take-over by the Department of Coloured Affairs, but who, I think hon. members on the other side will agree, is entitled to some consideration. To give the Minister a case in point: We on this side of the House have been made aware of the fact that the Coloured teachers in the Province of the Transvaal are extremely worried by the position which arises out of this clause. They feel that not only may their salaries remain static, but they may well drop.

No.

The Minister has apparently reacted to some of the points I have made in connection with this clause, and I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary, but if the Minister will explain how or why those fears which are in the minds of certain prospective employees of the Division of Education of the Department of Coloured Affairs can be allayed, I will certainly welcome such an assurance to those people from the Minister. I accordingly move my amendment—

Clause 11 (3) provides that a person who is transferred when a State-aided school becomes a State-controlled school, will have his salary adjusted to the appropriate notch of the scale. The effect of this clause is that the salaries will automatically be adjusted when the Minister prescribes the conditions of service under 11 (1). There is no question therefore of placing these people in an inferior position. Their salaries will have to be so adjusted that they will not be adversely affected. I have already given this assurance and I give it again.

Which clause makes provision for the assurance that the hon. the Minister has just given?

The hon. member must read the whole clause so as to get the complete picture. The Minister will prescribe certain conditions of service and when the take-over takes place the salaries will be adjusted under 11 (3) to conform to the conditions of service prescribed under 11 (1). The clause was in fact drafted in this way to ensure that no one will be adversely affected. I really cannot see what the hon. member’s objection is.

This is a very simple point in regard to the transfer from one Department to another. Here we have an official, in this case a teacher, a schoolmaster, who is going over from one Department to another. That is the simple case. What we ask—we have asked under Clause 10, we are asking it again here: His salary scale will be adjusted, as the hon. Minister has said quite correctly, to the new salary scales. What we are asking is that in the adjustment he should not be reduced to a lower scale, even though he goes to another post.

It will not happen under this clause.

It does not say so. Look at sub-section (3), “the salary scale applicable to his post, at such notch on that scale as the Minister may determine”.

But under 11 (1) the Minister lays down the conditions of service for all teachers, and that can be done from time to time.

I agree completely with the hon. Minister. He does lay down the new conditions of service. But what we are concerned about now is a man who is going over from the old system to the new State system. We are asking, that when the new system is introduced, with the new salary scales, the man who is going over to the new system, should not be placed on a lower salary notch, than the salary he enjoyed in the past. That is reasonable. That happens in respect of every transfer, and we are simply asking for that assurance from the hon. Minister. He has refused it in respect of the last clause. We are giving him the opportunity of conceding that point now.

All teachers’ salaries are the same.

*Hon. members opposite are worried about things that do not exist. If we deleted 11 (3) it would still not really affect the teachers generally; it would, however, as I explained in dealing with a previous clause, affect a small group of persons at State-aided special schools. But we are not concerned there only with the taking over of teachers; there are other persons too who may be taken over and 11 (3) is there to protect them. But as far as teachers are concerned, whether they teach at a State school or a State-aided school, the salaries are the same. “Adjustment to the new scale” here refers to those persons in State-aided special schools. One may even have a caretaker there or some other person who is not necessarily a teacher. If we delete 11 (3), that person would be adversely affected and he would have no protection. There is no danger that anybody will be adversely affected as the clause is drafted here, because present salaries and future salaries remain the same, whether the person teaches at a State school or a State-aided school.

If the hon. Minister had made any concession in respect of the earlier provisions where the interests and the rights of the individuals are concerned, my approach to the matter might have been a different one. But the Minister says that when he puts the individual on the appropriate notch of the new scale, he will see that there is no reduction in the individual’s salary. Is that how I must understand the hon. Minister’s interpretation of the clause? We here are concerned with what the law says. I accept that the hon. Minister has good intentions, but I am concerned with what the law says, and would urge the Minister therefore to deal with the matter as it is dealt with in the preceding clause that “it shall remain the same” and that there will be no reduction. It is as simple as that. Here we simply have an assurance by a Minister that when he carries out powers, he would do this. All we are asking is that the law should simply say that.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister to consider accepting this amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). While I appreciate the points that the hon. Minister has put forward, I feel that no provision whatsoever in this regard has been made so far in the Bill before the House, and the real anxiety of what we understand to be the anxiety of the Transvaal teachers themselves has been expressed in that the safeguards which are protecting present salaries, only are safeguards until such time as the conditions are laid down. I would call this one of the Achilles heels of this Bill. I would ask the hon. Minister very seriously to consider amending this and to give the assurances to those teachers who are coming into the service of the Department of Coloured Affairs.

I merely want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the fact that in the course of his second-reading speech he gave us one of the reasons, if not the most important reason, for the transfer of Coloured education to his Department, namely the need to ensure that what he called the socio-economic uplifting of the Coloured people was allied and combined with their education. He said that the two obviously were indispensable. We have not quibbled about that. But the socio-economic advance of the Coloured people, as the Coloured teachers see the position, is just as important as the education of the child is. It is a matter of economics for one thing, it is a matter of social status for another, to firstly preserve one’s status in regard to salary, one’s ability to live at a certain level, and certainly in regard to the future. Everybody has that same attitude, Sir, whether it be a Coloured teacher or a White teacher, and with great respect to the hon. the Minister, what he has said to us up to now has not seemed to be the kind of assurance that we are asking for and which I believe he would like to give. But it is not clear in the clause, and the matter is in no way helped by certain hon. members on the other side shaking their heads in disgust, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is doing. I would be grateful to him if he would tell the four of us who have spoken so far exactly why we are so dense that we cannot understand where the safeguards and assurances are, whereas he in his wisdom has immediately grasped it. But in the absence of such a statement from him, I must again ask the Minister to do the job for us and tell us exactly what the position is.

Clause 14 (4) provides for the temporary secondment of a person—perhaps to enable that person to gain experience for a specific task or to perform a special task.

“Temporarily” may mean a very long time.

In Clause 14 (5) it is expressly stated: “If any person is so seconded this secondment shall not affect the application in respect of him of any law which would have applied in respect of him if he had continued occupying his post in the school in question.” In other words, even on his secondment, on his temporary secondment, he is still regarded as the incumbent of the position that he held at that school.

But it says here “any law”.

But that includes this measure. The point is simply that a person is seconded to perform a specific task and in the second place that person is regarded as still occupying the position that he held at the school. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

Will the hon. the Minister explain what is meant by “in any capacity”? What has the hon. the Minister in mind?

I have just mentioned one example. It may be to perform a special task or to do research. A man may be seconded to do research because one may want to use his services at some specific place at a later stage. He may perhaps be a person with a special flair for that work and all he needs is a little more experience in order to be able to perform a specific task. He is then seconded for that purpose.

Does that hold good for Coloured education in South West Africa as well?

Coloured education in South West Africa is not included here.

May I ask one question: Does the hon. Minister agree that the incorporation of the reference to sub-section (3) in sub-section (2) means in effect that he can under sub-section (3) reduce salaries?

No.

It cannot mean that?

No.

The hon. Minister shakes his head, but will he be good enough to definitely say “no, no …”. Because the shaking of his head does not apparently affect Hansard.

Do not try to be funny now.

But I have asked a specific question.

And I said “No”.

Thank you very much.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move as an amendment—

In line 15, after “(1)” to insert “Of a secondment in terms of sub-section (4) and in line 17, after “transfer” to insert “or secondment”.

Here we are faced with a position that in so far as the teacher is concerned who is transferred in terms of 14 (1), if it involves a reduction in his pensionable emoluments, he should first give his consent before such a transfer takes place; and if he is transferred to a post of a lower grade, then there are certain assurances in sub-section (3) which will apply to him. But there is no safeguard and no such assurance in regard to the teacher who is seconded. I think generally speaking the difference between “transfer” and “secondment” is largely technical, but the effect is the same, and in the absence of the same safeguarding provision in regard to secondment that may be the type of transfer that is used. Apart from equity it seems only logical that they should be placed in the same category; safeguards which apply to the teacher who is transferred should apply also to the teacher who happens to be seconded. I think the amendment is reasonable and it is one which will improve the position and provide the security which is absent in the clause as it stands.

As I see this clause, it amounts to this: This clause will only affect privileged people, people with a specialized knowledge, people with particular capabilities. This is something that happens every day throughout the Public Service. Let me give an example of what happened in my Department in the case of a very responsible person—the former Secretary of the Department of Coloured Affairs who was due to retire in only three or four months’ time. He has been seconded to a new post because he has a specific task to perform there. It is this type of person whom we have in mind. If one is a member of the Public Service one cannot refuse to make one’s services available and to make use of one’s ability and skill and talent where they are needed most. That is the attitude that we adopt. In other words, this is not a punitive measure; we are making it possible for the State to make use of the talents of these people where necessary. It must be possible for the State to get the best services out of its employees. That is the spirit throughout the Public Service; it holds good for the Public Service as a whole. This is not a punitive measure; it merely makes it possible for us to make the best use of the services of these people.

I now want to move my amendment—

If this amendment is agreed to, the clause will read “may be seconded by the Minister upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and with such person’s consent, to the Administration of South West Africa or the service of the State in any other capacity”, I do not think the Minister will quibble again about the need to protect the individual, the human being whom he takes over, because we are no concerned to any great extent with what happens to the actual property that is involved in the take-over. There are ways in estimating values and ways of compensating adequately in those cases. Those things are simple and they require no particular pressure from us for the Minister to do what we believe to be the right thing. But when it comes to persons, I come back to my statement of yesterday: The Minister told the House that there were 10,793 Coloured teachers in South Africa and he said that there were 13 training colleges, and I thereupon said that I estimated that there are between 11,000 and 12,000 Coloured persons who could be affected by this or any other clause of the Bill. We must therefore have regard to the personal aspect, the human aspect of the matter as well as to the question of taking over property in terms of the legal formula, and I say with respect to the hon. Minister that he has had no such regard in this clause, because whether he has realized it or not, the Minister proposes to take over the Coloured teachers, and to apply them to the service of the State or the Administration of the Territory of South West Africa as teachers or in any other capacity. Now I want to ask this of the hon. Minister: What would he say if he was an employee in the Department of Education and there was a similar take-over, for whatever reason, and then the new management, as it were, were to use him, a man, a teacher, with specialized knowledge and everything that goes with it, in any other capacity? That is what it says. What would the hon. Minister say? I hope he will answer me. If you take this clause literally, and one must, because the Minister has the power to interpret this Bill when it becomes an Act as it stands, not as it should have been framed, and taking it literally he could take such a teacher, or any number of them, and having put them into the service of the State, having made civil servants of them, he could say to a teacher “You will be the officer-cleaner in Luderitzbucht”.

Oh!

Yes, I would groan too if I were in that position, but I am only trying to give an extreme case to indicate what might happen.

How silly can you be?

The hon. member can only say that I am stupid. Maybe he will answer this, the learned doctor. I was going to say that literally it means that the Minister can do with a teacher whom he has taken over to his Department what he likes, and I do not think that that is the Minister’s intention. I give him that credit again, as I did last night. I cannot believe that he seeks the power to take oyer highly trained people, thousands of them, and then tell them that they should be doing something else. That cannot be his intention. But if that is not his intention, then he must accept my amendment, because this is not the previous clause where he said that we did not understand his explanation or assurances. where sub-sections (1) and (2) were interdependent and so on. Here we have a perfectly simple case. It says here that the Minister may, without the consent of the person, put him into the service of the State, anywhere in South Africa or South West Africa, in any other capacity, meaning in any other capacity but that of a teacher. He can make of him what he will. Is that true?

My reply is simply that under the provincial system the province could use these teachers for virtually no other work than teaching. But in the Public Service under the Department of Coloured Affairs there are various ways in which the services of a person of this kind can be used for the good of the Coloured community, and that is an important difference. But a man may say for selfish reasons: “No, I want to continue to live here; I do not want to be transferred”. The whole community then has to suffer because of his refusal. [Interjection.] Do not let us waste time on trifling matters. This measure is in the spirit of the Public Service Act; it is designed to enable the State to make the best use of the services of its employees. It will only affect a small group of selected persons. Hon. members must not use the argument that 12,000 teachers are affected. That is not so, and I am sorry therefore that I cannot accept the amendment.

I am glad to hear that explanation, in other words, that the Minister really reserves this power in order to advance the individual.

And the cause he is serving.

Then I ask the Minister why he should refuse to accept the amendment which means that the person so to be advanced has to consent to it.

But I have just explained it.

If I came to the Minister, who is in my employment, and said to him: You are now on this grade, but I propose as from next month to advance you and to give you a bigger salary …

All civil servants are in the same position.

Without regard to their consent. But does that apply to teachers in the employ of a Provincial Administration?

No.

Well, that is my point. He is taking over 12,000 teachers from the Cape Provincial Administration, and the point is that they are teachers and the Provincial Administration can make of them nothing other than teachers. They use them in that capacity or not at all. If that is the case, in this takeover, the Minister has said repeatedly that he does not want to do anything to put these people in a position of disadvantage. Then why not let them be in the same position in which they are vis-à-vis the province merely by incorporating this simple amendment? That, coupled with the fact that the Minister has told us that he has framed it in this way in order to give himself the power not to hold back these people but to advance them—those two factors should persuade him to accept this amendment.

The hon. the Minister says that this clause is not intended as a punitive measure. I am prepared to accept that that is not the intention, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it can be used as a punitive measure. When we enact legislation, it must be framed in such a way that no matter what the intention of a particular Minister may be, there is no possibility of the law being misused. I would like the hon. the Minister to reply in this regard. Does he admit that this clause can be used as a punitive measure?

I do not think so because if a person acts in such a way that he becomes a nuisance, one gets rid of him in some other way. I regard this measure as a positive one to enable us to second people whose services we want to use for a specific task. I do not think that one would want to use it as a punitive measure. There are other ways to get rid of incompetent people.

