Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day Nos. 9 and 27 on today’s Order Paper will have precedence next week. If there is any time left the House will proceed to deal with the business as it will appear on the Order Paper for Monday.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before I begin I want to say a few words about the previous hon. Minister of National Education, Senator the hon. Van der Spuy. We shall most probably refer to him again during the discussion of the Education Vote, but I cannot do otherwise, even at this early stage, than say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for everything he has done in the considerable length of time he has been the person responsible for education. We came to know him as a modest and hard-working person, and I think in years to come it will be clearly shown what stability he gave to our education with his talent and energies. I should like to thank him for this. By way of introduction I also want to say to the hon. Dr. Koornhof that we are grateful that he is now the Minister who will in future be responsible for this particular portfolio. We want to welcome him, express the hope that we will co-operate cordially with him, too, and say that we should like to avail ourselves of his energies and talents.

The National Party believes that our entire survival is most closely connected with progress. In the history of a nation, to stand still is to deteriorate, and therefore the National Party regards education and training as one of the greatest contributory factors in the development of South Africa’s future task. On provincial as well as Government level the National Party has for the past approximately 30 years been planting important milestones, milestones which will continue to exist as monuments for an appreciative posterity. One of the foundations on which our education policy rests is that a distinctive national character has been given to the South African pattern of education. The motto “South Africa first” is equally valid in the field of education, and therefore it was deemed essential to make mother-tongue education compulsory and to accord the study of our history an important place in the pattern of education. In a world of mounting materialism, fatalism and superficiality, we have endeavoured to take the major spiritual truths of our civilization as a foundation. In a bilingual country we have created reciprocal understanding and appreciation not only by promoting a love for what is one’s own, but also by recognizing the rights of, and the need for an understanding of, the other cultural community. This is a summary of the reasons for laying, and the steps taken by the National Party to lay, a sound foundation for the educational systems of the Government and the provinces.

With the above as an introduction, I now want to give attention to the motion that has been tabled. I shall confine myself primarily to the first part of the motion, i.e. the progress that has been made during the past few decades, particularly in the field of tertiary education. All education—pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary—forms a unity. Any harm done to, deficiencies in and neglect of the one, will inevitably lead to deficiencies in and harm to the others. In general terms we can say that tertiary education is that education which is formally offered after matriculation. We find it particularly at our universities, Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and teachers’ training colleges. The university is the leader in the field of education in this country, and therefore, too, the leader of education at tertiary level. The university, by its essence, also has a function in respect of tertiary education outside the university, and may not isolate itself from this. Included in this function is guidance in respect of, firstly, scientific fundamentals and formulation of policy, even at the level of technology and technique, and, secondly, the application of these in day to day education as a guarantee of set standards, standards which are indispensable for the success of education.

The growth and development of universities in South Africa is indeed unique when we compare it with the rest of the world. The first independent university of the USA, which as a White settlement is only slightly older than ours, is the Harvard College of Boston which was established as long ago as 1636. Even Sydney University, the oldest university in Australia, which as a White settlement is much younger than South Africa, received its charter as long ago as 1850. Compared to this we in South Africa have the University of the Cape of Good Hope, which was established by legislation in 1873. In terms of an Act of 1916 the first full-fledged universities began to function in 1918. These were the University of Cape Town and the University of Stellenbosch, which provided tuition, conducted examinations and awarded degrees independently. At that time these two institutions had 468 and 236 students, respectively, while the lecturing staff consisted of 56 and 38 members, respectively. After the establishment of the above-mentioned two universities, several other universities were established in South Africa during the next few decades, and I should like to enumerate them briefly here. Firstly I want to mention the University of South Africa. The progress of this university has been remarkable. In 1954 it had just over 5 000 students of all population groups. In 1963 it had more than 13 000, in 1970 approximately 22 000 and in 1974, 34 463. The number of White students then numbered 27 250; Blacks, 4 018; Asiatics, 2 019 and Coloureds, 1 184. Examinations are held in approximately 700 centres, some of which are situated abroad.

The University of the Orange Free State had its origin in Grey College, which was established in 1855 and which was converted into the University of the Orange Free State on 18 March 1950. In 1974 there were 6 687 students attending this university. The Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education had its origin in the Department of Literature of the Theological Seminary of the Gereformeerde Kerk, which was established in Burgersdorp in 1869 and moved to Potchefstroom in 1905. This university became independent on 17 March 1951. In 1974 there were 6 421 students attending this university. The University of Pretoria, my alma mater, became an independent university on 10 October 1930, and in 1974 had 14 313 students. The RAU was established in Johannesburg in terms of Act 51 of 1966, and in 1974 had a total of 2 143 students. The University of Natal became a university in terms of Act 4 of 1948, and in 1974 had a total of 7 900 students. Rhodes became an independent university on 10 March 1951, with 2 342 students in 1974. The University of the Witwatersrand was established in terms of legislation in 1922. In 1974 there were 10 299 students attending this university. The only university to use Afrikaans as well as English as language medium, is the University of Port Elizabeth, which was established in terms of Act 1 of 1964. In 1974 there were 1 980 students attending this university.

It is a salient fact that, if the history of the various universities is examined, one finds that their history is very closely interwoven with the general history of the Whites in this country. Each of these universities can justifiably and proudly say that they are indeed rooted in this country and that each one of them have indeed contributed to the establishment of our civilization. The growth of South African universities has indeed been phenomenal.

I should just like to give you the student figures. In 1947 there were 18 792 students, in 1968 there were more than 65 000, and in 1974, more than 102 000. This increase in the number of students should be seen in a far wider context than merely that of an increase. It has necessitated great efforts on the part of the authorities in all spheres of university life. Additional staff had to be found, additional administrative and technological staff had to be appointed and additional lecture theatres had to be built. Hostels, sports facilities, bursaries, and all the other requirements that go with this development, imposed major financial obligations on the State.

A visit to any of our universities offers conclusive proof of the tremendous growth and development that has taken place. However, we should be modest in our pride, for there are still matters which cause concern and to which constant attention has to be given. One important matter is the high failure rate at our universities. Exceptionally high failure rates are not only common in South Africa; they are a universal phenomenon. Yet this offers no comfort, and all responsible bodies shall have to give attention to this problem. The numbers of students on the various campuses have increased tremendously over the years. As a result student societies have gained a new status. Non-academic activities on campuses have changed drastically, and this has imposed new and greater demands on planners. The development in all spheres is taking place so rapidly that the present-day student finds himself in a world quite different to the world of yesteryear. The student himself is still in the transitional stage from teenager to adult, has just come from a more or less sheltered family and school life, and is very impressionable and open to influence.

Now he is suddenly brought face to face with a society which is intensely complicated. The validity of the order of which he is going to become a member, which has been inculcated in him by the family or at school, is now questioned by teachers. Only too frequently senior students and lecturers call into question the value system of the community as well as the convictions and ideals fundamental to the living pattern of its heterogeneous society—generally without stating constructive alternatives.

In his first encounter with his academic task, the student is confronted with a confusing world of learning—the result of the recent rapid rate of expansion of knowledge in the world. Unlike the student of yesteryear, he is immediately confronted with theories and speculations which fundamentally affect his own future. Just think of the view that pollution is going to wipe out all human life within a few decades, or that the population explosion will radically alter existing standards and patterns of living. This questioning of all things is frequently accompanied by a lack of purpose and fatalism, which could result in the paralysis of the natural organization of society. The stay of a student at university lasts only a few years. The composition of a student community is further characterized by the large number of newcomers every year. Another characteristic of the student is that he occupies a marginal position with regard to society, i.e. he is not yet firmly integrated into the social order of which he has to become a member. He is still standing on the periphery. The result of this is that his own sense of responsibility is situated on a different level to that of the ordinary member of society. It is important that all these things I have mentioned should be borne in mind, particularly by the State, the public, the parents—everyone who is involved in education. The university forms part of the community, and should therefore not try to dissociate itself in high-flown words and phrases from those people from among whose number it originated, those people who, in the last resort, are responsible for its existence.

I now want to say a few things about the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. At present there are six of these colleges in the Republic, and these are situated in the following centres: Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and the Vaal Triangle. These colleges were established in terms of Act No. 40 of 1967. The functions of such a college are to provide advanced technical education and training, and teacher training in the case of students who are no longer required in terms of a statutory provision to attend a school, on a part-time basis, as well as secondary and other education determined by the Minister. Sir, our country needs people with a reasonably sound knowledge of science and technology and who, at the same time, are firmly established in industry, so that they will be able to visualize the application of science rapidly, to develop this immediately, and to establish the means of applying it.

Education in South Africa has always been regarded, and justifiably so, as an instrument for the spiritual, social and cultural development of the human individual, while insufficient attention has been given to education as an instrument for the economic progress of our country. Often a stigma has attached to technical education. The Afrikaans-speaking sector in particular has given poor support to technical education. A great change has already set in in this regard, but we are still awaiting the day when parents will be as proud of sending their sons and daughters to the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education as to a university. The colleges concentrate on developing in the student an attitude and outlook which will pre-eminently make of him a practical person, a person who will apply his knowledge to the full, and consequently make an important direct contribution to the economic life of the community. In 1972 there were more than 79 000 students attending Colleges for Advanced Technical Education—full-time, part-time and casually. In 1972 this number had already grown to more than 85 000. A sound foundation has been laid in this sphere, which still offers us great possibilities and presents us with great challenges.

Now, a brief word on the teachers’ training colleges. In terms of section 44 of Act No. 41 of 1967 the training of teachers was declared to be “higher education”, as a result of which it became the responsibility of the Department of National Education. In that year there were more than 30 institutions, including the universities, at which teachers were being trained. Sixteen training colleges fell under the four respective provinces. The most important of these were the provincial-controlled training colleges. In terms of our Constitution Act the provision of education at schools up to and including the secondary level has been entrusted to the provinces, with the result that the provinces are by far the biggest employers of teachers and play an extremely important role in the recruitment and selection of students and in the provision of bursaries. Harsh words have been spoken about the training of teachers during the past few years. This led inter alia to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the training of White persons. In its main report the Van Wyk De Vries Commission had the following to say about the subsequent position, after lengthy discussions on various levels—

Sir, this observation does not detract from the fact that the quality of teachers whom we have trained has been good. Although they have perhaps not always been sufficient in number, they have nevertheless been competent people. I should like to request that all the bodies concerned should, with great responsibility and goodwill, grapple with the problems surrounding the training of our teachers.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker: We can be proud of the products of our education, particularly when we see how the zeal of all bodies is bearing fruit in our scientific research institutes, such as the CSIR, the Atomic Energy Board, the National Institute for Metallurgy, the Fuel Research Institute, Iscor, Sasol, the Human Sciences Research Council and many others.