What I am afraid of is this. The hon. the Minister will admit that the Government is particularly sensitive about the political views of certain Coloured teachers and one is always afraid that this clause may be used unfairly to transfer a person who is unpopular with the Government to some out of the way place. It may be used as a punitive measure, and that is why I think that it is no more than right that a proviso should be added to the effect that it will not be used in this way. It is an important step to transfer a man, particularly a Coloured who has grown up in the Cape, to a completely different part of the country to do other work, without his consent. I simply cannot agree with the hon. the Minister that if one man refuses to be seconded there will not be some other person with similar qualifications available. I think the hon. the Minister should amend this clause to read that the co-operation of the teacher must first be obtained before he is simply seconded by him for other work.

I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that although the hon. the Minister says the clause will not be used for that purpose, as punishment, it could be used as such. But I want to raise another point. The Minister says that anyone in the service of the State must be prepared to do his duty to the State and should be prepared to be transferred to any place where the State thinks it can best use his services. I quite agree with that, but what I want him to remember is that this is not a new Department with completely new servants. He is taking over an existing Department, and the Coloured teachers who are at present in the employment of the Cape Province, when they joined the service they understood that they would be able to choose their place of residence, because in terms of the regulations of this province they cannot be transferred without their consent. Now those people are placed in the employment of the State. The Minister says that a public servant should not be able to refuse a transfer, but at present the people, at any rate in the Cape, have the right to say that they do not want to live in another place. But now they are being taken over by the State willy nilly, and not at their request, and this right of choosing their residence will be taken away from them. The Minister has stressed that this clause will only be used to the advantage of the servant concerned. I submit that if that is so the servant should have the right to say he does not want that advancement, but prefers to stay where he is, and therefore I ask the Minister again to reconsider this amendment, to allow the servant to consent to the transfer.

The Opposition are making so much fuss that one would think this was a brand-new principle, but it is not. It is generally accepted in the Public Service that an officer may be transferred to any place. The mistake made by hon. members opposite is to think that this only applies in the Cape Province, but in the Transvaal a teacher may be transferred wherever the Department wants to transfer him, without his consent.

Yes, as a teacher.

No, not only as a teacher. The Director of Education in the Transvaal was recently promoted to Secretary of the Provincial Administration, without his consent. That is a different Department. The position in the educational world is very clear; a primary school teacher who has the qualifications to teach certain subjects in a high school may be told at short notice to report to that school the next day to teach that subject, and he has no choice in the matter. The teachers of the Transvaal are therefore used to this—the Coloured teachers as well. It is a question therefore of the Cape system against the Transvaal system, and since the hon. the Minister now has to deal with Coloured education throughout the entire country the position is simply that the services of the teacher must be used where they will be most useful. A person may sometimes refuse to accept promotion because he does not want to be transferred from the place where he is living. But if a man offers his services to the State he has to work where it suits the State. This is also applicable in private life. If a person joins a company, he cannot refuse to be transferred and the same thing holds good in the case of the Railways and the Public Service. The Provincial Administration only had to deal with education; it could not transfer a teacher to work as an engineer on the roads. But since we now have a new Department, I say that where the services of a teacher with certain qualifications are needed in some other capacity in the Department, it is in the interests of education and of the Department that we should be able to use his services there. If this were a new principle I could understand the objections of hon. members, but it is not a new principle and I do not know why the Opposition are so opposed to it.

I am really amazed to hear this reasoning from someone who has had so much to do with education as the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder). I do not think that in teaching as a profession it has been the practice for teachers to be transferred from the teaching department to any other service of the province, merely because they could fit in better there. The Minister has in fact admitted that it has not happened in the Provincial Administration. To my knowledge, you find that the teacher is transferred when he is given promotion within the teaching department. I know of many teachers in the Transvaal who have been transferred to higher posts as inspectors, or who have become lecturers at universities. Can the Minister convince us that even teachers appointed by the State—and I do not think they are appointed by the State in the higher institutions of learning; they are appointed by autonomous bodies—are transferred from that profession? In addition, it is quite common for a teacher to refuse to accept promotion to another town. I know of cases quite recently, particularly that of a young girl who was sent to a post in the platteland. She felt that she was better qualified to serve in a big town and representations were made to the Director and there was no difficulty at all in assisting the applicant to teach in a big town instead of on the platteland. Here what is sought is, according to the Minister’s reasoning, to take a teacher and put him in any Department of State willy nilly, without the consent or the desire of that teacher to go there, and the Minister quotes the example of the Secretary of his own Department. It must take a strong flight of imagination to conceive a case where a Coloured teacher will be dealt with in that particular manner. Here you have a senior official being transferred to a very important post, but that is not what we contemplate when we deal with the transfer of a teacher without his consent in the course of his profession. To say that because it now comes under the State, because Coloured education has now been transferred to the Central Government, and that the ordinary rules of the Public Service must be applied to the teacher, is asking too much. There are no assurances given. It is a specific provision of the law. I know of certain cases where that will apply. It applies in times of emergency or crisis. It is very common during wartime for a particular officer or soldier who is not serving satisfactorily in a particular capacity to be sent to the desert parts of the field of service, and you do not consult him as to where you are sending him because it is a time of crisis. But the teaching profession is the one profession that is far removed from these things. If the Minister has any other motive which he has not made clear, then obviously the House cannot deal with it because he has not taken us into his confidence. But if the teacher is to be dealt with as a teacher of any other Colour group in the country, as a member of the teaching profession, surely there is no reason why there should be any differentiation between a Coloured teacher and any other teacher simply because the Coloured teacher now, by virtue of the transfer of education, falls directly under the State. Why that should make him subject to all the other rules of the Public Service is far beyond me. We all know that teachers are generally at schools permanently. Transfers are very rare. If you take the high schools and the primary schools, you will find right throughout the towns and cities and villages that teachers become institutions in those schools. They transfer generally only at their own request. Here the Minister is asking for something new to be introduced, which makes the teacher not only vulnerable but puts him completely at the mercy of the Department. Even from the point of vie\y of the teaching profession it is a most unfair and unwarranted imposition on a teacher. One thing should be observed in the teaching profession, and that is to give the teacher security. That is what we always strive for, so that he can carry out his fundamental objective, to look after the education of our children. But here you are exposing him to all the worries and the concerns of the ordinary man. Does the Minister really think that is a fair way of dealing with teachers because they are Coloured?

The hon. member almost waxed poetic, but he made no impression on me because he was simply making a mountain out of a molehill, If this power of transfer is misused on a large scale the State has means whereby such a Department, if it is stupid enough to do these things, and the Minister, can be brought to their senses, because no State which is run in an orderly way as our State is would permit people to be sent from pillar to post merely at the whim of the Minister. After all, there will be a staff section to look after the interests of these people. But one must have the power to be able to force a person to serve the community that he is called upon to serve. Let me give an example. Let us assume that at a particular school in the Peninsula there are three teachers all of whom are able to teach mathematics and that there is a school in the north-west which does not have such a teacher. Surely it is obvious then that if a man does not want to go there for personal reasons, one must be able to compel him to go in order to serve the community. But supposing the Minister were to decide— in any case, it would not be the Minister; these things are arranged by departmental organizations; the Minister is only there in the last instance to take the responsibility and it is therefore just as important for the Department to have the co-operation of the people whose services it wishes to use. That is why it would be very stupid of the Department to treat its officials in a reckless fashion. But let us suppose that the Department acts foolishly and the Minister allows it to act in that way, how long do hon. members think it will be before that Minister clashes with the Treasury, with the Auditor-General and with the Select Committee on Public Accounts? There are means of preventing stupid actions of this nature. That is why I really cannot understand what hon. members are trying to achieve. They have moved an amendment on a particular aspect of this clause and now they are opposing the whole clause. I do not think that this is something for which one can make provision in a law. Our sound common sense ought to tell us that this sort of thing cannot happen on a large scale. What we are doing here is to pass a necessary law so that people who do not want to make their talents available to the State can be forced by the State to serve their community. More I cannot say. This is in accordance with the spirit of the whole of the Public Service and in the interests of the Coloured community and their schools. It may also be in the interests of services which have to be performed for the Coloureds by other State bodies. I am not prepared therefore to allow myself to be thwarted in my efforts to give the Coloured community what is their due.

Are you prepared to consider an amendment in the Other Place·—to treat the Coloured teachers in the Cape differently because they have not joined as public officials? Teachers can be transferred in the Transvaal and the Free State but not in the Cape.

My answer is that I am trying to get as much uniformity in regard to Coloured education as possible. That is one of the reasons why we have taken it over—-to put the conditions of service of these people on the same footing—and I cannot draw a distinction between the Cape teachers and the teachers in other provinces.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to Section 150 of the Cape Education Ordinance which deals very clearly with the transfer of Coloured teachers. It expressly states that this cannot be done without that person’s consent. The hon. the Minister has told us that he is seeking uniformity, but it is obvious that the Cape with the largest Coloured population and most Coloured teachers, ought to be able to call the tune. Why should we follow the system of another province which has a far smaller number of Coloured teachers than we have? The hon. the Minister has told us that he is seeking uniformity. The Cape has the largest number of Coloured teachers and they have joined the service on that understanding. The hon. the Minister is now changing the conditions on which they entered the service and he will be able to send them just where he wants to without their consent. I think that this proposal of the hon. the Minister is a very unfair one and he will make it more unfair if he is not prepared to accept our amendment.

The system of the transfer of teachers by a Department as far as the Whites are concerned is also in operation in Natal and in South West Africa as well, and I can assure the House that the teachers of South-West have asked us not to change this system. They prefer to remain under this system. There are definitely certain benefits inherent in a system of this nature because the Department of Education knows the qualifications and ability of each teacher and it can employ that teacher where the best use can be made of his services.

Yes, as a teacher, but these provisions go further.

That is the important aspect—to transfer him as a teacher because in the first place he accepts service as a teacher. We must not lose sight of the fact that the teacher who enters the service of the Department does so in the interests of the child. The children are not there in the interests of the teachers and the teacher has therefore to make the best of it if his services are required at some other place, either as a teacher or in any post connected with education. This whole question deals with the transfer of teachers. Under the old system of appointment, once a teacher was appointed at a certain place it was not possible to get rid of him.

In the last twenty minutes it is quite remarkable that three hon. members on that side of the House has fallen into exactly the same error—the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), the hon. the Minister himself and most recently the Deputy-Minister for South West Africa Affairs—and that is that they all argue as if we seek to amend that portion which refers to transfer. That is not so. If they think so, whether it is the hon. the Minister, or anybody else, they have neither read the clause nor the amendment. The objection which I have now risen three times to make is not to the transfer of a teacher from one place to another or from one school to another. Surely I have made that clear and all hon. members on this side have made that clear. The whole thing hinges around the words “or in any other capacity”. Now do you understand it or shall I say it in some foreign language?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair. He is in the habit of addressing members directly.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Through you, Sir, I want to ask whether it is clear once and for all that the amendment seeks to omit the words “or in any other capacity” and to say “with such persons’ consent”. That is all we are asking. The hon. the Minister in the course of his last speech said in effect that we were opposing this whole clause. One or two of us tried to correct him by way of interjection. We are not objecting to the whole clause, not at all, and therefore the hon. the Minister would have to give us an answer eventually whether he is prepared to accept the amendment which relates to a specific part of the sub-section of the whole clause and not to the whole clause itself. Finally I would like to say that the Minister keeps on saying as he has, that surely he is not going to do this, that or the: other; that he is not going to open the door where he will find the Treasury on the other side giving him difficulties and so on. Sir, if the Minister did not bring what he calls “gesonde verstand” to the implementation of this clause, then surely he would land himself in difficulties with other Ministers.

What capacities have you in mind?

A post office clerk, for instance.

I would like to answer that in a moment. If the hon. the Minister really means what he says, then we are trying to help him with this amendment. With this amendment you can never get into difficulties with those other Ministers and other authorities, and then he does not even have to use what he calls “gesonde verstand”. Furthermore, I have not learnt very much in the few years I have been here but I have learnt one thing and that is that every time when somebody has said in the past, “do not look at what the Bill says; you must use your ‘ gesonde verstand ’”, after that the Bill becomes an Act it then is amended ad nauseum. I say that with respect. The Minister must not ask therefore to use our “gesonde verstand” in reading into this clause something that is not there. I would like the hon. the Minister to use his “gesonde verstand” and to see the value of bringing about this simple amendment, so that in the result he will still be able to transfer the two redundant teachers of mathematics to whom he referred in a particular school to other schools, but he will not be able—and this is the answer to the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs—to make of a teacher something that he should not be, for example a clerk, a machine-minder, comptometer operator, which in this clause means “any other capacity That is the protection for which we ask. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will see this point. If it was merely a case of giving the Minister the power to elevate the person, then he could say so very differently in this particular clause, but he says “in any other capacity”, and there are no two interpretations as to what that means in either of the two official languages; it can only mean what it says, “in ’n ander hoedanigheid,” which means in any other capicity which the Minister may decide.

Nonsense.

Finally I want to make this point. The Minister himself says in subclause (4) (b)—

This is a very remarkable attitude, because what the Minister says in effect to a Coloured teacher is this: “If I intend to second you to the French Government for a certain reason in order to acquire certain skills for the purpose of being useful here in South Africa, in other words, if I want to send you to Paris to be attached to the French Department of Education, then I require your consent.” Of course, we know that the worst thing that could happen to a man is not being sent to Paris. But in that case we must ask the man to consent. But when he wants to say to the man, “you have annoyed me” (he need not even say that) “and I have decided to send you to the ‘ grammadoelas ’ or to the Kalahari …”

What is wrong with the Kalahari?

Sir, do not let us get geographical. The Kalahari is wonderful. I say that in that case the Minister does not want that man’s consent. He simply says “you are going” and he has to go. I say again, without reference to the confusion that appears to have arisen that we are arguing against this clause as a whole and that we ars arguing necessarily against the Minister’s right to transfer a teacher, that we are arguing against the Minister’s apparent right, which is a very real one, to make of a teacher, without his consent, something that he never anticipated that he would become and should not be expected to become.

Just as a matter of interest I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell me what he has in mind with paragraph 4 (b), in which it is provided: “With his own consent, to the service of the Government or any other country or of any person”. I would like to know what situations the hon. the Minister has in mind that may be covered by the provisions of this sub-section.

There may be specific matters which this Department or the Government may decide should be investigated with the assistance of other bodies or other Government Departments. A person whom one considers to be capable of being seconded to such an organization or Government can then be put at their disposal. In this way we will also eventually derive benefit from this step. That is all that is provided for here.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Plewman put and negatived.

Question put: That the words “to the service of the State or”, in line 31, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—64: 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.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling. J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; 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 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, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.: Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—37: Barnett, C.; Basson. J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.: Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Ôldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; 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. Gorshel dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

The object of the amendment is to provide for a course of action other than discharge in the instances set out in sub-sections (a) to (g). The course of action which is proposed is either termination of the service of the employee or his retirement or transfer. Sir, up to now the hon. the Minister has not been particularly amenable to amendments, but this is one amendment which the Minister should have no difficulty in accepting and in fact should accept. I say this for two reasons, firstly because discharge is an entirely inappropriate procedure in all the cases set out in sub-section (a) to (g), with one exception only and that is sub-section (f). In all the other sub-sections it is entirely inappropriate for reasons which I will elaborate in a moment. The second reason is that the word “discharge” carries with it some sort of stigma, namely the stigma of wrongful or improper conduct and there should be no stigma attached at all to the cases set out in the subsections other than the case which is dealt with in sub-section (f). I would like to elaborate both these reasons. The first is that discharge is an entirely inappropriate procedure. I would like to go through each of these sub-sections separately, but before I do so perhaps I might again point out that what is suggested to be substituted in place of “discharge” is “termination of service” or “the retirement or transfer of the person concerned”.

The first category is the person who attains the pensionable age. In my submission it is quite clear that such a person ought not to be discharged. He ought either to be retired or his services ought to be terminated. [Interjection.] I propose to refer to the ordinary meaning of “discharge” when I come to elaborate on my second reason. The second category is “continued ill-health”. There again I suggest that it is quite inappropriate that such a person should be discharged. If his ill-health is such that he cannot carry out his duties then his services ought to be terminated or he should be retired. The next category is “the abolition of his post or a reduction, reorganization or rearrangement of the staff of the school in question”. Sir, I emphasize that the third category relates to a reduction, reorganization or rearrangement of staff in the school in question, not in the Department. That being so, surely there is no justification for his discharge under those circumstances. If his post is abolished or there is a reduction or reorganization of staff, then he ought to be transferred to some other post or to some other school. Sir, I go further. If employees are to be discharged under such circumstances then I suggest that it will give rise to insecurity of tenure. What security can employees expect if when at the particular school there is a reorganization or rearrangement of staff, they are discharged from employment? The next category or rather the next two categories I think I can deal with together, namely unfitness for duties or incapacity to perform them efficiently, or “if for reasons other than those referred to in paragraph (d) his discharge will, in the opinion of the Minister, promote efficiency or economy in the school in question”. Once again I point out that this relates to the particular school, not to the Department generally, and I point out also that “unfitness for duty or incapacity to perform them efficiently” does not imply any improper conduct on the part of the person concerned. He may be unfit for his duties or incapable of performing them properly for reasons which are quite beyond his control, and that fact is recognized in a subsequent clause, which, of course, I cannot refer to in any detail, but I would merely mention it in passing, and that is Clause 18 (1), which provides—

In these circumstances also I suggest that there is no justification for the discharge of the employee. He ought to be transferred to some other post, or if that is impossible in the circumstances, then his services can be terminated or he can be retired. Then I come to (f). That is the case where there is misconduct and that is the only situation where discharge is justified. Then there is category (g). “in the case of a female, if she marries”. Sir. what justification is there under present circumstances to discharge a woman simply because she has married? I repeat that in all these categories, with the exception of category (f), discharge is an entirely inappropriate course of action. I come now to my second reason, namely that the word “discharge” carries a stigma. It connotes some improper or wrongful conduct. I suevest that that is factually so; that is the ordinary meaning which is given to it in its everyday use. Anyone hearing a person speak of an employee having been discharged would automatically assume that that person has been dismissed because of something improper or some wrongful conduct. That that is the ordinary meaning which is given to the word “discharge”, I suggest it is strengthened by the fact that in a subsequent clause—and of course I cannot deal with it here in any detail—in a subsequent clause which deals with improper conduct and with procedure to be followed and what can be done where a person has been found guilty of improper conduct, and deals with it fully, the course of action which is open to the Secretary and through the Secretary, to the Minister, is, inter alia, to discharge that person. [Time limit.]

I wish to move as an amendment—

In moving this amendment I wish to draw attention to Clause 15 which I feel needs very careful attention by the Minister, as it is presently worded, because its implications are very wide. As it now stands I think it could mean that teachers may be discharged under anyone of seven paragraphs which have already been outlined by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie). Paragraphs (a) to (f) and (g) refer to persons attaining the pensionable age, persons suffering from continued ill health, the abolition of the post occupied by the person or a reduction or reorganization of staff; unfitness for duty or incapacity to perform them efficiently; and the promotion of efficiency or economy of the school in question, and lastly a female who marries. I think the Minister must agree that none of these things merit discharge, which means actively to expel a person. One could well ask the Minister why a person cannot be transferred instead of discharged when it is sought to promote efficiency or economy in the school; similarly one might ask the Minister why when a person suffers from ill health, he cannot either be retired or seconded. In all these cases, however, the operative word in the clause is “discharge” and the Minister may only discharge these people. Therefore, Sir, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to paragraph (g) which brings forward the whole position of the married woman, and the reasons why Provincial Administrations still do not grant them permanent status in the teaching profession. In this connection may I draw the Minister’s attention to the Transvaal Education Ordinance, 1953. Nowhere in this Ordinance is the word “discharge” mentioned. That Ordinance contains very much the same provisions as Clause 15 inasmuch as it also makes provision for cases of ill health and cases where people attain the pensionable age, etc., but as far as married women are concerned it is provided·—

She is not discharged right away. I feel that under the provisions of this clause the teacher will have no security whatever. In fact this clause is a reflection on the teacher, at a time when every inducement should be used by the Minister to attract teachers in view of the present shortage. This clause may well prove a deterrent. Then, Sir, I want to draw attention to paragraph (f), which I should like to be deleted entirely in terms of my amendment. The Minister and his Department are already fully covered by the misconduct clause, Clause 16, which explicitly defines misconduct. I think that if there is to be any termination of a teacher’s services under Clause 15, it should be a matter of negotiation between the teacher and the Minister’s Department but as the clause is worded at present that is not the position. The general meaning in this Clause 15 are personal situations. It is not misconduct. It has nothing whatever to do with professional work or misconduct. It is therefore to my mind unnecessary to bring in disciplinary measures regarding that aspect at all under this clause because they are already fully covered. Misconduct is already fully covered under Clause 16, governed by the provisions of Clause 17. In Clause 16, read in conjunction with Clause 17, which deals with the procedure to be followed in case of misconduct, the definition of misconduct is already there. If the present wording is accepted I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is inappropriate in this clause. It is for these reasons that I ask for its omission.

The Minister is assuming provincial responsibilities and powers by transferring Coloured Education to the Department of Coloured Affairs. Once he undertakes this responsibility I feel he must also assume the guarantees that the province has given to its employees. It is for this reason that I am asking for this amendment of three portions of Clause 15. The hon. the Minister himself in an earlier portion of this Bill already uses the words “promote, transfer, or discharge” in 8 (2). This shows that we could adopt the same principle and also eliminate this word “discharge” in Clause 15.

I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to the terminology which has been used. The word “discharge” has a very harsh connotation which does not apply to many of the grounds which are enumerated in the clause. I think the word “retirement” would be a more suitable one. I do not agree with the word “transfer”; that is possibly inappropriate. I know perfectly well that the draftsman had before him Section 14 of the Public Service Act (54 of 1957) when he drafted this provision. The word “discharge” is also used there but use is also made of the word “retirement” “af-danking” and “aftreding” which I think are more suitable than “discharge” or “ontslaan”.

However, Sir, I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

Sub-paragraph (e) of the clause will then read that the individual can be discharged “if in the opinion of the Minister, after an inquiry by the Public Service Commission, it will promote efficiency or economy in the school in question The clause itself sets out a list of grounds on which a teacher can be retired or discharged from the service of the Department. Some of the grounds set out are quite straightforward and are factual. They therefore call for no particular safeguards. The question of whether a man has reached the age of retirement or whether the individual has got married or whether the person is in a state of continued ill health are all factual matters. But many of the others are based on opinion. There can be a discharge from the Public Service on the ground of the abolition of the post or reduction or reorganization or rearrangement of the staff. That presupposes, however, that there will be an investigation by the Public Service Commission because under 8 (1) the establishment of the school is determined on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. One assumes, therefore, that there will be no abolition of office or rearrangement unless the Public Service Commission has made a recommendation to that effect. In regard to some of the other grounds where it is a question of opinion there is an inquiry, for example, if it is a question of misconduct there is an inquiry which will determine the factual situation.

But in regard to sub-paragraph (e), the one I am dealing with, it is based entirely on the opinion of a single individual. Because it means that if in the opinion of the Minister the discharge of the teacher will promote efficiency or economy in a school he can be discharged. That is the reason why I have moved my amendment to ensure that there will be an inquiry before this right of discharge is exercised. I used the words “inquiry by the Public Service” because it is obviously a case where the individual must be heard. He must be heard before any decision is made as to whether his discharge will promote efficiency or economy. I think this is a reasonable request, Sir. The Public Service Commission is being made part of the system of administration in so far as the establishment of posts is concerned and here is an appropriate instance where its service can also be used to inquire as to whether the terms of sub-paragraph (e) necessitate action by the Minister in discharging the individual concerned.

I am fully aware that a provision of that nature can be found in the Public Service Act. But we have progressed a further stage by now. There are inherent dangers where a teachers can be discharged on opinion. The only recourse the individual has in that case is, of course, to the courts. And we are dealing with people whom, I do not think, should be placed in the position of having to go to court as to whether they were properly discharged or not. Once you accept the amendment, Sir, of having an inquiry I think you will remove all danger which is inherent in the opinion of a single individual. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

I shall be very brief, Sir. I merely wish to pursue the argument which I advanced when I moved the amendment standing in my name. I was referring to the fact that the ordinary meaning of “discharge” carries with it some sort of connotation of improper or unlawful conduct. I think that that is quite clearly so. If you speak of “discharge” you understand by that “sacking”.

Can a person not be discharged at his own request?

That is a termination of services at his own request. It is not correct to speak of a termination of services or a result of a request of that sort as a discharge. It is necessary to use the appropriate word. The point I am making is that it is not merely a play on words, because the word “discharge” carries with it this stigma.

What other word can you use in regard to paragraph (f)?

I shall deal with (f) in the course of my argument. If I have not dealt with it sufficiently I am quite prepared to answer the hon. member’s question. I have dealt with the ordinary meaning of the word “discharge” in English. I want to draw attention to the word used in Afrikaans which is “ontslaan”. I suggest that that word also carries with it the same stigma as the English word “discharge”.

“Afdanking” is just as bad.

In this regard I would point out that in the clause which deals with the course to be taken where a person has been found guilty of misconduct, one of the courses open to the Minister, as I have already stated, is discharge and the Afrikaans word is “ontslaan”. I suggest that both these words carry with them the stigma of “sacking” because of improper or wrongful conduct. I suggest. Mr. Chairman, that in any event, even if some people, as the hon. member suggests, do not regard these words as having the stigma which I have suggested, I submit that it is unjust that the person who has attained pensionable age or the person who suffers from continual ill health or, in the case of a female, if she remarries, should be subjected to the same course of action as the person who is found guilty of misconduct in terms of this Bill. May I point out that that misconduct can be of a serious nature.

If the amendment which I have moved is accepted by the hon. the Minister it is quite clear that certain consequential amendments will have to be made to Clause 15 (1). Firstly in regard to sub-section (f) which is the subsection referred to by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe). I conceded initially that where there has been misconduct it is appropriate that the penalty should be one of discharge; or let me put it this way, that the Minister should have the power to discharge such an employee. But I submit that the Minister’s right to do that will be completely covered if sub-section (f) is deleted altogether. He has that power of discharge given to him in Clause 17 (23) (e). That clause read with Clause 25 (a) and (c) particularly, gives him that power. The Minister has the power under those clauses to discharge in the case of misconduct. So it is purely repetitive and quite unnecessary to have sub-clause (f) included in Clause 15 (1). My suggestion would be that we delete sub-section (if). The other consequential amendment which would be required is an amendment of the word “discharge” in sub-section (3), line 58. That would have to be amended appropriately. I am not suggesting an amendment because it is quite obvious what the amendment should be.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to give careful consideration to the arguments advanced to him. I suggest that this is an amendment which is entirely justified.