Finally the blessings of labour should be emphasized once again. A person who works and then meets with adversity, will always be treated sympathetically, and these will also in the long run achieve their goal. Those who do not work, bear all the blame for failure, and seek in vain for an excuse for their failures. This, too, still remains a factor of decisive importance. The Apostle said: “Who does not work, shall not eat.” Let us say to ourselves: “Who does not work, will not make deserving progress.”—Ora et Labora.

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have an opportunity to do so, I want to congratulate the new hon. Minister on his appointment and tell him that he will find that his task will be very easy, provided he is prepared to accept the sound advice of this side of the House. I also want to wish the former hon. Minister every success in his new office. If he has perhaps left unsolved problems behind him, these cannot be left at his door only. It is the joint responsibility of the Government. We have co-operated well with the hon. the Minister over a period of six years.

Now, Sir, it seems to me that we are at least beginning to make gradual progress with education. It was gratifying to discuss a motion coming from a Government member here today, in which mention was made of problems in education. You know, Sir, whenever I used to say that there was a crisis in education during the past few years, I was accused of all kinds of things. Now we find Die Vaderland stating on 30 September 1975: “Transvaal staan voor ’n krisis by skole.” I do not blame the hon. member for Rissik for having introduced this motion. After all, he is a member of the Government. He therefore had to find a show-window for the Government, and this was of course tertiary education. He expressed his appreciation for what had been done, and spoke of “spectacular progress”. I do not want to deny that there has indeed been progress in the field of tertiary education. There has been progress during the past few decades, in the same way as no one can deny that there was progress in the previous decade and the decade before that as well. If we read the motion of the hon. member carefully, I think he is trying, here towards the end, to give us a slightly rather reassurance when he states that problems only exist on some levels of education, and that we should give attention to them. Sir, I want to say that it may be true that we may have problems on some levels, but we must not forget that on the levels on which problems do occur, they are of tremendous importance to us.

As the introducer of the motion did, I am going to concentrate on White education, although we should constantly bear in mind that when we discuss education and think, at the same time, of non-White education in South Africa, those problems are even ten and 20 times worse. If we were to compare education to a pyramid and were to say that tertiary education formed the apex—an excellent show-window according to the hon. member for Rissik—then we come to the secondary level and the primary level lower down, and it is here that we encounter problems which are of such a magnitude and of such a serious and fundamental nature that I am convinced we are running the risk in South Africa of our fine pyramid collapsing, unless we are prepared to act now. Consequently I should like to move the following amendment—

To motivate my motion I am now going to refer to certain aspects. We are not asking for a commission of inquiry here. What we actually believe is that the time for action has arrived. Representations and recommendations have been made to the Government to the point of tedium by responsible people in a responsible manner, for example by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, and by the official Opposition. Commissions of inquiry have also been appointed, but we still continue to find certain unsolved, basic problems. In this respect I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister after his negotiations last week with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. I am indeed pleased that he negotiated with them, but if we consider these negotiations we see that they revolved around old problems which have repeatedly been investigated. The negotiations—and I am referring to an article in Die Burger—revolved around the institution of a teachers’ council, new salary scales, the training of teachers and the shortage of teachers, specifically male teachers. If we analyse the matter further we find that representations have been made for decades by, inter alia, the Federal Council on the matter of a teachers’ council. Here I have the 1968 report of the old National Teachers’ Advisory Council which dealt with the teacher and his status. We keep on hearing more or less the same reply: “Legislation, possibly this year but definitely next year.” The hon. the Minister knows that he can rely on our support, but then the council must be a full-fledged council. However, people should not imagine that this will be a magic wand which will suddenly solve all our problems.

A new salary structure was discussed. This is a fundamental problem, a troublesome issue, in the field of education. It is said that talks will be held with the Federal Council and the Committee of Educational Heads, so that a new structure can be devised. However, it will be of no avail determining salary structures unless the Government is prepared to recognize the autonomy of education, in other words to remove it from the control of the Public Service. Only by doing this could salary structures be created which would be realistic. I cannot but agree with the Transvaal Education Union that under the present dispensation (Beeld of 15 October 1975)—

This is a fundamental problem. As example is quoted the educational head of the Transvaal, who therefore controls the largest department in the country. He was transferred with promotion to the Human Sciences Research Council. Surely this demonstrates that one cannot solve that problem, unless one is prepared to take the step I mentioned. We hear that negotiations on the training of teachers are to take place. But one’s patience runs out. The hon. member for Rissik referred to the fact that we had the Gericke report in 1968. They made recommendations. Errors of judgment were made. We then had the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. Again there were recommendations and again there were changes. Now we have a dispensation which works in Natal and in the Orange Free State, even though Natal had to cross the Drakensberg Mountains to link up with the university in the Free State. It is very clear to me that there are people in certain provinces in South Africa who are engaged in “empire building”. I think that people’s patience with these people is running out. What is my advice in this respect? It is very fundamental. The Transvaal is not prepared to be told by another body what it should do. The hon. the Minister will come to realize that he will have to accept the responsible advice of this side of the House, and then, when he has a federal set-up in South Africa, he will find that he has an answer to this, for then he will have the co-operation of those people.

I want to come now to the show-window of the hon. member for Rissik. I am referring now to tertiary education. I concede that the number of students has in fact risen, but one cannot simply compare the number of students at our universities in 1964 and the number in 1974. The Deputy Director of Education in the Transvaal has pointed out that up to and including 1971, 85% of the secondary teachers in the Transvaal still received their training at colleges. In other words, one is in fact comparing the incomparable, for those persons are now attending universities. The number at universities in 1974 cannot therefore be compared with the number in 1964. The hon. member also referred to Unisa. It all sounds very wonderful when it is said that 4 321 Bantu students were studying at Unisa in 1974, but in reality only 57 graduated and received diplomas. Of the 27 000 students at Unisa, only 1 700 graduated and received diplomas. It is not simply a question of numbers. We must take into consideration that there are other problems as well, such as the problem of financing. On the basis of an investigation which was instituted, we find that this problem is at present being shifted onto the parents. Class fees at the University of Pretoria have gone up 43%. However, the university is only 2% the worse off as a result of the new financing formula. In this way, too, the class fees of the University of Natal and the University of Witwatersrand have been increased by 25%. Surely things cannot go on like this. According to Die Vaderland it is costing a parent R1 600 to keep a student at university for one year. Perhaps this makes no difference to the wealthy person, but what about the children from the middle and lower income groups? As I have said, the numbers have perhaps increased, but what do we really need in South Africa? Does it help us to have an abundance of arts students when we need scientists and technologists? Dr. Meiring Naudé has stated that in 1960 18,2% of the science students at universities graduated as scientists, while the figure in 1973 was 10,2%. The hon. member referred to the failure rate. The Van Wyk de Vries Commission found that there was no drop in the failure rate between the beginning and the end of the sixties.

I come now to the problem of admission, and I am going to state this point very briefly and clearly. I think one of the fundamental problems is that the admission requirements of our universities in South Africa are too low. I am not disputing that there are other reasons, such as social adjustment and the gap between school and university, for the failure rate. I am afraid that with the new dispensation, where only three subjects on a higher level are required for admission to university, a fundamental problem is going to be created. The crux of our problem is to be found in the schools, where there is a shortage of properly trained teachers. According to the Secretary of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, Mr. Steyn, there are more than 2 000 teachers in the Transvaal who have not been properly trained. If we classify these teachers according to their teaching subjects, we find the following figures: Chemistry—55%; mathematics—44%; biology—53% and woodwork—50%.

Other members will elaborate in greater detail on the steps which could be taken to counteract the staff drain. Better salaries is of course part of the answer. The hon. the Minister says they are going to draw up a new salary structure. However, they are going to wait until the economy recovers. Only then can the new salaries come into operation. I agree that the state of the economy does not warrant it at the moment. The answer is very clear: If one wants to help education, the economy of the country should first be rectified so that we can get out of this problem. We must first get our priorities straight.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to refer with great appreciation to the former hon. the Minister of National Education. He made his mark in the sphere of education. He is an expert on education and he furthered the cause of education with a truly civilized approach over the past years. We are greatly appreciative of that. I also want to express a word of sincere welcome towards the new Minister. I think education in South Africa can be very grateful that we have found a person with so much drive, energy, spiritual strength and enthusiasm and enterprise for education. We trust that the hon. the Minister will serve in this portfolio for many years.

The motion serving before the House, in the first place, expresses appreciation towards the Government for the spectacular progress that has been made in the sphere of education during the past years. In the second place, it calls upon all bodies to co-operate in a correct and responsible manner to try to eliminate the problems which still exist at certain levels. The hon. member for Rissik presented us with a very interesting and comprehensive picture of particularly the progress made in tertiary education. The hon. member for Durban Central who preceded me, was far less enthusiastic about the progress. Of course, one can appreciate this. Nevertheless, he could not help referring to the progress that had been made because if he did not do so, he would have presented a rather poor image of himself. However, he stared himself blind on certain problems which still exist. We admit that there are problems. However, what the hon. member lost sight of was the fact that the motion also calls upon him and his party to co-operate in a correct and responsible manner, i.e. if they regard themselves as responsible bodies which are trying to serve education.

Since when?

Far be it from me to pronounce an eulogy on the splendid things in our education without admitting frankly that everything in our education is not moonlight and roses. There are still many problems waiting to be solved. In addition, there are serious problems which no one feels happy about. However, I want to point out immediately that I have been involved in education for 25 years, and in all those years that I have served education there were shortcomings and problems as well. Education is a profession which grows and develops. It is a profession dealing with people and children. We have to accept that there will always be problems and shortcomings. I was a teacher also in the days of the United Party, but I would rather not mention the dreadful conditions which were prevailing in the sphere of education during those years. The previous hon. Chief Whip also knows about those dreadful conditions.

Yes, and particularly the double-medium mess.

It is an indisputable fact that any person who has any real knowledge of education here and abroad, particularly if he is an open-minded person and does not consider education through the glasses of a prejudiced political opportunist—has to admit that spectacular progress has been made in the sphere of education over the past decade and longer. This one cannot deny and for this we have to be very grateful.

Today we have in this country an education set-up which is as good and as efficient as the best in any country in the world. We can be very proud of our education system because it more than meets the demands which can and have to be placed on a sound education system, i.e. to give every child and young person the opportunity to equip themselves, with due regard to their talents, capabilities and interests, for the demands life in general and their fatherland in particular place upon them. Without covering the terrain that has been covered by the hon. member for Rissik, I want to refer to some of the highlights I have outlined in the sphere of education during the past number of years. According to information at my disposal the overall expenditure on education during the financial year 1973-’74 reached the astronomical amount of R495,9 million. This is an enormous amount of money. This is probably not sufficient for education, but it remains an enormous amount of money because it constitutes almost 7% of the national income during the period in question. Percentage wise this is probably not sufficient and we, who are interested in education, would probably want a larger percentage of our national income to be spent on education. Nevertheless, this amount is an indication of sound progress, because expenditure on education increased at an average annual rate of 11,1% during the years 1960 to 1972. This we have to compare with an increase of 9,3% per annum in the national income. As a result of this, expenditure on education, expressed as a percentage of the national income, increased from less than 5% in 1960 to approximately 6,4% in 1972. This is a very considerable increase, but what is more, this upward trend has continued ever since.

Surely, this fine progress says a great deal for the Government and it clearly indicates that the Government regards education for the children of its people as the No. 1 priority. It also indicates that it regards education, quite rightly, as the first and most important line of defence against a threat from outside and particularly an ideological threat from outside.

We can express appreciation for the introduction of a national education system and a national education policy in terms of which divided control over our education, especially on secondary level, has been eliminated to a large extent. We can express appreciation for an education system based on a broad Christian national basis. Of course the hon. member for Rondebosch will make disapproving noises, but what an asset this constitutes for a people experiencing a crisis when its education is based on such a basis! We are grateful for the introduction of a system of differentiated education in terms of which every child is able to make progress according to his talents and capabilities. Furthermore, we have the spectacular progress in the sphere of school library services. I also want to refer to the progress in the sphere of the audio-visual service and especially to the progress in the sphere of pre-primary education, which is of such importance to us.

We also have the extension of technical education at secondary level and the establishment of six Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. Let me add immediately that I trust and hope that we will be able to find a more suitable name for these fine institutions, because this name is really too cumbersome. I think the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education compare very well with the technical institutes and even technical universities I have visited in overseas countries. I wonder whether we should not consider developing these institutions even further. In this present technical age these Colleges for Advanced Technical Education have made an enormous contribution towards the provision of manpower and assisted in solving our manpower shortage. Notwithstanding the considerable contribution they have made, we shall have to think in terms of developing technical education even further. We will also have to consider launching a campaign to impress upon parents that it is not only stupid children who attend technical high schools. We have to impress upon people that an academic degree is not the only requirement for a successful profession, but that this could also be obtained by a technical certificate.

In addition, I only want to mention the establishment of the various independent universities for non-Whites. What we are dealing with here today is White education, but I am merely mentioning the non-White universities because initially it was for the most part White education institutions which had to provide the staff for Bantu universities. I also want to mention the establishment of two new White universities which, in their own right, are taking the lead in academic philosophy in various spheres. Furthermore, we have the phenomenal expansion of our universities as is evident from the increase in the number of students as has been indicated here by the hon. member for Rissik. As far as the White university population of South Africa is concerned—and I include the White students studying at the University of South Africa—we have approximately 100 000 White students studying at our South African universities. This is equal to 2,2% of our total White population. Percentage-wise the number of Americans studying at universities may be somewhat higher, but in their calculation of 2,4% of the total population they also include their junior colleges. When we add our training colleges, the White population attending White universities or these other colleges is, percentage-wise, the highest in the world. This is fine, and it is a good thing that this is the case. The fact that we were able to realize such a fantastic achievement is only attributable to the active interest and the financial assistance the Government is rendering to education. This enabled us to take the lead in Africa in the academic sphere. Any person who does not regard this progress and this development as fantastic and spectacular, must have a very poor judgment.

We also have other highlights in our education for which we can be grateful. There is the keen public interest on the part of various bodies in our education matters. The State, the parents, church organizations, cultural organizations and even the public Press display far more active interest than ever before and offer their assistance to promote education. Above all, we have at our disposal a teachers’ corps which is fulfilling this important national task with great dedication and responsibility. I want to state frankly here today and tell the teachers’ corps of South Africa that the Government, this side of the House and this hon. Minister not only have a profound appreciation of the enormous importance of education and of the great responsibility which rests on the shoulders of teachers in the fulfilment of their task, but also that we have the highest appreciation for the manner in which the teachers’ corps is fulfilling this major task.

When coming to the second leg of the motion and when considering problems in education, I want to express immediately, on behalf of my side of the House, our gratitude and appreciation towards the teachers’ corps of our country for the controlled and responsible manner in which they are solving the problems which they are faced with. For example, the following was said in a Press statement issued towards the end of last year by the chairman of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations—

The statement reads further—

This is the language of responsible people, people in whose profession—allow me to admit this immediately—considerable grievances and probably some measure of bitterness have developed through the years as a result of circumstances and, particularly, of the divided control exercised over our education.

However, because we as a National Party Government believe in the importance of education, because we believe in the extremely important task of the teacher, because we believe that the teaching profession is a key profession, because we know that a frustrated and embittered teacher is not able to fulfil his task as educationalist and because we know that a people which neglects its fundamental profession and which is not prepared to see to it that it draws the best people for that profession, will ultimately have to pay very dearly for it, this party is prepared to give the assurance to the teachers’ corps of South Africa that the National Party and the National Party Government will look after their interests and will support them. Of course, we do not want to raise false expectations. Our country is finding itself in an economic stranglehold of which it will first have to rid itself. I am sure that the teachers’ corps in South Africa will be the first to want to make its contribution to shake off that economic stranglehold. But as soon as economic conditions improve and it is possible to do so, we shall, as far as possible, try to eliminate the grievances which may still exist in respect of the salary structure, and the hon. the Minister will see to it that when salary increases are applied for, the teachers’ corps will not be standing at the back of the queue, but at the head of it because their case is a meritorious one.

When referring to problems in education, the shortage of teaching staff is perhaps one of the most important problems, particularly in the province of Transvaal where there is evidently a considerable shortage. We also have the problem of the permanency of and the turnover in teaching staff. We have the problem of resignations. We have to admit frankly that the teaching staff situation is serious, perhaps more serious in some provinces than in others, and we also have to admit frankly that there is a great shortage of teachers in some subjects, but we also have to admit that we have a manpower shortage in every sector of our national economy. We must not single out the teaching profession in respect of this crisis in which we find ourselves. Of course, it is a fact that because education is the key profession and, as it were, the factory which has to provide people for all their other professions, it is important that we shall see to it that the shortage is eliminated as soon as possible. This the Government will do.

There are also other things which are causing concern, for example the imbalance between the number of males and females in education. Last year 65% of the teaching posts in the Transvaal were filled by females, married as well as unmarried females. This is a high percentage, and this is not good enough. There is no need to emphasize the importance of the male in the classroom, on the playgrounds and on the sports grounds. It is essential that we should retain the males in the teaching profession. As has already been mentioned, there is also the problem regarding the training of teachers. In some of the provinces the position of the married female has not been clarified. There is also the plight of the senior members who are now pensioners—a problem which should receive serious attention. Another problem is the large number of resignations from the teaching profession which assumes more serious proportions in some provinces than in others. All these problems exist to a lesser or greater degree. As I have already indicated, some of these problems have existed for many years. Whatever the case may be, if we consider the dynamic development in education and the development in the sphere of education over the past years, the things I have mentioned, the so-called problems, are really minor teething troubles in a grand process and they are really insignificant compared with the fantastic achievements that have already been realized. There is no denying one fact, and that is that no problem is too great and no shortcoming too serious that will not be solved by means of mutual co-operation and determination and mutual goodwill.

I personally have great confidence in the new Minister of National Education, and I believe that he is going to make the teaching profession so attractive that we shall experience a fresh influx of new applicants to the teaching profession in the near future and that we will again be able to be more selective and obtain the cream of our people in our teaching profession.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the hon. member for Algoa is so sensitive that when his colleague clears his throat he thinks that it is me taunting him. When listening to the hon. member, one finds that he speaks with enthusiasm when referring to the problems, but this enthusiasm is not the same as the enthusiasm when he refers to the spectacular progress that has been made. Before reacting to the motion, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. I think he has inherited enormous problems, problems one cannot only attribute to a particular person, because, in the last instance, it is also attributable to circumstances in our country. However, it is also to a certain extent the responsibility of the Government.

I am very interested in the motion. I was particularly keen to hear in which way the hon. member for Rissik was going to motivate it. One hears and reads of heads of universities finding it extremely difficult to administer their universities in a proper manner. In fact, during the period 1970 to 1975 the fees of students who board privately, not students in hostels, showed an average increase of 84%. In some cases the increase in tuition fees exceeded 100%, i.e. more than double. When considering the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central, it is alarming when one considers that university training is increasingly becoming the privilege of the wealthy person. It is only the wealthy person who is able to send his children to a university. This is something we in South Africa can afford least.

Another aspect one is aware of, is the considerable concern expressed by the various education councils and unions about the shortage, the organizational structure of education in South Africa, the status and salary of the average teacher, and so on. In some cases it is even possible for a teacher with a four-year diploma to earn less than a municipal clerk with a Std. VIII certificate. This creates enormous problems with the average person when it comes to the question of the status of the teacher and the role he has to play in society.

I also want to consider education on a broader level and also consider Black education. It is true that, during the period 1970-’76, the number of school-going pupils has doubled, so that there are little more than 4 million pupils of school-going age attending school at present. This constitutes approximately 75% of the children of school-going age. This is an achievement, this is progress that has been made. Compared with the rest of Africa this is splendid. However, the point I wish to make, is thát the increase in numbers creates enormous problems, and as far as the solution thereof is concerned, one turns to the Government to deal with and anticipate the problems.