I wish to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the Bill does not state that the Minister shall discharge a person but that the Minister may. In answer to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), I want to tell her that it will be possible for the Minister to transfer anybody or to second a person when necessary. It will not always be a case that the Minister shall discharge such a person. That will be the exception. We are following the example set in the Vocational Education Act. Section 27 of that Act reads as follows—

1. (a) on account of attaining the pensionable age;
2. (b) in the case of a female, upon her marriage;
3. (c) on account of continued ill health;
4. (d) owing to the abolition of his post or to any reduction in or reorganization or readjustment of the staff of the vocational school or of the part-time class at which he was employed;
5. (e) if, in the opinion of the Minister, his discharge will facilitate improvements in the organization of the vocational school or part-time class at which he is employed by which greater efficiency or economy will be effected;
6. (f) on account of any unfitness or incapacity described in Section 30 or
7. (g) on account of any misconduct defined in Section 28.

So we have followed the example laid down in this Vocational Education Act. I am informed that there are ordinances—I have no examples with me—where we have the same example. I am also informed that the Civil Service Act provides for the same thing. In any case we are in good company.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). But the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has impressed me with his arguments. I think that certain steps should be taken to ensure that there is some form or other of investigation before a person is discharged for misconduct. I do not see my way clear to-day to say that this should be at the request of or after an investigation by the Civil Service Commission. I first have to consult the Commissioner to ascertain whether it is practicable. I undertake, however, to take up this matter with the Civil Service Commission and I shall try to move an amendment in the Other Place that will perhaps satisfy the hon. member. But I am sorry that I cannot accept the other two amendments.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has taken that step because I was going to point out to him that as paragraph (e) reads at the moment, no provision is made for an inouiry or an investigation or the procedure. The position in all education departments is this: A report is submitted by an inspector and then an inquiry is held usually by an inspector or a board of inspectors. The teacher appears: his evidence is recorded and that evidence then goes before the Director.

That brings me to my second point which comes under sub-section (2): a teacher may not be absent without the permission of the secretary or the head of the governing body. I said under Clause 2 that I thought the Minister would be wise, in his organization of his Department, to make that official under Clause 2 the head of the Department. Why should the Secretary for Coloured Affairs be concerned with a teacher being absent from his post? That is surely not the role of a Secretary of Coloured Affairs: He has a large Department under him. I therefore suggest that this officer referred to in sub-clause (2) should be called a director or a superintendent and that the appeal should be to him. He should have direct access to the Minister, if necessary. I refer to provincial government in South Africa. The Provincial Secretary does not control the Director of Education or the Superintendent of Education. He has direct access to the Administrator. I think the hon. the Minister would be well advised if he were to accept that organization. He will find this secretary referred to in sub-clause (2) again referred to in Clauses 16 and 17 when we come to them.

There are two aspects of this clause that disturb me. It is obvious that when a person has reached pensionable age, is in continual bad health, is unable to perform his duties or is guilty of misconduct, his services can no longer be retained. But it is going too far when in terms of paragraph (1) (c) a person can be dismissed because of “reorganization of staff”. In terms of paragraph (e) which will now be changed if the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is adopted, he can be dismissed on the grounds of “economy in the school”, That is going very far indeed. This gives the hon. the Minister the power to dismiss a person for any trivial reason if he wants to get rid of him.

We are following the example set us.

But it is still wrong. The hon. the Minister can dismiss a person for any trivial reason and then use as his excuse the fact that he has reorganized the staff. Or else the hon. the Minister can say that he wants to economize for some reason or other and dismiss a person on those grounds.

Did you not hear what I told the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South)?

Quite correct, but there are two aspects of the matter. It is not only paragraph (e) that has to be improved but paragraph (c) as well, which deals with “reorganization”, What does “reorganization” actually mean? As things stand, the hon. the Minister can dismiss a man in order ostensibly to economize and then “economy” becomes a reason for that person’s dismissal. The same thing holds good in regard to reorganisation. He can dismiss a man because he wants ostensibly to reorganize, and then “reorganisation” becomes the reason for that man’s dismissal. That is going too far and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to amend paragraph (c) in the same way as he has undertaken to amend paragraph (e).

We must remember that the intelligentia amongst the Coloureds have largely to depend on education for their livelihood. There are not yet so many other posts available to them that they can apply for those posts in large numbers. And it would be an injustice if they were not even able to feel secure in education.

I am glad that the Minister has accepted the principle of my amendment that there should be adequate inquiry and a hearing of the individual concerned. I particularly brought in the Public Service Commission for the reasons which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has just mentioned. There is a safeguard, in so far as paragraph (c) is concerned, because the Public Service Commission has to make recommendations in regard to the establishment of the School Council. That was the reason why I also brought in the Public Service Commission under paragraph (e). If, however, there is to be some further change I think there is validity in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to it. In view of the Minister’s undertaking, which I naturally accept, I shall with the leave of the Committee withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman withdrawn.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider Clause 15 (1) (g). As this clause stands at the moment, if a Coloured female marries the Minister may discharge her. On the face of it that appears to be rather drastic. The Minister knows that one of the avenues of employment mostly open to Coloured people, both male and female, is the teaching profession. There is a considerable number of Coloured women who are taking up the teaching profession. It seems rather harsh that this should hang over their heads that as soon as they marry they will be discharged.

That also applies to Europeans.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) must realize that we are trying to fight for a principle in regard to the Coloured people. Coloured women find it much more difficult to obtain employment than the European women. I repeat and emphasize that the avenue of employment for Coloured people is mainly the teaching profession.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to amend this clause so that it will provide that if a person marries without prior notice to the Minister she can be discharged. But if she gives notice the Minister can place her—as I believe is done in other provinces— on the temporary staff rather than lose her services because she has done what is the wish of every woman and that is to get married. I should like the Minister to assure the young girls who take up the teaching profession that they will not automatically be discharged when they get married but that there is a hope that they will be placed on the temporary staff.

In order to implement their earnings you often find to-day that a male and female teacher marry. Their combined income then assures them of a decent standard of living. This provision will militate against young girls taking up the teaching profession.

You are now arguing on the basis that they will all be discharged.

No, I did not say that. That makes it all the worse; some will be discharged and others will not. I do not know whom the Minister will allow to remain and whom he will not.

I suggest that the hon. the Minister change the clause so that it provides for notice to be given to the Minister in which case the Minister may put such a person on the temporary staff. I make that appeal to the Minister in the interests of the many Coloured girls who feel that the teaching profession is one worthy to be followed and that it should not be a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in case they do get married.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has accepted the underlying idea of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). We appreciate that. I think that is the first amendment he has accepted, in principle anyway. The amendment which seeks to eliminate this word “discharge” is after all no more than a textual amendment. It is not going to deprive the Minister of any power. He can only point to the fact that in another piece of legislation that word was used. I think he should reconsider his attitude in regard to that amendment as well. I want to put this to the Minister that it does not follow that merely because a draftsman used a word in an Act 30 or 20 years ago which was accepted by Parliament as being correct that we should accept it as being correct to-day. Thoughts change and so does the use of words. The Minister knows that. We find that particularly in Afrikaans. It is a growing, living language. I suggest that he should reconsider this particular amendment. I think the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has made out a very good case. The only other point I want to raise is the question of (f) of sub-section (1). The Minister, I think was heard to say that he must have the power to discharge somebody for misconduct. There has been no argument against that. But oddly enough, this question of misconduct and the consequences flowing from it takes up more space in this Bill than anything else. It runs to 4½ pages, the detailed misconduct which can bring a person in the Department into difficulties, and the consequences flowing from it. Four-anda-half pages, and in respect of all included in those 4½ pages, the Minister has the power to discharge. The Minister has in the Bill all the powers he wants, and therefore it seems that it is unnecessary to bring in this particular paragraph (f), where the Minister wishes to terminate the services of somebody on account of misconduct as defined in Section 16. It imports something into this particular clause which should not be there, and which need not be there. As the hon. Minister halfway through the discussions of this particular Bill seems to have come to a more reasonable frame of mind, I ask him to consider those two amendments in the same way that he did consider the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

I also want to plead with the hon. Minister to reconsider his attitude either to the amendment which I have moved, or to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). I appreciate the point which the hon. Minister made, viz., that the word in the clause is “may” and not “shall in other words, the Minister will have a discretion. But the point that I made was that in the majority of the instances set out in sub-clauses (a) to (g) it is entirely inappropriate that the persons concerned should be discharged. In other words, the Minister ought not to have the power to discharge at all in these instances. That is the point I made. I do not wish to go again over the arguments which I advanced, but if the Minister has the power to terminate the services of these persons, or to retire them, or to transfer them, he has an appropriate and satisfactory remedy in each of these instances, except for (f) which I dealt with separately. I pointed out that he already has that power in a subsequent clause. Sir, the argument that there is a similar provision in some other law, I suggest is not a good one.

It has worked well.

With respect to the hon. Minister, one does not know whether it worked well or not, because one is not likely to hear of these instances in any case. It may have worked well because it was not put into operation at all! Mr. Chairman, I submit it is a bad Drovision for the reasons I have already given, and I submit that bad provisions should not be perpetuated in new legislation merely because they happen to have been included in legislation which has previously gone through this House. I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude, and if he will not do it to-day, perhaps he will reconsider the position before the Committee Stage in the Senate.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

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

In the Bill the clause says that a person shall be guilty of misconduct if “he commits an offence Now one cannot commit an offence without offending against something. What kind of an offence is it? It has been suggested in the amendment that it should be stated in this way: “he commits a criminal offence”, because if he commits an offence, he offends against some code, or against some rules, or some regulations of the Department. To leave it as it is now, is quite meaningless. In the Afrikaans it says “’n misdryf pleeg”, in other words he is guilty of a misdemeanour, or of misbehaviour. But he cannot be guilty of misdemeanour unless you state what the code of conduct is, and he cannot he guilty of misbehaviour unless we say what is the code of correct behaviour. Therefore I think this must be defined more closely.

I want in the first place to support the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I think that the hon. the Minister will also find that in regard to Coloured education in the Cape Education Ordinance, where misconduct is defined, it is stated that such misconduct must be a “criminal” offence and not merely an ordinary offence. I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (g) he uses his position as a teacher to further private or party-political aims or to encourage disobedience to or resistance against the laws of the State;

We also find a precedent for this amendment in the Cape Provincial Education Ordinance— I think in Section 162. When the ordinance was passed in 1956, this was one of the matters considered by the council, and that section in the Cape Education Ordinance worked very well indeed. I simply cannot understand why the hon. the Minister has to go so far in Clause 16 as to seek to deprive these people of membership of any party organization or of any other organization that the Minister by notice in the Gazette declares to be an organization to which they may not belong. I think that that is going very far indeed. What are these other organizations?

Poqo.

Yes, it may mean Poqo, but it may also mean Tepa or it may mean some teachers’ union or other to which teachers may not belong simply because the hon. the Minister considers that organization to have some or other political aim. If we accept this amendment “if he uses his position as a teacher to further private or party-political aims”, it simply means that such a person will be able to belong to a body of this nature but that he may not abuse his work for party-political purposes as a teacher when teaching his class. But why should the hon. the Minister now interfere in the private life of the teacher? If such a person abuses his position as a teacher in school and in the classroom—well, let action be taken against him. That man will then be guilty of misconduct. That was the attitude of the Cape Provincial Council and it was a fair attitude. But now, in terms of the proposal of the hon. the Minister, such a person may not be a member of a party, a party-political organization or of any other organization. Paragraph 16 (b) can really be abused and the freedom which those teachers ought to enjoy can be interfered with. There is one thing that we must understand and that is that if there is one person to whom the Coloureds look for guidance, it is the Coloured teacher.

Is that not sufficient reason why he should not be allowed to abuse his position?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, if that person abuses his position in the classroom and is guilty of indoctrination, let action be taken agains him because then he will be guilty of misconduct. But action must be taken against him in terms of these provisions if he is a member of a party-political organization. He may be a member of that organization and a person who never abuses his position as a teacher so why should he be prevented from being a member of that organization?

Does the hon. member feel that such person is only a teacher while in the classroom?

I think that any teacher whether he be Coloured or White who is worthy of the name of teacher will at all times, either in the classroom or in public, remember that he is one of the most important people in the community.

You are not answering my question.

I am not as suspicious as the hon. member for Prieska, so suspicious that simply because a man is a member of a political organization is sufficient reason for assuming that he will abuse his position as teacher. I want to put a question now to the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden). In 1956 he voted in the Provincial Council for the principle contained in the amendment that I have just moved.

And you voted against it.

The hon. member says that I voted against it but he should read the Minutes of the Provincial Council. The hon. member for Prieska was satisfied with it then but is not satisfied with it now. He now wants to go very much further than he was prepared to go in 1956. No, I think that the hon. the Minister must remember that if there are teachers who abuse their positions as teachers for private purposes or for party-political purposes, or if they are insubordinate or oppose the laws of the State, or if they encourage insubordination, such persons are guilty of misconduct. But I do not think that they should be penalized simply because they are members of a party-political organization or of any organization which in the opinion of the Minister may be a harmful organization. I think that the amendment moved by this side of the House will adequately protect education if there is an element of this kind which seeks to abuse its position, but at the same time it will also give the Coloured teachers the maximum amount of freedom within the laws of our country. I think we ought to realize that those people are also asked to give guidance from time to time, to attend discussions where it is often necessary for them to express opinions in regard to certain political matter. Why should they not be allowed to do so? The Government tells us to-day that there is a better relationship between the Government and the Coloureds and we know that the Government would like to encourage that relationship. How can one encourage that feeling if one does not permit these people to air their opinions from time to time? Why should there be interference in the private lives of these people? We are not interested in what the man does at 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon when he goes home.

Good heavens!

I want the hon. member to read our amendment. It states: “He uses his position as a teacher to further private party-political aims or to encourage disobedience to or resistance against the laws of the State”. What can be clearer than that? The hon. member must not say that I am suggesting that these people should be permitted to terrorize the country or to engage in all kinds of subversive activities. That is not the intention of this side of the House. I have already said that we must give them the maximum amount of freedom within the framework of the laws of our country without our jeopardizing the State in any way at all or without our jeopardizing good race relations in South Africa in any way.