For example, we have the problem that of the approximately 62 000 Bantu teachers in 1974 …

The motion does not deal with Bantu education.

The motion deals with education. The hon. member will be well-advised to read the motion himself. It concerns all levels of and bodies in education. I am mentioning this by way of comparison, because I have only one opportunity to address this House. In 1974 approximately 53 000 of the 62 000 Bantu teachers did not have matric, and they had to teach pupils in schools in which there was such an increase in the numbers of pupils.

This is what I had in mind when reading the motion. I wondered in which way the hon. member was going to motivate his motion. What the hon. member really did, apart from the fact that he gave us an interesting historic introduction to university education in South Africa, was to present the only criterion of spectacular progress that had been made, i.e. the question of numerical increase. I think what we are dealing with here is an error of judgment. One cannot regard numerical increase as such as an indication of the progress that has been made, because it would amount to a person who constructs a sports stadium and let someone run the mile there in less than four minutes being able to claim to have made spectacular progress. A distinction has to be made between the responsibility of the Government to make money available and to establish a structure, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the way in which the people within that structure are supported. A clear distinction has to be drawn in this respect.

It is in this regard that I want to come back to the hon. member for Algoa. Let us be honest. I agree with the hon. member that the priority the Government affords education, is not the priority it really deserves. Too little has been spent on education during the past decade. The hon. member said that 7% of the total national expenditure goes to education. This is slightly different from the figure furnished by Dr. Auerbach, who says that, during the past 20 years up to and including 1972, it was approximately 4%—only 4% of the total national expenditure was allocated to education annually. During the past 20 years the amount, percentage wise, spent on education in South Africa, differed very little. Our problem really is that we will have to spend far more money on education merely to solve the problems and not necessarily to make progress. For that reason it is important that we should make education the victim of inflation this year. This is one of the central points touched upon by a person such as Dr. Hartshorne, Director of Bantu Education, at the graduation ceremony of the University of the Witwatersrand when he received an honorary doctor’s degree. Unfortunately the quotation is in English and comes from The Star. I quote—

Sir, what applies to Black education also applies to all other education in South Africa. If one is going to save on the short term as far as education is concerned, one is only going to create inflationary problems for oneself over the long term.

I want to illustrate this. In Johannesburg there is a school which was estimated to have cost R300 000 to build in 1966-’67. The same school would have cost R596 000 in 1973-’1A—almost double the cost. If a request for extensions were received and one were to say: “No, there are no funds available at the moment”, one would, in terms of the logic of this argument, have even less funds available in four or five years’ time to wipe out these deficits. We have an interesting phenomenon in this regard, i.e. that Teach constructs a school at a price which is 25 times lower than the price at which it is built by the Government. I do not want to suggest for one moment that the Government should build all schools the way Teach are building them, because they maintain a very scaled-down standard. However, it seems to me as if one might be able to reach a compromise between these two possibilities. Neither is it necessary to build schools, the appearance of which can be compared with the residence of the ambassador of one of the major world powers. We have to see whether we cannot save in this regard. It is the responsibility of the Government to make funds available and to establish the structures in which South Africa’s education can show progress. It would have been better had the hon. member for Rissik directed the motion at the officials in education and at the teachers themselves. I think they have performed miracles within the restrictions in which they had to act. Such limitations were imposed upon them by the role played by the Government in the making available of funds to education.

There are also limitations on the Government although it is its responsibility to provide structures.

There are limitations on the Government, but I am speaking in a comparative sense. It is clear, in any case as far as I am concerned, that the Government is generally not quite giving education the priority it deserves.

Up till now I have dealt with the practical problems in regard to education in general, divorced from any ideological and political considerations. I want to deal with the question of racially or ethnically differentiated education and I want to discuss this matter in fairly unemotional terms on a practical level. The White Education Department of the Transvaal produced 20 000 matriculants in 1975, but it only serves a section of the 4 million Whites. In the same year the Department of Bantu Education produced 5 000 matriculants, while serving 18 million people. This indicates that we are dealing here with a problem as far as it concerns the creation and the development of sufficient and adequate skilled labour in our country. In some way or other serious attention has to be given by the Government to the question of the enormously high school-leaving figure one finds in particularly Bantu education. Incentives have to be found to keep these people at school as long as possible. Another aspect which constitutes a problem …

Surely this is the case throughout Africa.

It is no use comparing ourselves with Africa, because that does not solve our problems. I cannot say that because Elizabeth Taylor has a headache I am only a human being myself. Surely this is not going to help us at all. We have our own problems which have to be solved. When considering the expenditure per Black child during the past 20 years, we see that it shows an effective increase of R11,48.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

Would the hon. member admit that, owing to the enormous differences in the development of the White and Black races, an imprint has been left on the development of education in the country?

I say it is one of many reasons. I do not want to deny that there are cultural differences and historic problems. The point I really want to make is that the increase in expenditure per Black child over a period of 20 years amounts to R11,48, which it is R336 in the case of a White child. However, I want to say immediately that I do not want to imply that this should be eliminated overnight. It is important that one should be able to show that the difference in expenditure is being reduced and one has to be able to show that an attempt has been made, but in time this gap has increased enormously.

There was a backlog, but it has been reduced since.

Yes, but we have the problem that we are aware of the fact that we are dealing here with one of our most sensitive areas, of which we have to rid ourselves. Proportionately considerably more has to be spent in this regard because, in the last instance, we are dependent upon the available skilled labour provided by the Department of Bantu Education. Take for example the question of free school books to which reference was made this morning. Last year the hon. member for Houghton asked what it would cost to make free books available and, if I remember correctly, the reply was R5 million. R5 million out of a gross national income of approximately R20 000 million, gives one a fair sense of proportion and an indication of the manner in which one is able to solve this problem. I honestly think that one should not view this against the background of the inflation problem, that it has been said that we should apply the brakes a little against the making available of free school books for Bantu education.

I have now dealt with practical problems as a result of racially differentiated education, and I now want to come back to specific political implications. Both the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Algoa referred to this matter by implication when they said that our system of education is based on certain fundamental premises. We have the whole question of compulsory mother-tongue education, the separation between Afrikaans and English and the whole question of the 1959 legislation in terms of which we have ethnically differentiated universities. What are the implications hereof? When reading the report of the Snyman Commission, one finds two very important implications of ethnically differentiated education in South Africa. The one is that people, from the nature of the case, ask for greater autonomy at, for instance, Turfloop; that they want a greater measure of control over their university and that they want to staff their university with whoever it may be, as long as he is the most capable person, irrespective of his skin or colour and no matter where he comes from. This is one standpoint they feel very strongly about. From the relevant analysis of Mr. Justice Snyman it is evident that they say that should they obtain such control, they would make the university an open institution. This seems to me contra-productive in terms of the real premises held out to Dr. Eiselen by the Government itself as far as Bantu education is concerned, contra-productive to the Government’s original objectives, which might have been sound. However, objectives are not being realized here. In fact, we read in the report that it had the very opposite effect. This created the feeling of isolation and divided loyalties towards South Africa. I would say this is one of the fundamental shortcomings on the political level, that the ethnically and racially differentiated system of education has led to differentiated loyalties, and this creates the very problem the Government probably wanted to avoid. We are now being saddled with those problems.

During the past 10 years we have had more reason for concern. I really do not mean this in a negative sense, but we have had more reason for concern than reason for easy praise towards the Government for that which has been done in the sphere of education. We are being faced with enormous problems. Part of the motion states that we should make responsible attempts to eliminate these problems and in this regard I want to make a few suggestions to the hon. the Minister. It was with great gratitude that I read in the newspaper the other day what the hon. the Minister had to say. I quote from The Argus of 16 January 1976—

I do not know exactly what the hon. the Minister had in mind, but to me the principle seems important, i.e. that one should have this form of co-ordination and that there should be some measure of co-operation.

Almost like the sport policy.

Yes, that one should have a co-ordinating council where problems could be ironed out in a comparative manner. In the first place, we need this type of co-ordination, but in the second place, we do not need co-ordination but we also need decentralization and a greater degree of autonomy in education. One has to decentralize to the various areas and afford education institutions and education structures a greater degree of autonomy, because these people are best able to devote their particular talents to the particular education problems which exist in their areas.

There is a third important suggestion I want to make. Has the time not arrived for us to introduce a five-year plan for education on a national basis? It happens to a large extent at the moment that we have to budget at all education levels, virtually on an annual basis. Take for example the universities, the tertiary education. These people are dependent upon the funds allocated to them and virtually have to plan on an annual basis. It is extremely difficult for them to plan on a long term basis, because they are not sure exactly what funds are going to be allocated to them. Such a five-year plan, worked out in consultation with the co-ordinating council, could help enormously in solving these problems.

Fourthly, we should not make education the victim of inflation and, fifthly, we should create greater mobility in education by, for example, making use, of all available manpower and to appoint them in posts where they will be able to make the best contributions, whether they are White or Black. If a person is capable of teaching Xhosa, and he is asked to do so at a White school, it should be made possible for him to teach Xhosa. Furthermore, married females could also be used to teach at Bantu or Coloured schools. There is also a second aspect of mobility, and that is that our education institutions should be made open institutions again. Let it be made possible for the Blacks to be able to study to a greater extent at White universities and, if necessary, vice versa, particularly at a post-graduate level. This kind of contact is of fundamental importance.

In the sixth place, we have to afford the teaching profession a greater measure of professionalism, because the status of teachers has to be regarded as of the utmost importance. In conclusion, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Algoa that we should give far more attention to technical education. To my mind these seven points represent responsible attempts to cope with the problems existing in the sphere of education.

In conclusion, I want to say that the motion as it stands, the motion of the hon. member for Rissik, who is a serious-minded person and not known for his frivolity, could only have been ironic. I am unable to support the motion.

If the hon. member pleads for the universities to be made open institutions, would it also be applicable to primary and secondary education?

In terms of the policy of my party, this will be the case eventually; there is no doubt about that. I would say one could avoid more racial friction by having contact with these people at the kindergarten stage than would be the case later.

Mr. Speaker, as one who has been in education for 23 years—since 1952—I can testify to the development that has taken place within education, particularly during the 23 years since 1952, and today I can pay grateful tribute to the previous Minister of National Education for the exceptional way in which he devoted himself to the task of the development of education in the Republic of South Africa. There is no doubt that his contribution was such an outstanding one that at a later stage, too, it will be a very clearly defined factor in the history of education. In the same breath I want to convey my congratulations towards the hon. Minister Koornhof on his appointment as our new Minister, and I have no doubt that this Minister, too, will make a very great impact on education as he has already done in other departments in the past.

I want to refer briefly to statements made by the hon. members for Durban Central and Rondebosch. In the first place I want to mention the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. It is ironical that it should be stressed that the Government has failed to eliminate the many deficiencies which they say exist, after receiving representations from the Opposition. In the course of my speech I shall refer to the exceptional contribution already made by the Government towards countering the so-called deficiencies. Since the hon. member referred to the limited resources in regard to bursaries and loans, I just want to point out that in the financial year 1975-’76 almost R6 million was provided by the State for bursaries and loans to university students. This is quite apart from contributions received from the provinces, semi-state institutions and the private sector.

With reference to the speech by the hon. member for Rondebosch, it appears that we have a difference of approach in regard to our attitude towards education. Furthermore, looking at this motion, we find that it is the standpoint of the Government that we do in fact wish to acknowledge in a responsible way that there are still certain problems in education, but at what level of society do problems not occur! On the other hand, we want to indicate very responsibly that we can also point positively to the fact that tremendous progress has been made in education as such. It is now repeatedly being stressed on that side of the House that supposedly nothing has been done. I find it strange that the Opposition should so often snatch at the opportunity to say: “After all, we told you a long time ago.”

I want to refer further to the speech by the hon. member for Rondebosch in which he mentioned the expenditure of the national income on education. The hon. member for Rondebosch simply requested that higher salaries be paid. Certainly we should very much like to pay higher salaries in education, but as befits a responsible government, it is necessary to see this in context, taking into account all the ramifications of the national economy. We cannot simply say that whatever else happens, we must spend more money on education, although we should very much like to be able to do so.

I should like to refer to a second matter touched on by the hon. member. He made a certain statement which I feel will be statistically misleading if published outside this House. To be specific, he drew a comparison between the unit cost in regard to the contribution to education of the Whites as against that of the non-Whites. I want to point out that the hon. member is perhaps not acquainted with statistical comparisons because this is an unfair comparison. One simply cannot compare the unit cost of a group which is trained from Sub A to matric with another group which is not trained in the same ratio, viz. from Sub A to Std. 6, and to a lesser extent, up to Std. 8 and matric. The cost of training will of course be higher in Std. 8 and matric than in Std. 1 or Std. 2, for example. You will probably concede the point that those figures are misleading and I do not think that they can be published as such outside this House.

I should like to come back to the motion as it stands here. It is beyond question that when we discuss education, we are dealing with a profession of cardinal importance. I do not want to draw comparisons between the various professions; that is not my task today. One reason for this is that we have in education a distinctive profession which, in a certain regard, is linked to the public service and also to the provincial authorities. Furthermore, we are dealing with a profession which is recognized as a profession in which the limiting situation exists that even though the member concerned works as hard as he can, he is still limited in the extent to which he can progress. For example, a teacher can work himself to a standstill in the classroom, on the sports fields, administratively, in the cultural sphere and elsewhere. If he is lucky he may become a headmaster, but in any event he will not progress further than an inspector, notwithstanding his tálents and his zeal. On the other hand we find that in another profession, the medical profession, for example, a person of the same talents who works very hard will earn far more than a teacher in the long run. In this respect alone there are differences which make it impossible for me to compare professions. However, it is important that to a large extent the nation’s education determines the character, preparedness, etc. of that nation. What the hon. the Minister said is true. The cheapest means of defence for any people is its education. I endorse this, but I should like to add something in this regard. Education is also the guarantee for the growth of a nation, for the growth of a nation which has trust in God, which has patriotism, which is bound by cultural and traditional links and which also reaches academic heights. We know that according to the Russians there is nothing with a greater influence on the future character and way of thought and attitude of a people than education itself, more specifically the education policy and the teacher as such. I am grateful to be able to say today with conviction that our Government realizes this too. I want to try to indicate in what way the Government has in fact made a contribution with regard to this important task.

Firstly, we may look at the salary aspect. In January 1966 the existing salary scales were increased by two notches. In January 1968 all previous employment experience of teaching staff was recognized for salary purposes. In April 1969 the principle of a notch by notch adjustment was recognized. In April 1970 all salary scales were revised. In January 1971 the minimum salary scales in categories A, B, and C were increased by one notch. In April 1973 an allowance of 15% was added. In July 1974 the allowance of 15% was consolidated with the salary.

We may also consider the grading of institutions and posts. In April 1969 the grading of all schools and colleges was revised. This was exceptionally advantageous for teachers. In April of the same year, additional posts were created for senior assistants at schools and the system of deputy headmasters came into operation.

As far as pensions are concerned, the situation is as follows. In April 1969 the five provincial education pension funds were merged, and as a result a much stronger fund came into being. In July 1973 the consolidated fund was merged with four other pension funds, as a result of which the so-called Government Service Pension Fund came into being, with vastly increased benefits for education as compared with what had previously been the case.

We may also take into account the aspect of accommodation. In April 1969 a housing subsidy payable on a maximum bond of R15 000 was introduced. They kept abreast of the times, and in October 1975 the maximum subsidizable amount was increased to R20 000. A vacation savings bonus for teaching staff was introduced, one which has been increased in the course of time. Every teacher will have to concede that there has also been exceptional progress in regard to buildings, teaching aids, provision of staff, sporting facilities etc. It is clear, therefore, that the argument put forward that nothing or very little has supposedly been done is devoid of all truth. But it is also true that the progress made has not been in respect of education alone. There has been progress in respect of all other sectors. As I see it, owing to the acute manpower shortage and also to the prevailing economic prosperity, the progress in the Republic of South Africa has resulted in this limited manpower being vied for. Now I fear that the offer in regard to education has not been among the highest in this regard. That is why there has been an exodus from education, because there is the further important principle that a minimum qualification is required of the man wishing to enter education, secondary education for example. With that minimum qualification he only has limited opportunities in education. He can become vice headmaster or deputy headmaster or the headmaster of a school, and only a minute percentage can become inspectors of education. On the other hand, if a man with these same qualifications—a bachelor’s degree, for example—were to go out to some of the semi-state institutions, the Public Service or the private sector, these minimum qualifications would be worth far more to him there than in education, because there he would be in a group not all of whose members possess that minimum qualification, and because his were so much higher, the possibility of his promotion would be so much greater and the possibility that he would get a senior post and earn a bigger income, far greater. That, then, is one of the reasons why we have had such an exodus from education.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very responsible and admit that problems in practical education undoubtedly do exist. The increase in the number of people who are graduating is a substantial one. It is of interest to note that we in South Africa have the highest university attendance figure in the world, viz. 16,83 per 1 000 of the population among the Whites, as against the USA with 12,6 per 1 000. This increase in the number of graduates, together with the economic growth in the country, has enabled commerce and the private sector to depreciate the place of the teaching profession in comparison with the position five or six decades ago, when education was highly regarded. This could only have given rise to problems. Education as a key service in any national community is not only the responsibility of education and the teacher, but is indisputably the responsibility of the entire community. In accepting this responsibility, and in the search for a solution to the problems, it is of cardinal importance that the highest degree of mutual trust be displayed in the course of negotiations to find a solution to this problem. The good faith of all the various groups, whether the Government or the provinces or organized education or the parents, or whoever it may be, must be irreproachable. The point of departure must be that education is at stake and that in negotiating, the best must be sought for education as such. This demands responsible action on the part of all the groups concerned.

Sir, I want to refer to some of these problems. In the first place I want to mention the problem of the place of education as such in the national set-up. This coincides with the present position as regards the status, as I want to call it, of the various departments of education. Education is primarily the responsibility of the State. But what do we find? The present place of the Education Departments in relation to other Government departments leads to a relatively low salary platform and this has a detrimental effect on the status of the teaching profession as such. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member on the other side over there will be in transports of delight because we agree with him, but that is nothing strange. After all, we admitted that we were aware of certain problems, but the difference lies in the approach to those problems. I want to ask whether it is really necessary for the provincial education department and its chief to have a lower rank than other Government departments, for example. It is true—and the hon. member for Durban Central referred to this—that as regards its staff and its budget, the Transvaal Education Department is comparable with the biggest Government departments. However it is ironic—as the hon. member has indicated—that the chief of education in a province must be promoted to another government department. Could consideration not be given to a centrally controlled education department? [Interjections.] If not, could consideration not be given in the meantime to the upgrading of the provincial education departments so that they may function as separate, autonomous departments in each province and will be directly responsible to the Administrator and the Executive Committee? In my opinion this could possibly serve as a solution in the interim.

I now want to touch on a second problem, the status of the teacher. No-one, of course, can achieve status through himself alone. In the first place, one can earn status by giving service, and I want to concede that the teacher, too, must attain his status by giving outstanding service in the classroom. Outside the classroom too, however, at the cultural and religious levels and in the life of the community, the teacher’s behaviour must be such as to be worthy of status. I agree with our hon. Prime Minister that a teacher enjoys his highest status in the heart of the child, because the child will give that teacher status if the teacher is in fact an educator, if he is a Christian, if he is a patriot and if he is a person of culture. All of us can acknowledge today that teachers of this kind, pious people, have made that exceptional impression on our lives, and this afforded them status.

However, it is not only a question of bestowing on the teacher the status to which he is entitled. The community, too, has the task of developing the status of the teacher. The necessary respect for education must be shown in everyday life, but how often do we not find that disparaging remarks are made about teachers, sometimes by the parents at table, even to the child. Surely this does not facilitate matters. Often, too, disparaging reference is made to teachers in the adult community. This is most certainly not a good thing for the status of the teacher. In my opinion there should be more recognition of the services rendered by the teaching profession to the children in practice.