The hon. member has moved part of the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. So I will not move the second half of my amendment, but I move the first half as follows—

1. (f) he propagates any idea or takes part in or identifies himself with any propaganda or activity or acts in a manner calculated to impede, obstruct or undermine the activities of any department of the State.

This reinstates the position as it exists in the Cape Provincial Ordinance. In other words, I want to omit the vastly extended Clause (f), which the hon. Minister proposes to substitute for the existing paragraph in the misconduct clause of the Cape Province Ordinance. I believe that the existing clause goes quite far enough and gives the Minister all the powers he requires to discharge anybody who takes undue advantage of his position as a teacher, and in any way undermines the authority of the State. But the proposed paragraph which the hon. Minister wishes to substitute goes so much further that it gives the Minister enormous powers over anybody who criticises the administration of any department, office or institution of the State at a meeting convened by an association … etc. These are very vast powers indeed, It means that any Coloured teacher who goes to a meeting organized, shall we say for the purpose of the Group Areas Act, even if he is a Coloured person who is likely to be dispossessed of his possessions or removed from his home under the Group Areas Act, and he takes part in such a meeting and publicly criticizes the administration of any Department, office or institution of the State, then such a teacher can be discharged from the Education Department on the ground of misconduct. I believe it is going far too far, and I am particularly nervous of it because the hon. Minister has made clear his intention to discharge teachers who in any way criticize the Government. He went a lot further in his reply to the second reading of this debate, if I remember correctly.

Where do you get that nonsense from?

I quoted a statement made by the hon. Minister yesterday when we were discussing this Bill, where he stated that teachers who were opposed to government policy would be dismissed, and the hon. Minister actually stated in his second reading reply, as you will remember, that teachers who took their salary …

You are talking absolute nonsense. I definitely denied having said that.

Will the hon. Minister deny that? Does the hon. Minister mean that he was misquoted? That he at no time threatened that he would discharge teachers who criticize the Government?

Sing your song. I will reply to you.

I will sing my song in a very loud voice. I want to remind the hon. Minister that in his reply to the second reading debate of this particular Bill he adopted a very threatening tone towards teachers who were against the policy of the Government, and he said that if such people “take their cheque” (I think that was the term used by him) from the State, they should not criticize the State, and otherwise they should not accept their monthly cheque.

What about civil servants?

I think the Government really has an impertinence. It completely confuses the Nationalist Government and Nationalist policy with the State. It infers that the only people who contribute towards the coffers of the Government to state officials or teachers, or civil servants, are people who support the Government’s policies, and this is so far from the truth that it is really ludicrous. The hon. Minister must realize that he is not in fact the State, that he is a Minister who has been duly elected, that the Treasury gets its funds from all the taxpayers of this country, and therefore civil servants are entitled to criticize the Government. They are certainly not entitled to undermine the authority of the State, but to carry it so far as to threaten with dismissal a Coloured teacher who attends a meeting or who in any way criticizes any department of the State, is carrying this to an authoritarian degree which no other democratic country in the world would tolerate. Therefore I have the strongest objection to the inclusion of this new paragraph (f) in the misconduct clause, and I move that it be deleted and that it be substituted by the old clause which has worked very well indeed, the old clause in the Cape Provincial Education Ordinance, and the hon. Minister himself quoted the vocational training ordinance and stated that that had worked very well all these years. I therefore say that the hon. Minister should follow his own example there. I want to point out too that teachers were told by Dr. du Plessis—I quote here from the Evening Post of 25 October last year—at a meeting of 300 Coloured school principals and teachers at a conference, that as far as he was concerned any way, “appointments would be based purely on academic merit and if a teacher was anti-C.A.D. that was his own business”. That is the sort of attitude that the hon. Minister should adopt and he should not be putting in threatening clauses of misconduct for political activities or attendance at political meetings where the Government is criticized into this brand new deal for education for the Coloured people.

The hon. member became very excited about the amendment that he moved. Mr. Chairman, the whole basis for this clause rests on Section 28 of the Vocational Education Act of 1955, and I would like to quote this section for the information of the hon. member—

The basis for this section is also contained in the Public Service Act of 1957, paragraph 17 (f), which contains provisions similar to this provision. Mr. Chairman, this section has worked well in regard to education through the years and as far as I know there has never been any objection on the part of teachers in the Department of Education Arts and Science to this section.

In any case, there is a concession in this clause and that is that Coloured teachers can express criticism at a meeting of a recognized association. It goes even further than these two laws that I mentioned. If they criticize, if they express sound and constructive criticism, that will always be welcomed. At a meeting or conference of this nature the main questions discussed will be those affecting education, methods of education, curricula and so forth. There are sufficient aspects for them to discuss and in connection with which they can be of service to the Department.

But I want to point out further that at the moment there are 2,000 White teachers falling under the Department of Education, Arts and Science and who are governed by the aforementioned section. There are teachers in the Department of Coloured Affairs itself who are already integrated on that same basis under the Department. I certainly cannot appreciate the argument of the other side or how it can carry any weight.

I want to point out further that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) to a particular section of the Cape Education Ordinance but she did not quote it fully. I want to quote that section to the House. It reads as follows [translation.]—

1. (a) to create or promote hostile feelings on the part of any section of the population of the Republic towards any other section of the population of the Republic.

And then comes the part proposed by the hon. member—

1. (b) to hamper, frustrate or undermine the activities of the Administration or of a State Department.

Why did the hon. member not quote the entire section but only the portion which it suited her to quote?

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

Mr. Chairman, in examining the clause, and particularly sub-clause (g) of Clause 16, I wonder how much thought has been given to the implication of membership of any party-political organization. One can understand the question of an organization which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be an organization of which the person may not be a member, but when he says that a person is a member of a political organization and that then immediately makes him guilty of misconduct, I wonder whether the Minister has used his common sense. I want to give one example. Assuming a teacher is a member of the Council for Coloured Affairs, does the Minister say that that Council is non-political, in other words that it is a body without any politics, because if so I think that in his reply he should make it clear that in that particular case he will not say that if a teacher is a member of that body he is therefore a member of a political organization and is therefore guilty of misconduct. It is merely in order to reduce this to the absurdity which we on this side regard it to be, that I have brought this one example to the notice of the Minister.

You are looking for poison in the honey-pot.

The fact is that only the Minister knows at any given time what he will define as a party-political organization, and I hope he will not take refuge behind the use of the word “party” with a hyphen betwen it and the next word “political”, because it does not follow that a certain body which is constituted in such a way that it is not directly under the control of a political party is not party-political in so far as certain of its members of this apparently non-party-political body are or could become members of political parties, and in fact it is possible that the majority of the members of such a body could be affiliated or be subservient to a political party. I am trying to state this as briefly as possible. When the Minister says that a teacher who is a member of a party-political organization is guilty of misconduct, he is really going to the utmost lengths in order to control the private life of any individual. I think it was on 12 December 1961 in relation to this very concrete example which I have brought to the Minister’s attention, that the Prime Minister, in addressing this same Council for Coloured Affairs, gave them to understand that in that Coloured state—the state within a state— in which there would be a Coloured Parliament, this Council would be the embryo of this Parliament; and have you seen a Parliament with no party politics? I therefore ask that the Minister should give very serious consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), because that would make it clear that regardless of whether or not a person is a member of a political party, he would still be a person against whom the Minister would not seek to bring a charge of misconduct. But if he used his position as a teacher—and that surely is the crux of the matter—to further a party-political aim, it goes without saying that the position becomes completely different. For these reasons we on this side believe that the Minister in the interest of all the persons concerned should accept the amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), in line 75 to omit “an” and to substitute “a criminal”. It comes to the same, but I am prepared to accept it.

*Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that hon. members are so concerned about these provisions but what does surprise me is that they are not consistent. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) gave a very adequate reply before business was suspended. He has proved that no new provision is being introduced because in the Natal Education Ordinance there is the provision that a teacher may not be a member of a political party or participate actively in politics. That has been the principle which for years has also been contained in our Public Service Act. Hon. members are now making a fuss because we are including the same principle in this clause. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) went very much further. She put words into my mouth that I did not use. I pointed out to her that I had the statement before me but she simply went on like Langenhoven’s proverbial wife who always said “perhaps”. These were the words that I used—

I did not mention the National Party or the Government [Interjection.] I am quoting what I said. She makes me think of Solomon, that great man of wisdom of the Jewish people, who said that water dripping on to a roof was easier to bear than a nagging wife. But what did I say further?—

I have the Hansard here.

But I can well understand the hon. member’s concern. Let me tell the hon. member for Houghton that everyone is aware of the activities of the party to which she belongs and the trouble that they create in inciting communities to unrest. Everyone is aware of that and everyone knows to what extremes that party will go to disturb communities by exercising an influence over the schools. My attitude is this. I have no objection to the Coloured teacher bringing his grievances and his problems to the notice of the authorities in the proper way and that is why I have taken personal responsibility for having paragraph (f) drawn up. In framing the Bill I specifically directed the attention of the law advisers to the fact that I wanted a situation in which organized teachers would have the opportunity to express criticism within the framework of a recognized body whose aim it was to look after the teachers and of education. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) was quite right in this regard and we are going further than has yet been laid down in most of our other legislation because we state specifically here that “he publicly, otherwise than at a meeting convened by an association or organization recognized by the Minister”—recognized in the sense that one recognizes it as the official organization representing teachers— “As representative of persons contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 15, criticizes the administration of any department, office or institution of the State.” In other words, we are providing that if the teachers are organized in the proper way and act as responsible people, we will not gag them and that within their education association they can approach the Department and the Government with fair criticism. We are giving them that right in a better way than that formulated in any other law in regard to teachers. But the hon. member cannot appreciate that fact. No, she is only interested in promoting the activities of her party.

But we go further and in paragraph (g) we say that he may not be a member of a party-political organization. I contend that it does the Coloured teacher no good at all to be a member of a party-political organization and to strive actively for its aims, and I will tell you why. The greatest drawback in regard to the Coloured people to-day is that the largest professional element in its ranks, the teachers, are not sufficiently capable of participating, or did not adequately participate in the past, in the building up the socio-economic upliftment. and the cultural development of their people and in the other activities that occupy the time of a teacher and in regard to which they can mean the world to their own section of the population. There is an element amongst the Coloured people who imagine that they can be paid by the State but that at the same time they can use their weekends to travel around the country making political propaganda and creating a great deal of unrest. Let me give an example of what I mean. Tepa was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher). Tepa was an organization which was actually opposed to the attitude adopted by the T.L.S.A. a number of years ago because Tepa believed that it should confine its activities to those things which could promote Coloured education. But what happened? Tepa became more and more influenced by people who regarded that organization as a platform from which to demonstrate their cleverness and from which to say best what they wanted to say. Sir, I attended the Tepa congress and I was treated very well by the teachers but while I was their guest the chairman of Tepa went out of his way to embarrass me as much as he possibly could, not in regard to education matters, not in regard to the cultural interests of the Coloured, not in regard to their socio-economic needs, but from a political point of view he treated me in a way in which no decent person would treat a guest. And what happened? I told him at the time that Tepa would be led astray. What happened then? Because of their own irresponsibility—it had nothing to do with me— they took Tepa so far that a little while ago the Administrator of the Cape said that he could no longer recognize Tepa as a teachers’ association because it was doing everything but what was expected of it. Now Tepa is being held up as an example. I contend that in terms of sub-section (11) we are giving responsible teachers the opportunity to organize and to express in a responsible way the necessary criticism in regard to the administration of the country as it affects them. That is being permitted here. But what I am not prepared to allow is that the teacher should have the right to be a member of a party-political organization or promote the aims of that organization. Furthermore. I am not prepared to agree to a teacher in the service of the State belonging to organizations which, directly or indirectly, are aimed at undermining the security of the State.

This clause is framed in such a way that there is no doubt about the powers that it makes available for dealing with those elements. I say that there is no danger in this clause for the majority of law-abiding and zealous teachers and they have nothing to fear.

I want to make two further remarks. Firstly, there are Coloured schools to-day that are suffering as a result of the activities of teachers. I am giving my attention to these cases at the moment. The Provincial Administration has already given its attention to these cases but they could not be dealt with under the Provincial Ordinance.

Why did they not amend it?

The hon. member must ask the Provincial Council about that, not me. He could have assisted in that regard when he was there. Secondly, stories are going around the country—and this is fairly general talk—that head-masterships and senior positions can be obtained at schools not on merit but because of the political activities of some of these people. I think that there is sufficient reason for believing those allegations. There is something very suspicious about many of these cases and there are a large number of Coloured teachers who object to this sort of thing. This was one of the grievances raised with the Department during its negotiations with 6,000 or 7,000 Coloured teachers—that these headmasterships and other education posts were obtained under suspicious circumstances and as a result of political action, but this will now be made impossible under the provisions of this clause. I want to tell the teacher who wants to co-operate with the Department and devote his energies to teaching these children and to the cultural and socio-economic upliftment of his people this evening that there is sufficient work for him to do. There is much he can do to organize welfare services, something that they need most. There is a multitude of tasks for him to undertake. We do not prevent his following that path and therefore, with the exception of the one amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, I am not prepared to accept the other amendments.

If the hon. the Minister thinks he can intimidate me and the party I represent by his dark threats in Parliament, he is making a very great mistake. We will go on talking about injustices as long as they exist in this country. And I want to say another thing …

And sabotage.

Of course they say it is sabotage to discuss injustices. The thing is of course that Nationalist Ministers and members of Parliament are now coming to regard any form of criticism as treason or sabotage.