The teaching profession itself has a task as regards the acquisition of status. Here I am referring to the organization of the teaching profession within a statutory teachers’ council similar to the Medical Association. Such a council could bestow a high status on the teaching profession in that the council would have certain powers in regard to admission, ethical codes, discipline, etc. I am grateful to know that the establishment of a professional teachers’ council is in fact being worked on and I also believe that such a teachers’ council will in fact be called into being as soon as possible.

In my opinion the Government, too, has a responsibility in regard to establishing a status for the teacher. In my humble opinion it is the task of the Government to create the necessary climate in which education itself can be raised to the level of priority within the framework of the public service which it in fact deserves. How should this occur? By creating the possibilities for improved conditions of service and improved working conditions. In 1969-’70, R412,6 million was spent on education. If this expenditure is viewed in relation to total government expenditure, it represents 18,1%. In 1972-’3 an amount of R655,6 million, representing 19,5%, was spent. In 1974-’75 the amount was R920,8 million, representing 19,1%. It will be with deep gratitude that the teaching profession will take cognizance of the fact that 19,1 % of total government expenditure goes towards education. However, it remains an open question whether, seen against the importance of and the problems within education in regard to the exodus from education, this percentage should not be increased in the light of the fact that we do in fact have the finance to divert to education. Furthermore I think that the Government can assist in the achievement of status by affording recognition to the professional status of the teacher and possibly the right of the organized profession, the Federal Council, to have a greater say in its own affairs.

I want to refer to a further problem—the shortage of teachers. Unfortunately I am unable to continue because the time allotted to me has expired. I shall therefore leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the trend of the arguments advanced by the previous speaker. First of all I should like to welcome the hon. new Minister whom we have in this portfolio. I should like to assure him that this portfolio is not going to be all fun and games like the other one he holds. [Interjections.] I think, though, that the hon. the Minister will find us to be co-operative since we have had a good working relationship with his predecessor. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Rissik for introducing the motion. We recognize his honesty in admitting that there are problems in tertiary education. His attitude was quite different from that of the hon. member for Virginia who gets annoyed when we criticize these problems. He said that there may be problems but we as an Opposition have no right to make a song and dance about them. He reminds me of the man who built a very nice racing car, spent a lot of money and time on it, but had only one problem with it: It would not win any races. Tertiary education finds itself in more or less the same position.

In my speech I want to concentrate more on one particular facet, that of technical education. There has been a general discussion on the overall picture of education in South Africa. Some hon. members have even spoken on secondary and primary education which I do not think bear much relation to the motion. It is in technical education that I think South Africa’s greatest need lies. There is no doubt about this since, as the hon. member for Rissik has admitted, examination results are shocking, particularly shocking in the technical subjects at our universities. We find, for instance, that although we have 800 students in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, degrees are conferred upon only about 100 of them in any one year. We know from statistics that of those 800, about 500 are going to leave university without having written the final examination.

It is here that I feel there has been failure on the part of the authorities to cope with the problem of the drop-out rate at our universities. There is a lot of time wasted. The time of the student is wasted, the time of the teacher is wasted and money is wasted. There is also the frustration of the student who failed to graduate. All these things are not taken into account, and we want to know why something positive is not being done about it. The English-medium universities are beginning to act more responsibly. We find now that certain of those universities are demanding minimum symbols in certain subjects, but this is still not the policy of all our universities. The fault here lies with the subsidy system. This is obvious. The paying of subsidies for every student enrolled at university is a self-defeating system. We would rather have subsidies paid on the degrees gained at universities because we would then be far better off. Instead of paying R150 per year for every student enrolled, we could rather pay a R10 000 subsidy for every graduate. The country would then be better off and so will the pupils.

You have got hold of something now.

As I see it, the problem at universities is that there is no co-operation between technical schools and advanced technical colleges on the one hand and universities on the other. A lot of the boys who now enroll for technical subjects at the universities should not, by rights, be going to a university at all; they should be going to advanced technical colleges after matriculation, because palpably they have an aptitude for technical subjects. However, such a boy goes to university where he spends two or three years failing year after year. He may pass in certain subjects but overall he fails the examinations at the end of each year. He then gives up in frustration and leaves university. What happens to such a boy? Does he go back to engineering, to a technical trade or something similar? Does he become a technician, or does he go off and become, perhaps, a salesman for an engineering company, or perhaps a commercial traveller? This is what is happening.

Most of the boys who have had a taste of university do not want to go back to a technical college to qualify in technical subjects. In many cases they are not getting recognition for the subjects they have passed. I do think the advanced technical colleges are playing the game and giving the boys credit for subjects passed at university if they return to a technical college and enroll for a technical certificate or diploma. However, this does not work the other way. If a boy goes to an advanced technical college and obtains an NTC II certificate or diploma, but then decides he wants to become a graduate engineer and enrolls at a university, one would think he would get credits at that university for the subjects he passed in getting his diploma. The universities, however, do not want to do this. He does not get the credits, and as a result he has to do four years instead of two years to obtain a degree.

This problem is an acute one. I know that there is a feeling at universities that they are lowering the status of an engineer when they recognize subjects passed at a technical college. However, even the Van Wyk de Vries Commission recommended that something be done about this. The commission recommended that a liaison committee be established between the universities, the technical colleges and the advanced technical colleges in each area to try to decide on some system whereby credits can be given and subjects evaluated. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what has been done in this respect. Have any of these liaison committees as yet come into being? According to my information, they have not. There has been very little progress in this regard.

A further point which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the syllabus which was recognized by the Federation of Professional Engineers allowing boys, who have taken a diploma at an advanced technical college, to do a further practical course of six months and then write an examination. Apart from the writing of an examination on the six months’ practical work, they are also required to submit a thesis on a practical job they have selected to tackle. If they pass the examination and meet with the other requirements, the Federation of Professional Engineers is prepared to grant the boys an exemption to enable them to become registered engineers. This will then save them having to go to university. This syllabus was formulated in 1973 and agreed to by the Department and the Federation of Professional Engineers. Last year boys studied at an advanced technical college for the examination and did the practical work, but at the end of the year the Department never set an examination for them. This is disgraceful. The boys who have studied are now left in mid-air, without an examination to write, and they do not know what to do.

I find that the Afrikaans-medium universities are lagging in technical subjects, in the recognition of technical subjects and in students studying to become teachers at advanced technical colleges. We know that this House passed legislation to stop the training of technical teachers—or any teachers for that matter—at advanced technical college as from the end of 1976. From then on they will have to go to university in order to become secondary teachers. Our shortage, however, is in technical teachers. If a boy or a girl with a diploma from a technical college has the inclination to become a teacher at a secondary school or at a technical college, he or she will now have to go to university to take the final examination. I am told that at the Afrikaans universities such people are not getting credit for the subjects they have passed at that advanced technical college. They have to do the entire course over again. This is very unfair to them because they will have already spent two or three years studying and will now have to study for a further two, three or four years. They should get credit for the subjects they have passed. The Afrikaans universities, by not co-operating, are losing a lot of potential Afrikaans-speaking technical teachers who do not wish to go to an English-speaking university after having studied their technical subjects in Afrikaans. The reluctance of the Afrikaans universities to recognize teachers’ qualifications from advanced technical colleges is another matter that should be looked into. As a result of this state of affairs, a continual shortage of these particular teachers is being experienced. A six-month study period has been laid down for technical teachers at advanced technical colleges. I should like to know whether a syllabus, similar to the one offered through correspondence courses for technical teachers, cannot also be granted to advanced technical colleges all over the country until such time as the Afrikaans universities give credit for the subjects passed by those particular students.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the motion proposed by the hon. member for is designed to welcome the new Minister—which we do—in his new post with a little bit of flattery, but also to remind him that there are considerable problems in education which it is going to be his responsibility to solve. We should like to say to the hon. the Minister, who is the member for Primrose, that the problems in education far surpass the flattery in importance, and that we hope that the primrose will be able to sweeten the odours and replace the weeds which are rank in the South African education garden.

The greatest problem facing South Africa and the new Minister is that we are losing good teachers with the right attributes. The evidence in this regard is overwhelming. For example, the headmaster at Fort Beaufort High School has not been able to fill the vacant music post for the last six years and the headmistress at the Adelaide Domestic High School has not had a suitably qualified English teacher from 1967 to 1975. The parents of the East Rand Afrikaans high schools formed a secret committee to study the staff shortages and the implications thereof. Their report refers to a crippling shortfall in new teachers and also to the many second-raters who at present fill the posts and are an embarrassment to education. This shortage starts in the colleges. The number of students coming forward to be trained in the educational profession is disheartening. Prof. Boyce, the rector of the Johannesburg College of Education, said it was doubtful whether half the vacancies would be filled. At Potchefstroom there were only 364 applicants for 605 places. At Goudstad there were 300 applicants for 500 places. Finally, at Pretoria there were 700 applicants for 900 potential places. This means that indications in the Transvaal late in 1975 were that well in the region of 1 100 teachers short were being trained.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I gave this House certain figures which reveal that late in 1975 in the Transvaal approximately 45% of the vacancies in the training colleges had not been filled. I ask the House, how can the hon. member for Rissik come here and table this motion which is before us and which thanks the Government for the spectacular progress made in the field of tertiary education. I think that that hon. member must be crazy or badly deluded. The fact is that the Government has failed …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to make an insinuation such as that?

The hon. member must withdraw the word “crazy”.

I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the Government has failed to take adequate steps to counter the many deficiencies which retard progress in education in this country, as the hon. member for Durban Central has indicated in our amendment. For further evidence, I should like to quote to you what their own Nationalist leaders have to say on this score.

They have not got any leaders, have they?

Well, what they claim to be leaders. On 30 September 1975 the MPC for Verwoerdburg attended his report-back meeting, which was reported as follows—

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg agrees with his MPC and that he will make an effort to encourage this Government to take steps to improve the situation, or at least to convince the hon. member for Rissik of the error of his ways.

*What is more, last year at the Southern Transvaal Synod of the DRC proof was given of the spirit of materialism prevailing among the youth, and the lack of interest in the teaching profession among our students.

†Also, Dr. J. Kruger, senior lecturer in the Education Department at Potchefstroom, wrote in Woord en Daad of 7 October 1975 that “there is a serious need for clear and unambiguous guidance by the Government. Teachers’ problems and frustrations in the class-room should be analysed and unnecessary problems avoided.” The parents, the church, the politicians, the universities and the teachers’ associations have all urged that action be taken. Yet the hon. member for Rissik can come along here and speak of spectacular progress.

Oh, he is a verkrampte!

The Federal Council for Teachers has spelled out in detail what should be done. The outgoing Minister of National Education agreed. He is reported in The Daily News of 26 September 1975 as saying that “teachers will get full status, that legislation will be introduced to create a full teachers’ professional council”. Where is this legislation? The Minister has gone—have his promises gone with him? The new Minister has also made promises. We live on promises, Mr. Speaker.

They are not fulfilled.

I do not think that there is a profession in the world that does so much for so many for so little. The teacher carries a colossal responsibility: He builds strong bodies; he educates young minds and he moulds firm characters. His day does not start at eight and end at four. It is a full-time occupation: quantities of work go home at night; extra-mural school activities are considerable and demanding. Officially, a teacher is on call 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. There are no overtime rates or expense accounts. The demands in terms of effort and time are high. For these requirements we must attract people of the best calibre.

However, what sort of material is making itself available? Last year at the JCE the IQs of the teacher applicants ranged from 88 to 145. One must realize that in such a range, selectivity is essential. As Prof. Boyce said—and I quote—

Why are so few students making themselves available? According to the president of the Natal Teachers’ Society to whom I spoke on Tuesday, cash is the paramount factor. The education departments, the private schools and universities are all in direct competition with commerce. Therefore, realistic salaries are absolutely essential if people of the right calibre are to be attracted to and kept in the profession.

Salaries cannot be discussed while the teachers’ scales are, tied to the Public Service Commission. On the present scale, directors of education earn less than newly qualified doctors, because the directors are slotted into the hierarchy of the Public Service. This sets a ceiling and the control is transferred right down the ranks to the critical areas. Take for instance, the case of a senior assistant in teaching: He has four years of university training, he has six years of experience and at the age of 28, say, he has the extra financial responsibilities of marriage, a family and a home. And he earns, approximately, only R600 per month. That same man, with a degree and six years’ experience, will, depending on his ability, earn R1 000 to R1 100 per month in commerce. So who wins the battle for such men? This is the nitty-gritty of the problem. One can understand why at the JCE …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I have very little time. If I have any time left, I shall answer the hon. member’s question. In 1976, of the 703 applicants only 59 were men. The new Minister’s recent statement that no increase in salaries can be considered at present could, I think, lead to a tremendous exodus from the teaching profession.

There are other factors which contribute to the teachers’ shortage. These factors have to be borne in mind. The first one to consider is the clerical overburden. Teachers enter teaching to teach, not to become clerical donkeys.

This clerical overburden should be diverted to administrative offices to allow teachers to practise their vocation. The extra-mural duties are also becoming an impossible load to carry, especially for the fewer and fewer male teachers. Parents expect the maximum facilities at each and every school. These facilities become costly white elephants and are under-utilized because there is not enough staff to man them. Is this satisfactory or desirable? I claim that it is not. The alternative is to cut down on extra-mural activities, to incorporate more parent assistance or to hand over this aspect of education to private organizations, unless of course one attracts more teachers, particularly males, to the profession. The feminizing of the teaching profession could, of course, be a promotion point to attract more males. But it also raises the question why female teachers are being discriminated against in salary? They are being paid an increment less than male teachers. And what of the married women teachers? These are our best teachers with their experience and maturity. But they are generally placed on a temporary grading of 24 hours’ notice with no pension benefits. If they hold a post and a young unmarried woman applies, then out they go.

A final problem which the hon. the Minister must examine is the plight of the rural schools. I mentioned the schools of Fort Beaufort and Adelaide earlier. These schools are not the exception. Principals of rural schools throughout South Africa—except perhaps in Natal—are hard pressed to find staff. In Amersfoort the school is closed and children are “bused” to Volksrust. I appeal to young women teachers to go into the country. I do not think the girls know what opportunities await them there. There are so many charming companions often with farms to boot and I think the prospects of saving money in the country must exceed those of the city.

Mr. Speaker, these problems and the solutions have been known to the teaching profession for a long time. It is also not the first time that the United Party here and in the country has urged the Government to take action. We find this motion a blatant insult. It is an insult not only to this side of the House, but to all those bodies and persons engaged in education. For years the educationists have co-operated “in a correct and responsible manner” as this motion asks them to do. What response have they had? Nothing but a kick in the pants. We greet this motion with scorn and I am sure they do too. I wonder if it is because they have been so correct in their approach that they have got nowhere? The ball is firmly in the Government’s court. They cannot pass the buck. We will watch with interest to see whether the new Minister has the iron to act.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank the hon. member for Rissik very sincerely for the motion which he moved. I also want to extend my thanks to the speakers on our side of the House who participated in the debate as well as to the speakers on the opposite side. I also want to thank them for the good wishes which they extended to me personally. I want to assure them that I appreciate this very much. I also appreciate the fact that in general the debate was conducted at a very high level. However, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made a very bitter speech, but this is true to character. He just wants to make a bit of an impression as a backbencher, and I am prepared to forgive him even this. I want to thank my predecessor, Senator the hon. Van der Spuy, very sincerely for the contribution which he made to national education over a period of six or seven years. I think that we are still too near the actual time in which he served to be able to evaluate the mark he made as a dedicated, modest, extremely good Minister in that portfolio. I do not have the slightest doubt, from observations which I have made since I have been in this department, that Senator Van der Spuy has made his mark on education and that this will become much clearer in years to come than it is at present.

Let us now for the sake of our economic position, put our heads together so as to combat inflation. Let us for the sake of peaceful coexistence, practise détente. But let us for the sake of the real future of our children, ensure that our education is right and good and fundamentally sound. This will in all modesty be my approach in this portfolio. During my career I have never yet had a more wonderful or more interesting task entrusted to me than that of national education. I shall, in all modesty, try to do my share to the best of my ability, and I shall raise my eyes to heaven with a sincere prayer that I may receive the necessary insight and wisdom to do justice to this portfolio, which I consider so important, in the interests of the people of South Africa. I shall apply myself to this task with absolute dedication, and it will be a great joy and pleasure to me under all circumstances to act as the champion of the teachers, the champion of the children, the champion of the parents and the champion of education. It will be a privilege for me, and I want to tell everyone who is connected with education, that my door will be open 24 hours a day to enable them to come to me with their difficulties and problems so that the necessary attention may be given to them.

The education of a people is a national affair. It affects everyone, with very few exceptions it affects everyone at some stage in their lives. Education is indissolubly interwoven with the quality of a people. Education is, as has been said in the debate today, the mother profession, it is a basic profession. Education is more than this too—it is a vocation. The roots of our people’s sound continued existence are in education. There cannot be the slightest doubt about his. Because this is so, I think that we have now entered an era in which we as a nation, as a community and as a country, must make a revaluation of the place of education in our national economy. I shall make it my task, together with hon. members and together with everyone connected with education, to make that very essential revaluation of the place of education in our national economy. It has been said here that with the necessary goodwill, the necessary good faith and the necessary co-operation, there is in fact no problem which cannot be solved. I believe this to be especially true in the field of education. If we say that it has a fundamental function, that it is a mother profession and a basic profession, we must now look at the history of the world, as it is known to us. When I was a student of classics at several universities—here and abroad—I learned what Socrates once said several thousand years ago in that small place, Athens, where the flame of civilization was kindled, in the glow of which we still bask today. When he was asked to make a speech, he would stand on the highest point in Athens and his speech would be very simple, short and to the point. When I quote him, you may accept at once that I agree with the words which he said so many thousands of years ago because they still apply to us in these times. His speech would have been as follows—

This would have been his whole speech. We say that we live in a civilized country, that we at the southernmost point of Africa have a calling to fulfil, that we have an example to set to the other countries in Africa. If we on the southernmost point of Africa want to play our role as leaders, we must realize anew that education does have a fundamental function, that it is in fact the mother profession and that it is in fact a basic profession. Then we must ask ourselves in all seriousness whether the place which national education occupies in our national economy at present, really is the place we want education to occupy. The question is whether we underrate education or whether its value must be rated higher than what it is at the moment. I have made a study of this subject, and I do not have the slightest doubt that we shall have to come to the conclusion that we shall have to set a greater value on education and the teacher in our community than has been the case to date and is the case at present. I do not make any secret of it, and if hon. members want to exploit this politically, they may do so with the greatest of pleasure.

I want to make a request to all the parties in the Republic, to all the news media in South Africa—the Press, the SABC, the television service, to everyone associated with the news media—to the whole population of South Africa: Let us work together to give national education the place it deserves in our economy. If we make this our goal, I do not have the slightest doubt that we shall achieve that goal very soon. In all modesty I wish to say that I do not see any reason why the next few years in education should not be the golden years for education if we go about this together. Golden years for education in South Africa will be golden years for South Africa and even golden years for places far beyond our borders in Africa, because this is what we must do if we say that it is the mother profession, if we say that it is fundamental to the continued existence of a people, and if we say that it is a basic profession. If we say that it is a basic profession, let us look what Aristotle said so many thousands of years ago about the teacher, the person who is indissolubly one of the most important elements in education. After all, without a teacher one cannot have education, except in the home. Aristotle said thousands of years ago—

All I want to say with reference to this important statement of Aristotle—and this is very important—is that since the earliest times, as far back as in classical times, people have written about the place of the teacher in the national economy. Aristotle already realized at that time that the place of the teacher in the national domestic economy was indeed an important one and that “they should be honoured more and well”. I can still remember how I struggled in my Greek II class in order to translate this idiomatically. The literal translation of the original is “Because they give them the art of living well”. The well-known author Macaulay, also referred to ancient Athens in his works, and he gave us the following wonderful description: “Athens could produce great men and women because Athens expected it of her sons and daughters to be great men and women. ” It is not so impossible to expect some thing like this! However, Macaulay added to this: “Genius is subject to the same laws that regulate the production of cotton and mollasses. The supply adjusts itself to the demand. ’’ This is true.

In looking at the place of the teacher in our national economy and in education, I should like to say very emphatically that I believe that what the sculptor is to the rock, the teacher is to the child. Aristotle saw this so clearly—even at that time. “To teach him the art of living well”. What the sculptor is to the unhewn rock, the teacher is to the child. Here we sit as members of the House of Assembly, as leaders of the people. When I look around me, it seems to me as though the teachers have not made too great a mess of the hon. members who are sitting here. [Interjections.] However, when I look at the benches of the PRP, I am not quite so sure!