Nonsense.

I want to tell hon. members over there that we will go on exposing injustices just as long as we are able to do so. I want to tell them also that they are under the misapprehension that as long as you do not talk about injustices, as long as they are not made public, no non-White will ever know that he is suffering any hardship or injustice. He will not know about the pass laws and the group areas and poverty wages and malnutrition, and no non-White will even know that such things exist. [Interjections.] That is absolute nonsense. The object in a democratic country is to try to put these things right before things go too far.

Why do you not go to Ghana?

I will stay in this country as long as I want to.

Order! The hon member should address the Chair.

The point I make is that the hon. the Minister omitted to read three very important words when he read out his Hansard speech in reply to the second reading. I stated from memory, and my memory was correct, that when he replied to the second reading he stated that as far as he was concerned he was not going to tolerate criticism of the Government and that people who criticized the Government should not draw their cheques any longer from the Government. [Interjections.] Now I will read out what the Minister actually said, as opposed to what he has just said, and it is very different. This is what he said. He started by saying—

Here he talks about indoctrination, but in the Bill he says “criticize He gives himself the power to discharge teachers who criticize the Government, and as I say, hon members opposite regard the words “criticize” and “sabotage” as synonymous terms, which they are not. He then went on to say, and I am now quoting the exact passage which he quoted a few minutes ago, with the exception of three additional words which change the whole context and interpretation of this—

And then follow the three words which the hon. the Minister omitted to read—

Why did not the Minister read out those three word?

What difference does it make?

It makes all the difference in the world. Reference to “this apartheid institution” immediately insinuates that anyone who is against apartheid or against the apartheid institution of the Nationalist Government has no right to draw his cheque from the State. [Interjection.] I said nothing about a police state. [Interjection.] I do not get my cheque from the Nationalist Government [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh. Since when do they think that the Treasury is the Nationalist Government? This is the most fantastic thing I have ever come across. The Nationalist Party has all of a sudden become the State, the Treasury. I do not, and civil servants do not, and teachers do not get their cheques from the Nationalist Government. They get it from the coffers of the Treasury of the Republic of South Africa, and to the Treasury goes the money of the taxpayers, all taxpayers, including those who are diametrically opposed to the apartheid institution of the Nationalist Government, and the sooner members realize that the better they will understand something about parliamentary government.

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

I have nothing further to say.

If the hon. the Minister has been received at a teachers’ meeting in the manner he described, I think it is an exhibition of very bad manners on the teachers’ part, and they should be reproved. Obviously the chairman did not know how to behave. But I think it is quite wrong for any Minister to say to a professional body: You may not form an association without my permission. If the Minister says that he can ban a teachers’ association, I think he is going very far. The Minister says that some of the teachers have complained that because of political affiliations some teachers have obtained important posts in the Department. But we have been accustomed to that in our White schools. I have seen it happen under my eyes in the Transvaal over and over again, that a man has been appointed to an important post because of his political affiliations. There is nothing new in that, but I think it is deplorable and undesirable. I do not think it is in the interest of the Public Service, but it has happened.

Was your appointment a political one, too?

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members have made comparisons between this regulation in regard to the political activities of Coloured teachers and the ordinances of other provinces. I will read the ordinance of my own province, passed under a Nationalist Party Government, and not under the United Party Government. It is Ordinance No. 29 of 1953. These are the conditions of the employment of teachers—

Not outside the school, but in the school. Those of us who live in the Transvaal and have addressed meetings in the country districts have seen children brought to meetings from high schools. I have seen it. I have addressed such meetings.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is there any other proviso to that clause?

I have read both provisos. The other one is this, that when disciplinary action is taken it is not to be taken in the manner suggested by the Minister in the previous clause.

Read it.

Disciplinary action shall be taken on a complaint from a school board or school committee, and then an investigation is carried out by an inspector. I think if anyone has to ban a teachers’ association, surely the Minister of Justice should do it. He is the expert on banning. He can ban a teachers’ association if it is acting in a manner subversive to the safety of the State. But are we to be told that at a teachers’ meeting, when they meet together, they are not to discuss the laws of the land governing education? Supposing the teachers say: We wish our Coloured children who speak Afrikaans or English to be put in the same school, have they not the right to advocate that? Have they not the right to advocate that the parent should have the right to choose the medium of instruction? I am not saying that is the correct thing, but have they the right to advocate it and to discuss such things at their teachers’ meetings? These are professional men. There are members of this House who have belonged to the teaching profession. Would they have tolerated this? The Minister of Justice tells us from time to time he has consulted the Bar Council. This Minister should do the same thing. If he does not like the teachers’ associations he can speak to the heads and say that he thinks they are going too far. But to say that he is going to ban the association and not allow it to exist is going far too far. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) has given us a first-class amendment which the Minister should accept.

I did not expect a man with the status of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) to try to disguise his arguments as he has just done. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) gave him the opportunity to place all the facts before this House. I have the Transvaal Education Ordinance here. Why did the hon. member not quote it fully?

He is an old rascal.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

I want the hon. member to listen to this. The hon. member quoted paragraph 25 (1) (a) of the Ordinance. When he was asked to read the further proviso, he did not do so. I want to read it. It states—

The hon. member did not read that. But there was something else he did not read either that is of importance here. That is—

That is obvious.

It is no good hon. members laughing. In other words, in the cases where they allow him to become a member, they restrict him so that he cannot take action against the Administrator or his Director of Education. That is important. I also asked the hon. member why he only read the Transvaal Ordinance. I have the Natal Ordinance here which I am sure has the approval of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). In terms of Part II, paragraph 57 (f) which deals with discipline, he may not be a member of a political organization or participate actively in political matters. Now, however, it is a grave offence if I, for good reason, seek to protect the Coloured people against those elements which are not only trying to undermine their education but also to exploit them. And when I want to use the “exemplary” Natal as an example, I am accused of applying oppressive measures!

Let me say this to hon. members: Let them sweep their own doorsteps first; let them start with Jerusalem before they come and preach to us. In conclusion I want to say that I hope that when the hon. member for Kensington again quotes something he will do so in more detail and not try to give this House a false impression.

I have a question which I should like to put to the Minister. Let us cut out the frills and let him indicate whether, to Show his consistency with the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, he will adopt the relevant provisions of the Transvaal Ordinance and insert them here? If he does not want to do that, will he accept the relevant provisions of the Natal Ordinance and put them in this Bill? Here is his chance: he can say that either he will adopt the provisions of the Transvaal Ordinance and include them here, or adopt the United Party provisions of Natal and put them in here.

May I ask you a question?

Oh, no! I am asking the Minister some questions. Let us have a clear “yes” or “no” to what I have asked. The Minister has with approval quoted the Natal regulations; will he then adopt them? If not, will he adopt the regulations introduced by his own party in the Transvaal. The Minister must tell us categorically which he is going to adopt.

As far as the Transvaal teachers, excluding the Coloured teachers, are concerned, the position is that generally speaking, more than 90 per cent of them are not exposed to the same influences to which the Coloured teachers in South Africa are exposed. And the hon. member ought to know that. Do not let us try therefore to make a political point out of this issue. Moreover, he ought to know that the White teacher in South Africa is not at all exposed to the same pressure as that to which the Coloured teacher is exposed.

Just answer my question.

That is why I say that one cannot put the Coloured teachers on a par with a group of the population which is politically mature and which is not exposed to the same pressure and the same influences. That is why I say that for the sake of the Coloureds themselves and for the sake of the Coloured teacher himself he has to be protected against the influences which are enacted in South Africa and which are concentrated particularly on the non-White groups in our country. This measure is directed particularly against those elements. If we only had two political parties like the National Party and the United Party in South Africa and if the Coloured teacher was not exposed to influences which seek to overthrow the authority of the State and to undermine the security of the State, then this measure would probably not be necessary because we would then have to deal with two parties which would choose the constitutional way to achieve their ideals. But there are organizations and parties in South Africa which do not choose the constitutional way. and the hon. member knows that that is so. That then is the difference.

That is why I am not prepared automatically to concede to the Coloured teacher what I am prepared to concede to the White teacher. If I have to choose between the Transvaal and Natal Ordinances in order to maintain law and order in the State and in order to protect the interests of the Coloured teacher, then I choose the Natal Ordinance in my struggle against these influences which seek to overthrow constitutional government. Because I do not want to be misunderstood, I repeat what I said just now—that in my struggle against these undermining influences and the misuse that is made of the Coloured teacher by these influences I prefer the Natal method.

But let me point out at the same time that the Natal Ordinance did of course have a completely different purpose. Its purpose was not to combat subversive elements but to place a damper on the Afrikaner teacher in his cultural aspirations. We have the position here this evening that the hon. member for South Coast is not prepared to make use of what he thought was a good method to muzzle the Afrikaner teacher in order to combat undermining elements in the ranks of the Coloured teachers. That is the hon. member’s dilemma. He was prepared to pass discriminatory legislation giving him the power to act against the Afrikaner teacher but he is not prepared now to give me the same powers to enable me to combat Communism. Let the hon. member for South Coast try to extricate himself from that predicament! I have stated previously in this House that that hon. member always makes me think of Saul, the fighting hero. There is always a duel within him between the Englishman on the one hand and the White man on the other. He finds himself in this predicament this evening that he is prepared to knee-halter the Afrikaner teacher but he is not prepared to do the same thing to the communists who are misusing the Coloured teacher for a purpose that is dangerous to the State.

It is very strange that when the Minister talks about the position in Natal, it is a question of the culture of the Afrikaans-speaking teacher; when, however, he comes to the Coloured teacher, then it is a question of communist influence, not culture! Surely, the Coloured teacher has some culture too?

But I should like to return to this question of my not having quoted the relevant Transvaal Ordinance in full. The position here is obvious. If a teacher decides to stand for Parliament, or for the provincial council, he must resign his position because he has to fight a political campaign. If he is defeated, however, he can apply for reinstatement. That is the obvious thing to do. The other point the Minister made was that if he sat on a city council, or a village council, or a hospital board, and there is an issue between his own employer, i.e. the province, and a contract which is going through, then obviously he must recuse himself. That too is obvious. The only place where, as far as I know, a teacher can carry on as a politician is in South West. When the Minister speaks of a White teacher, or for that matter a White man generally, then the man is a party organizer, but when he speaks of the Coloured man in the same relationship, he is a political agitator. It is only a question of an exchange of terms because he does the same work. I think the Minister will be well-advised to give these Coloured teachers greater freedom. He should take them into his confidence; do the big thing. It is quite impossible for the Minister to say to 12,000 teachers in a Department which will be bigger than the Education Department of the Cape, Free State or Natal, that they are going to be kept in that position for ever. The sooner the Minister realizes that, the better it will be for himself and his Department.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) Mr. Streicher) has moved an amendment the praises of which have been sung by hon. members on the other side. In 1956, when the consolidated Education Ordinance was before the Cape Provincial Council, that hon. member was also a member of the Provincial Council. As such, he voted against the second reading of that Ordinance. Various amendments were moved to the Ordinance and his name appears as having opposed everything that was adopted. Their amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Ordinance, the amendment for which the hon. member voted, contained amongst other things the following points—

1. (3) That certain provisions of the teachers’ disciplinary code are objectionable.

For White teachers.

The fourth point stated—

1. (4) That the procedure governing misconduct is discriminatory whereas it should be the same for all teachers.

The hon. member thought that in respect of (3) he would get away with it by saying that it only referred to Whites. That is the first string of the fiddle but here we have the second string. We were not ashamed to say at the time that disciplinary measures had to be taken against certain Coloured teachers and certain Coloured teachers’ organizations. But what did the hon. member do at the time? His attitude was that it was “discriminatory” and that there should be no discrimination between White and non-White.

The curtain behind which the United Party is hiding is certainly a very flimsy one. I voted for that clause of the Cape Ordinance. We considered then that the measures that we were taking would be effective. Indeed, they were adequate enough at that time. These provisions worked well for some time. Under the circumstances of to-day, however, they are obsolete. At that time, we did not have a Progressive Party amongst other things; we did not have such an active Liberal Party as is the case to-day and we did not have a Poqo then. Times have changed and by means of their amendment the United Party is seeking to achieve one thing and one thing only.

It must be remembered that the United Party can no longer win the vote of the Coloured— they cannot have this in mind—nor can they hope to win more White votes. Actually, they are driving more White voters away from them. That is why I think that they are trying to achieve only one thing and that is to influence world opinion against South Africa. They have already stirred up world opinion against South Africa as far as the Black man is concerned and now they want to do so as far as the Coloured is concerned too.

The hon. the Minister and his Department are winning the goodwill of the Coloureds and are creating good relationships between the Whites and the Coloureds in South Africa. The United Party would very much like to hamper that work. As was the case in 1956, they are again saying now that this particular provision is discriminatory. It remains a fact, however, that the White teachers under the Department of Education, Arts and Science are dealt with on precisely the same basis— as public servants. What is more, the disciplinary code in regard to them is far more strict than that in regard to provincial teachers. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) tried to be very clever by asking certain questions, but the hon. the Minister answered his questions in full. I want to ask the hon. member which Ordinance he would choose if he had to choose between the Ordinance of the Transvaal and that of Natal? The Natal Ordinance is the work of that hon. member himself. But he did not make it for the Coloureds; he made it for the White Afrikaner. Now it is up to the hon. member to make his choice. The hon. the Minister has made his choice; he has answered the hon. member’s question Now it is the turn of the hon. member for South Coast. He must stand up now and tell us what his choice for the Coloured teacher is. He used certain methods against the White Afrikaner. What will be his methods in regard to the Coloured teacher?

The hon. the Minister must pardon me if I discuss this clause as I think and feel. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is one of the most reasonable amendments that has been moved during the discussion of this Bill. Its effect is to prevent a teacher from making use of his position as a teacher for political purposes inside or outside the classroom, or for purposes which may be harmful to the State. In contrast to this, the statements of the hon. Minister in connection with communist activities are completely irrelevant because there are more than enough other laws to combat this evil. This therefore is something that he has dragged into the discussion and which is not relevant here at all.

The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) covers the whole field of subversive political activities and of the abuse by a teacher of his position as such. As this clause is presently framed, however, it is in my opinion a shocking and oppressive piece of legislation. Indeed, I can call it by no other name than the “intimidation clause As the clause stands at present, it prevents a person from playing even an inactive role in a political party. The clause further lays down that a teacher is guilty of misconduct if he expresses public criticism of the administration of a Department, office or institution of the State. Therefore he may not even criticize the services of a State hospital. It is reasonable to expect a person not to oppose the laws of a country but here he may not even criticize the implementation or administration of a law.

Worst of all are the provisions contained in paragraph 16 (b). There it is provided that a teacher shall be guilty of misconduct if he closes his eyes—if he merely stands impartial—to somebody else doing

If a teacher, for example, is threatened with eviction from his house under the Group Areas Act, in terms of this provision he may not even call his neighbours together to pass criticism of the particular step concerned. He will not even be able to do that. If ever there was an unfair, oppressive, unjust and intimidating provision, it is this one. I can understand that a person should not be permitted to oppose the laws of the country. He must, however, have the right to criticize the administration of a law, but here we have the position where a person may not even express criticism of the administration of laws. That is why we have the right to object most strongly to this provision.

One of the first results of this provision is going to be that a great deal of tension is going to be created amongst the Coloureds because there will be one witch-hunt after the other; there will be people seeking the favour of the Minister; there will be people currying the favour of the Department, and one piece of gossip after another will be dug up about teachers. This therefore will create tension amongst the teachers, which in its turn will have an unfavourable effect upon the White man and upon the Department.

It is no secret that I am sympathetically disposed towards the struggle for freedom of the Coloured and I will do everything in my power to help the Coloured to become a free man in his own country, free of oppressive laws and free of the humiliation caused to his human dignity because of apartheid. One can create social economic progress for the Coloured; one can give him a home; one can give him all the education one likes, but one will not be able to make a human being of him until he is a free man. Freedom is the beginning of human dignity and until he has obtained that all the other so-called uplifting steps of the Minister will not help at all. The philosophy of democracy is based on the fact that criticism of the Government and Government institutions is beneficial to and salutary for the State. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition even receives an extra allowance because he is the Leader of the Opposition of the Government. It is part of the philosophy of democracy that criticism of the administration of the State is beneficial.

This Government, however, is moving further and further away from that philosophy and is adopting the attitude that criticism of the administration of the Government is unwholesome and detrimental to the State. It misses no opportunity for restricting criticism in spheres in which it considers that criticism will be effective. The Coloured teacher is the leader in his community; he is the political cultural leader in his community. This clause reminds me of the action of conquerors because the first thing that they do after having conquered a country is to restrict the movements of the political cultural leaders. When I cast my mind back to the history of the Afrikaner I find that in the most difficult days it was the Afrikaner teacher who was the cultural-political leader of the Afrikaner. That is why I am sorry that an Afrikaner like the hon. the Minister has to be the man to restrict the cultural striving and the striving for freedom of the Coloured in this way. He has attacked the hon. member for South Coast, saying that the Natal Ordinance was intended to muzzle the cultural striving of the Afrikaner teacher and to throttle him. If he believes that, then I say that he has now put his cards on the table because it is by means of this clause that he seeks to muzzle the cultural striving of the Coloured teacher.

I want to conclude by saying that I resent a remark made by the hon. the Minister. It is stated time and again that the Coloured must accept apartheid and that if he does so he will receive, to the same extent, everything that the White man has, but just in his own area. The hollowness and farce of that statement has been exposed this evening. The Coloured is now going to have his own separate education, but even within that framework the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give the Coloured what he has promised him—that if he accepts apartheid, he will receive exactly the same treatment as the White man. If the Minister wants the Coloured to accept apartheid, he must be honest and give the Coloured the same freedom and treatment in his area as the White man has in his. Until he does so, the promises made by the Government in this connection stand revealed as hollow promises without substance.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a few very reckless things. He proclaimed himself to be amongst other things the champion of the freedom of the Coloureds. Let me tell him that his type of friendship is the cause of the gulf between the Coloured and the White man in this country. His struggle for the freedom of the Coloured simply consists of continually telling the Coloured how unjustly he is being treated. If that hon. member wants to draw comparisons or pat himself on the back, I would like to point out to him that what I have done for the Coloureds over the past four years he would not be able to do in his entire lifetime. We are uplifting the Coloured people from the bottom up and we are giving them a sense of human dignity. Therefore, the question of good relationships with the Coloureds is not relevant here.

The second point the hon. member mentioned was that I should give the Coloured teacher what I am prepared to give to the White teacher. But that is what I am doing. I am giving the Coloured teacher the same rights as his White equivalent receives in my Department. My Department is still administering special schools, technical schools, industrial schools, reformatories and so forth and the White teachers at those institutions have no more rights than the Coloured teachers. They not only enjoy the same rights but they are also subject to the same restrictions. And what is more, they are under the same restrictions imposed upon teachers in the Department of Education.

But things are not that bad.

Of course! In paragraph (f) we are giving the Coloured teacher the right to establish an official organization through the medium of which he can express his just criticism and dissatisfaction. This paragraph reads as follows—

Let me tell the hon. member something that he does not know. When this paragraph was drafted, it was worded more strongly. I then told the law adviser that provision would have to be made for a lawful channel by means of which a teacher could express his criticism if he was dissatisfied with the actions of a Department affecting him as a teacher. On my request therefore the present wording was substituted.

The hon. member made a great fuss here. It is far nicer to make a fuss than to shoulder responsibility. The hon. member said that I dragged in Communism just as an afterthought. That is not true. I know what I am talking about and I want to tell the hon. member that there are elements who are undermining Coloured education by their actions. The hon. member must take my word for it. The strictest measures must therefore be taken to maintain order in the schools concerned. This is necessary because a great deal of pressure is sometimes brought to bear upon teachers from outside and this leads to teachers using their schools for other purposes. It is necessary therefore that machinery of this nature should be available to deal with this sort of thing.

The hon. member for Kensington objected strenuously to the fact that only the Minister can recognize an organization of this nature. But let us look at what has happened in practice under the Provincial Administration. In the Cape for example the Administrator is the one to decide whether an organition to which Coloured teachers can belong shall be recognized. What is recognition and what is meant by it? It means that one makes facilities available to an organization of this nature to arrange stop-orders for its members and to perform other services. That is what is included in the term “recognition I am sure that the hon. member would not like me to permit every mushroom organization which springs up amongst the teachers to make use of all these facilities whether such organization is well-disposed towards the Department or not. Recognition is only given to an orderly and responsible organization. Such recognition is also not subject to the whims of a despotic Minister; it is not a question of the wishes and desires of a Minster as long as the facilities of administration are only made available to an organization which conducts itself in such a way that such a step is justified. The hon. member is a former teacher and ought to know about the facilities which a Department makes available to an organization of this nature. Has he forgotten his past in that he resents my talking about recognition?

I hope that this matter will now be discussed calmly and that it will be considered on its own merits. The teacher who wants to look after the cultural affairs of his people, the man who wants to assist in building up the welfare services of his group and the man who wants to assist the social strivings of his community, is safe under these provisions. And the teacher who wants to enter politics will be enabled to do so just like the White teacher who wants to enter politics. We will give him that opportunity.

The Union Council was referred to here. Why are hon. members concerned about the attitude of the Coloured teachers in regard to the Union Council? Hon. members did not have a good word to say for the Union Council two years ago. At that stage they were “stooges at that stage they were a group of hangers-on appointed by this Government. This Union Council has suddenly become a flower, the fragrance of which the United Party want to enjoy from morning till night. The teacher who wants to become a member of the Union Council will be enabled to do so in the manner which we will prescribe in this Department when the Union Council is reorganized. Hon. members need not be concerned about this Union Council. It is not their creation; they condemned it. They need not try to protect it now.

The hon. the Minister told us at some or other stage in his speech that he did not have very much confidence in an organization like Tepa. The hon. the Minister tried to create the impression that this was one of the organizations of which he would not like a Coloured teacher to be a member. But Mr. Chairman, I hope you will permit me to quote to you what was written in the Burger last year on the occasion of the Tepa congress at Paarl—

This was on 19 September last year—

I also have a cutting here from the Banier. The hon. the Minister knows the Banier very well. It is a newspaper for the Coloureds. They say: “Future policy of Tepa: Statement by General Committee.” If the hon. the Minister would like me to quote this to him I will do so. The point that I want to make is this: This shows us how dangerous this clause of the hon. the Minister will be if it is left as it is. Here we have an organization which states that it is prepared to co-operate for the sake of the Coloured child in spite of the fact that it was originally opposed to the transfer of Coloured education. And now the hon. the Minister accuses that organization of being the type of organization that is subject to foreign and hostile influences.

Do you know that that organization is still a member of the Unity Front?

Unity Front? The only front that I know of is the “United Front”. Here we have the position where the hon. the Minister tells an organization which indicates its willingness to co-operate that it is a dangerous organization. If this sort of thing happens in the case of an organization which indicates that it is prepared to co-operate …

Order! Specific organizations are not under discussion now.

I am proving that paragraph (f) is dangerous as it stands in this Bill. If the hon. the Minister can attack an organization which indicates its willingness to co-operate, what will happen in the case of an organization which states unequivocally that it is opposed to the Minister? Our amendment makes it very clear that any Coloured teacher who abuses his position and tries to promote insubordination or tries to encourage opposition to the laws of the State will be guilty of misconduct. That is all that we ask. But the hon. the Minister wants to have the power to brand any organization which is opposed to him and his Government as an organization to which Coloured teachers may not belong. Surely we all want to cultivate a responsible type of person amongst the Coloureds? If we cannot get the Coloured teachers to give guidance and direction to the Coloured community, how will we ever be able to bring this about? The Coloured teachers form the group of Coloureds who are most highly developed; they are looked up to. In paragraph (g) they are told that if they belong to any organization or to any political party they will be guilty of misconduct.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) referred to the attitude that I adopted in 1956. The hon. member also spoke about disciplinary measures. Mr. Chairman, disciplinary measures are not mentioned in section 162 which deals with misconduct and which we adopted in 1956. That follows later. But the hon. member is now prepared to vote against a clause in this House, a clause which is contained in an education ordinance for which he voted and to which he gave his full support in 1956. The United Party and I have put our case very clearly. We have said that we must treat the Coloured teacher in the same way as we treat the White teacher. Our opposition to the education ordinance went much further than this in 1956. We also objected to certain clauses in regard to parental option. Why did the hon. member not say that? These actually formed the grounds of our opposition to that ordinance in 1956. This amendment that we are moving has been taken from a Cape Provincial ordinance with which the hon. member for Malmesbury and the Cape Education Department have been completely satisfied since 1956. If it was a good thing in 1956 why should we not have it in legislation in 1963? The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) was also highly satisfied with it.

We on this side of the House are quite used to hon. members on that side saying stupid things. I think, however. that they have broken all previous records this evening. I want to prove it to them.

I want to devote my attention for the moment to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) who really said some irresponsible things here, so much so that he ought to be ashamed of himself. I want to analyse what the hon. member said here. The hon. member objected particularly to paragraph (f) because he said that teachers would be prevented from expressing criticism of State Departments, except under certain circumstances. The hon. member has said that the hon. the Minister is always talking about the removal of discrimination and of wanting to give the Coloured people in their areas what he is prepared to give to the Whites, but that he does not do so. That was the whole theme of the argument of the hon. member. I want to tell him that what he said was completely untrue and can have only one effect—to disturb relationships in South Africa. If that was his intention he succeeded admirably. If he had taken the trouble to look at the Vocational Education Act (Act No. 70 of 1955), Section 28, he would have seen that it is stated there—

1. (n) in public voices criticism in regard to the administration of a State Department or of a province or of the territory of South West Africa will be deemed to have committed an offence …

In other words, the same principle to which he has objected so strongly in respect of the Coloured and in connection with which he has said that we are discriminating against the Coloureds was contained in an Act passed by this House in 1955. He will say now that it was this terrible National Party Government that was responsible for passing that Act, but where was he at that time? He, that turncoat, was then a member of the National Party! He helped to pay that provision. He has stated untruthfully here this evening that what we are seeking to introduce in this legislation is discrimination against the Coloureds.

Tell that to the ordinary teacher in the country.

I am not interested in splitting hairs. The facts of the matter are that in the Vocational Education Act we have the same principle in respect of the Whites as we are now seeking to introduce in respect of the Coloureds. I have no objection if the hon. member is opposed to this provision. But when he is untruthful in order to upset relationships in this country and to disturb those relationships then I take the strongest objection to his action.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) adopted the strange attitude of trying to justify his point of view as to what was done by the National Party in the past. He tried to justify his attitude on the basis of what was done in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal where the National Party was in the majority. He can never find any good in what has been done by the National Party Government but he has tried this evening to justify his attitude on the basis of the action of the National Party. This is not so bad, Mr. Chairman. What did they themselves do in the past? Let us consider this for a moment. The previous ordinances in the Transvaal were different from the one that they have now and they introduce those ordinances. Let us look for a moment at our Public Service Act. The objection of the United Party is that these people cannot belong to political parties. Section 17 (g) of our Public Service Act, No. 54 of 1957 states—

Hon. members have objected to this this evening. The 1957 Act already makes provision whereby White people will be guilty of misconduct if they become members of a political party or participate in the activities of that party. They may also say that it was this Nationalist Government that was responsible for this provision and that they themselves were not responsible for it. But what did they do at that time? When this section that I have just quoted was dealt with in Committee, only two members of the United Party participated in the discussion—the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Mr. Pocock. Mr. Eaton did not oppose that principle at all. He did not attack it at all. All that he asked was that the Minister should give an explanation of the nature of a political organization. He concluded his speech by saying—

The Minister of the Interior then spoke and after him, Mr. Pocock, who concluded his speech by saying—

After this the clause was put and agreed to without division and without amendment. Those were the actions of that side of the House in the past and yet this evening they are adopting this inconsistent attitude while we are dealing with Coloured Affairs, while we are dealing with the Coloureds who because of their inferior development—which we must accept as a fact—are to a very large extent very much more susceptible to foreign influences. Notwithstanding this fact hon. members opposite have been most inconsistent this evening. In complete contrast to their past when they always adopted a different attitude, they are now making a complete about-face and trying to do the opposite.

I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House to act responsibly. I want to ask them to be consistent. Let us now deal with this provision in the proper way.

I want to refer very shortly to the reference made to the 1956 Ordinance which was passed in the Provincial Council of the Cape. I was then a member of the Provincial Council. I remember the discussion that took place and I then warned the Nationalist Party that the cure would be worse than the disease. This amendment was brought into being to stifle two Coloured teachers—I do not want to mention their names—and to prevent them from acting the way they were and to which the Government took exception. I then warned them that we would never stop a man from thinking although you stopped him from talking. I told them that to ban those two people and to bring in that amendment they would be fanning the fires of discontent amongst the teachers. To-night we have the results. The hon. the Minister has admitted that whereas there were only two in 1956, against whom the Provincial authorities took action, there are hundreds to-day who have joined organizations criticizing the Government. The danger against which I warned in 1956 has apparently now become a reality.

I want to say to the Minister that if he is anxious to combat Communism in Coloured schools we are with him. We always have been.

Practise what you preach.

Oh no! I am not at all impressed by the melodramatic histrionics of the hon. the Minister. The Minister knows that we have always encouraged him to act against people who preach Communism.

[Inaudible.]

I am not worrying about that hon. friend. He should once and for all keep quiet. You confine yourself to the Salt River bar.

Mr. Chairman, this matter has been canvassed very efficiently this evening. I want to tell the Minister that there are very sincere and genuine organizations—I do not want to mention their names—to which teachers do belong and which organizations the hon. the Minister will accept. There is a Coloured organization called the Coloured People’s National Union, the C.P.N.U. Can teachers belong to that? That is a semi-political body which deals with political matters and hundreds of teachers will join it.

They have a membership of 200.

All right, let us accept that the membership is only 200. Some of them are teachers. The chairman is a teacher, a principal of a school. Is the Minister going to prevent that particular principal of a school from being a member of the C.P.N.U. and criticizing the Government in regard to all sorts of matters which is being done?

Mr. Chairman, we are merely trying to get sensible legislation. I told the Minister that last night. The principle of the Bill has been accepted and we are now trying to get sensible legislation. The Minister must frame his legislation in such a way that it will give effect to that which he wants done. But this clause …

Read paragraph (f).

I am reading paragraph (f). I am talking to paragraph (0 in case the Minister did not know it.

All your colleagues have deserted you.

No, they have not. That is a very unfair reflection. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

Paragraph (f) says … “criticizes the administration of any Department or institution of the State”. If hon. members do not understand it then it is not my fault. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister that there are teachers whom he has appointed to the National Council of Coloured Affairs who have publicly within the Council criticized job reservation. If they were to call a meeting in the constituency for which they have been appointed and criticize the job reservation of the Government would that not fall under paragraph (f)?

But you called them stooges, did you not?

You see, Mr. Chairman, every time you corner the Minister he becomes childish.

I want you to reply to that.

But there is no reply.

The Minister knows that in terms of this section of the Act if a member of the National Council of Coloured Affairs goes to his constituency and criticizes any law of the Government he is subject to disciplinary action.

Why do you not read paragraph (f).

Never mind about paragraph (f); I want to deal with other matters.

I want to deal with one or two other sections of this particular Clause. Any Coloured teacher who becomes insolvent or compromises with his creditors or if a decree of civil imprisonment is made against him can be dismissed. First of all, Mr. Chairman, civil imprisonment was abolished years ago.

Read Section 64 of your Magistrates’ Court Act.

Sir, I hear a voice behind me. Does it mean compromise in terms of the Insolvency Act? Say, for instance a Coloured teacher has a motor car accident and he is uninsured and he is confronted with a R 1,000 claim for damages. He finds that he cannot pay that R 1,000 and the Minister says: “You can compromise with your creditors because it was not your fault”. But say a man has incurred a great deal of debt and he says to his creditors: “I will pay you 15s. in the £ in full settlement” and the creditors accept it, he can nevertheless lose his position.

Read the proviso.

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who has just woken up I shall repeat it: If a man is in debt and his creditors are prepared to accept 10s. in the £, I say that man should not lose his position. I want to know what the hon. the Minister means by civil imprisonment. There is no such thing in our law. Why should we put something in our law which is prehistoric and archaic and does not exist in South Africa?

It is a refined form of house arrest.

Oh, I see. In the circumstances I want to move the deletion of the words “civil imprisonment”. There is no such thing in our law and I move—

[Time limit.]

The United Party has again revealed itself to be what we have always known it to be in the amendment moved this evening by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) to paragraph (g). They have again come to the fore this evening very strongly as the champions of the Coloured teacher. They do this sort of thing even at the expense of the White teacher in this country, although last week they acted as the champions of White civilization. Now they are again coming to the fore as the champions of the Coloured teacher against the White teacher. Why do I say this?

Mr. Chairman, we also have an education Ordinance in the Orange Free State; we also have provisions there to arrange these matters. In the Orange Free State no teacher may participate in active politics and in this way give offence to others. This provision is also of application to the Coloured teachers in the Free State. The United Party is now seeking to give the Coloured teachers—those in my province as well—more rights than they have at the moment. What is more, they advocate the fact that the Coloured teacher should have more rights than he already has to-day as a teacher. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) said that when the Coloured teacher returns home from school in the afternoon he should be permitted to participate in political activities if he so desires. Why do we have that restriction in the Free State? It also applies to the White teachers. We have that restriction precisely because it is in the interests of the education of children; simply to prevent that teacher giving offence to the children of political opponents of the party supported by that teacher; simply to serve education and the interests of education. The United Party is not in earnest in moving this amendment and making this plea for the Coloured teachers. Or are they in earnest in this regard? Why are they now imposing far greater restrictions on the White teacher in that province in which they are in power—in Natal—than are imposed upon any teacher in any other province, if they are in earnest in this regard? Why do they now advocate that the Coloured teacher in the Republic should be given far more political rights than the White teacher has in Natal, the province controlled by the United Party? Why are they doing so? It appears to me that this smacks of a political motive. It appears to me that they are adopting this attitude so that it will fit in with their federation scheme. It appears to me that they are advocating this sort of thing because they want the Coloureds to be restored to the Common Voters’ Roll so that they can use the Coloured teachers for their own party political purposes. That will simply not work. I hope that the voters in the country will take note of the attitude of the United Party this evening. In advocating rights for Coloured teachers, which they do not seriously mean, political rights which are not in the interests of the Coloureds themselves and which are not in the interests of Coloured education, they are even going so far as to discriminate against the White teacher in this way.

The hon. member for Winburg even went so far as to say that the attitude that we are adopting has been adopted so that our policy in this regard would fit in with our race federation plan. I do not know what this has to do with the matter but in any case it is a strange thing to my mind that in the Cape Provincial Council we passed an Ordinance containing precisely the same provisions in regard to White teachers as I have moved this evening in regard to Coloured teachers. In 1956 the National Party already had a majority in the Cape Provincial Council…

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to repeat those arguments.

No, Mr. Chairman, but may I just read what we adopted in 1956 in regard to the White teacher?

And you voted against it.

We have the position of White teachers …

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

But Mr. Chairman, I contend that in terms of Clause 9 as it stands at the moment the Cape Coloured teacher will now have less rights than he had in 1956. Clause 9 means a diminution of his rights.

Order! That argument has already been used.

I have been trying for over an hour, but quite unsuccessfully, to come back to Clause 16 (g), the first line of it, and at the last opportunity that I was given, I asked the hon. Minister a question about the Council for Coloured Affairs and up to now he has not answered that question. In the last two sentences of his speech he said in effect that the United Party used to say that these people were stooges.

I dealt with the whole matter.

Yes, I cannot repeat the Minister’s speech. I am trying to summarize the point. He said that now instead of calling them stooges, we were trying to inhale the sweet perfume, or the sweet odour of this flower—the Council for Coloured Affairs. That was the first of his statements. He came back to it subsequently. But it seems to me that for a reason which the Minister has not disclosed, this same question which I have asked him is one that he does not want to answer. Apparently the same council for Coloured Affairs which, as he knows, was regarded as the beginning of a state within a state for the Coloured people, is now odious, is offensive in his nostrils, and, Sir, it may be relevant that only yesterday one of the representatives of the Coloured people …

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—53: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; 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.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That paragraph (f), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—54: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, Μ. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. Suzman and U. M. Weiss.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman dropped.

Question put: That paragraph (g), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—54: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak. J. F. W.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mulder, C. P,; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk. H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—38: Barnett. C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; 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. Streicher dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Moore put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

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

Sub-clause (4) deals with the suspension from duty of a person accused of misconduct, and provides that “The Minister or, if authorized thereto by the Minister, the Secretary or any other officer in the Department, may suspend from duty any person accused of misconduct, whether or not such person has been charged with misconduct.” The object of the amendment is to restrict the power of suspension only to the Minister or the Secretary, and we want to omit the words “or any other officer in the Department”. The point that I want to make clear is that this sub-clause grants the power to suspend from duty a person who is accused of misconduct, that is to say, before he has been either tried, given the opportunity of clearing his name, or found guilty.

The same applies in the Public Service.

I do not dispute that there should be a discretion to suspend a person from duty, even before he has been given the opportunity to establish his innocence or before he has been found guilty, but the point that I make is that because the power is given to suspend a person even before he has had the opportunity to clear his name—that is to say a very far-reaching power—that power should be given only to the Minister or the Secretary, that is to say to the two men in charge of the department. The Minister may argue that this is an administrative discretion, and he may argue from that that the Minister and the Secretary should not be burdened with such matters. I hope he does not argue in that way, but if he does my answer to him is threefold: Firstly, as I have already pointed out, it is an extremely important decision because it enables the employee to be suspended before he has been heard; secondly, it is a situation which is unlikely to arise very often, because it is unlikely that it will often be necessary to suspend someone from duty pending his trial; and thirdly, the person who is to exercise this power is not required to try the individual concerned before making a decision. This is a step which is to be taken before the procedure is adopted to try the person who is changed with misconduct. In other words, all that is required of the person who exercises this discretion is to have before him the facts, and if he is satisfied on a prima facie view of those facts that it is necessary to suspend the individual concerned, pending his trial, he can then suspend. That situation will not require a great deal of time from the person concerned. So even if the hon. Minister regards this matter as an administrative matter, it is not an administrative matter which will unduly burden either the Minister, or in his place, the Secretary. On the other hand it is such an important matter that it ought not to be left in the hands of any subordinate official, no matter how responsible that official may be. The responsibility should be taken by one or other of those two persons, the hon. the Minister or the Secretary of the Department. So I ask the hon. Minister to accept this amendment.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

This particular sub-section which I propose to amend, sub-section 24 (b), provides that after a certain enquiry has been held, the Secretary can make a recommendation to the Minister in terms of the preceding sub-section (23). Before he makes a recommendation, he can wait for twelve months, and his recommendation may be one or more than one of the recommendations provided for under sub-section 23, and they are serious for example, excluding (a) and (e) that are dealt with separately, (b) is a fine not exceeding R400; so it is serious. The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that in a matter of this kind, which is so serious, it is not altogether fair to have hanging over a man’s head the punishment which is going to be recommended. I may say that the hon. Minister is not bound to take the recommendation of the Secretary. He can set it aside, and in the succeeding sub-section (25) it is laid down that he may make his own decision, irrespective of what the Secretary may have recommended. He may simply say that the Secretary could have recommended something else, and I am going to decide for myself that I will adopt the course which the Secretary could have recommended but which in fact he did not. That being so it is quite clear that this is a matter that is peculiarly in the discretion of the Minister, and, as I say, to have a person in the position of a teacher, with his daily contact with the children, parents and so forth, having a sword of Damocles hanging over his head for twelve months not knowing what punishment is coming to him, whether it is going to be serious or of a lesser nature, is not fair. I think we can appeal to the hon. Minister and say: Please rather make it three months.

I am prepared to accept that amendment.

I thank the hon. Minister for that. I think that is a very fine gesture from the Minister towards the Coloured teachers.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The first part of the amendment is not merely a case of changing words. There is a definite principle involved. The principle involved is that there must be no suspension of a man from duty unless there is going to be a charge, it must not simply be a case of a charge in contemplation, because all the consequences that follow from a suspension are obviously serious. There is a second reason, because this clause is largely taken from Section 18 of the Public Service Act (54 of 1957) and you have a similar provision there in which the words are those which I ask to substitute “before or after As I have indicated there is a principle involved because there should be no suspension whether or not a person is charged; there should only be a suspension if a person is going to be charged. I accept that there must be a provision by which there can be a suspension either before or after the charge is actually formulated, but there is very good reason why the two words “before or after” are used in the Public Service Act, and I think the hon. Minister should adopt the same procedure here.

At 10.25 o’clock p.m. the Deputy Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.