Ours have been doing very well up to now. Don’t worry.

The fact is, however, that the place of the teacher in education must be a valued one, one for which there should be understanding, understanding of the problems of the teacher and of his achievements. Teaching is a profession, a noble profession. It is a vocation and must be regarded as such. It must not be accepted just lightly. Both the State and the community each has its particular task as far as education is concerned. So much is said and written these days about the status of the teacher. I want to get away from the word “status”, because how does one give oneself status? As far as I am concerned, anyone who tries to give himself status, will make a big fool of himself in the process. One cannot give oneself status. A teacher cannot give himself status. But society can give a teacher status. Therefore, it is our task to give the teacher status.

†Then we shall assist the teacher again to understand the art of teaching how to live well.

*A special duty rests on the Government to do justice to the teacher. However, this task is not that of the Government alone. It is also the task of the Opposition parties to have justice done to the teacher in our society. It is not fitting to point fingers at one another or to make accusations. We should rather see our task in its proper perspective, and, as a society, employ the news media and all other media so as to gain our desired objectives as far as education and the teacher are concerned. We must ask what these objectives are. They must be defined simply. As soon as this has been done, we must work towards achieving the objectives we have set, with a will and with the aid of the necessary mutual good faith and co-operation.

People speak of bottlenecks in education. I therefore want to suggest that we make it our first objective—and I do not believe that anyone in the country will differ from me on this score—to ensure that a sufficient number of male teachers are drawn towards the teaching profession. This should be our first objective. We are very grateful to all the female teachers in the profession, because we need them. However, when the situation arises that between 60% and 70% of our teaching staff consist of women, we are unavoidably faced with the lack of fatherly and male discipline, especially in the primary school. This is a fundamental problem. The teaching profession in South Africa cannot be practised by women alone, no matter how good they may be. We appreciate their services very much, but our objective must nevertheless be to draw a sufficient number of male teachers to the teaching profession.

This is a simple objective. But the teaching profession on its own cannot succeed in achieving this objective. Nor can the Government on its own succeed in achieving this objective. However, if we as a people make a united attempt, we shall achieve that objective fairly soon. Then we shall no longer have the situation where a teacher discourages his pupils from choosing teaching as a profession. I believe that this is an indictment against society. It is an indictment against the people of South Africa when a teacher tells his pupils that they should not become teachers. I see this in a very serious light.

If we make it our first objective to draw a sufficient number of male teachers to the teaching profession, we come to the second objective—and this is very closely connected to the first, namely, it must be our objective to ensure that all teachers, male and female, are happy in their profession and in their vocation. Should we fail to achieve this objective, the old problem of a drain on the teaching profession arises once more. To succeed in achieving this objective, is not impossible. If we try to do this in a united fashion and with good faith and co-operation, it is not impossible that we in South Africa shall succeed in drawing a sufficient number of people to the teaching profession and in making our male and female teachers happy in their profession.

I believe that there is one characteristic which fits a teacher like a glove, as perfume suits a woman. This is the ability to be sympathetic. A teacher may be the most intelligent person in the world, and yet fail as a teacher if he does not have this ability to be sympathetic. But show me a person who has the necessary sympathy, and you have a person who has every possibility of becoming a good and great teacher. Sympathy is indeed like mercury in the palm of one’s hand. This also holds true for our people and our society. If the hand is open, the mercury lies there for all to see. But, if the hand is closed, the mercury scatters in a thousand different directions. Nothing remains. If society extends the hand of sympathy to the teacher, and to his profession, we shall be making a very important contribution towards making a teacher happy in his profession, towards interesting our children in the teaching profession once again and towards drawing them to that profession.

On this occasion I want to address an earnest plea to our young people. I want to tell them: Make teaching your career; it is a fine and wonderful profession. I am convinced you will be happy in the teaching profession, because we are going to do everything in our power to make you happy and to keep you happy in teaching. We want you to be able to live such satisfying lives in this great vocation—the education of our children—that you will realize yourselves fully in a teaching career. Furthermore I want to appeal to those male and female teachers who have left teaching to make a living elsewhere: Come back to teaching; we need you. Come and help us to do justice to these beautiful and important things, in the interests of our profession. We want to strive towards the realization of a teaching profession of which the teacher, the child and the parent may be proud.

I want to say one more thing about the teaching profession, and that is that “a teacher’s influence is indeed eternal; he can never tell when his influence stops”. And I say this to the young people whom I am inviting to join the teaching profession, because it is absolutely true. Sir, I just want to mention in passing one or two of the teachers I had in order to stimulate your memories about your own teachers. There was a teacher with the nickname “Honey”. Sir, what a teacher he was! I can remember when, during a geography lesson, he asked one of my classmates, a friend of mine, to point out Australia on the map. He did not know where Australia was and so he moved his hand over the whole map and said, “Sir, there is Australia.” Sir, there was also “Ou Droogte”, a teacher who taught me to love the Afrikaans language. There was a teacher with the name “Ou Vuile”. The people in and about Bloemfontein know him. What a brilliant teacher he was! He taught me to love sport. I am not much of a sportsman, but through his influence a deep love for all types of sport became firmly rooted in me. The influence of a teacher can indeed be very great. There was “Rikudys”, a man who perhaps meant more to me, besides my parents, than any other living being. On one occasion, when as a young boy I had troubles and felt as though the whole world was crumbling around me, “Rikudys”—who had a very strict appearance and maintained discipline in his class easily—called me and said to me, “Now you are like the man who was driving down a steep mountain pass, found an ox in his way and knocked it down. If you had not collided with the ox you would have had an accident a few bends further along the road and would have died. Remember this and do not despair, but carry on.” No pen can describe the value which this has had for me in my life. There was “Ou Kokkie”, one of the most outstanding mathematics teachers on earth. He never wanted to be a principal or an inspector. He was a teacher par excellence, and he remained so until the day he died. It is people like these who do justice to the teaching profession, this marvellous profession.

Sir, I could have used this opportunity to present you with a great pedagogical argument. There is time for it, but on this the first occasion when I am dealing with national education I want to avail myself of this opportunity to try and bring warmth into this marvellous profession. I hope that from this House of Assembly, with your co-operation, Sir, a spirit will extend throughout the country so that people associated with education and teaching, will know that there is understanding and appreciation of their profession in the highest council in the Republic of South Africa and that they may expect help and assistance from us all, because I think that they really have reason to lay claim to this.

Concerning salaries, a question which is very important, I have actually already said by implication that when one is going to make an evaluation of the place of education in the national economy, it naturally follows that the necessary will have to be done as far as salaries are concerned. But I am very grateful to say that the representatives of the teaching profession with whom I have held discussions in recent times, accept with understanding the present situation in which our country finds itself both internally and oh our borders. I think the necessary state of trust has already been established, and they know that when the circumstances of this country once again return to the point at which we can give attention to this, we shall ensure that the teacher, too, will receive his rightful share, financially too, in this respect. But the teacher knows as well as I do—indeed we all know and understand this—that if the teacher must really come into his own in the light of the vital contribution which he makes to the “art of living well”, then we must give such recognition to the teacher that it would be unnecessary for him to try and create status for himself, or to agitate for higher salaries, because he must know that in the highest council of the country there are people who will do this for him successfully with zeal, with fervour and with great enthusiasm. Then he may fulfil his great vocation and we shall create a teaching profession of which everyone in this country may really be proud.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Not so long ago, Mao Tse-tung was reported to have said that the international situation had reached what he called “a turning point”. He explained it as follows. He said:

Sir, Mao was referring to developments in Europe and Asia when he spoke, but the focus of world attention has recently shifted dramatically to southern Africa. When one looks across our immediate frontiers, one gets the uneasy feeling that here, too, the east wind is presently prevailing over the west wind. As far as we as South Africans are concerned, I believe it has become necessary that something strong should be done if we wish to avoid a sweep to permanent disaster.

It is true that the international organization of communism shows anything but a united front today. There is a major and a bitter conflict of interpretation between the two chief centres of communism, namely Moscow and Peking. There is a considerable distinction between the Chinese “Cultural Revolution” and all the other revolutions in the world. In fact, Mao has created a new ideology, capable of supplanting Soviet ideology. This has already become noticeable in Asia and Africa. It would be a mistake, however, Mr. Speaker, for us and for the West to seek comfort from the fact that there is such a fierce conflict between Moscow and Peking, because in practice it has tended to aggravate situations everywhere and not to ease them, and to aggravate them here in Africa as well. Much of the Soviet determination in Angola, for instance, was inspired by the necessity to pre-empt China and to counter-balance the favour which China had won and was winning in Africa in countries like Tanzania, Mozambique, and even in Zambia and others I could mention.

Sir, the essence of the problem with communism is not how people choose to govern themselves at home, if they keep their communism at home. Our trouble with communism is, firstly, that the masters of communism—all of them, Peking and Moscow—seek to dominate the world and to impose their ideology on everybody else everywhere. Secondly, whatever brand of communism one chooses to look at, it rejects every basic tenet of our Western way of life. It is a society of a despotic nature. It is a dictatorship society, more confining than any devised by the most absolute monarchs of the past. Thirdly, our trouble is that the masters of communism have given us, the Western world as a whole, written notice that they seek domination by means of revolution and subversion. Sir, there is more than enough evidence in the world of the aggressive and imperialist role of communism. This could be seen throughout Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the western hemisphere, and it has just been made clear again to all of us in Angola. Only a fool will fail to realize that things have come to a stage for us in South Africa where South West Africa and the Republic are high on their list of priorities.

The question we have to answer is what is our strategy going to be for survival. Now, it speaks for itself that military preparedness is necessary. But then, communism does not always come with a frontal invasion. They try not to be seen as outright aggressors. As the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs once put it, their strategy is to exploit problem situations and, where force of arms is required, to give support and backing to terrorist insurgents. We can expect that they will do this also in the case of Swapo’s Namibian Liberation Army, which operates from Angola into South West Africa. I believe that this will start in earnest once the MPLA has consolidated its position in Angola.

It also speaks for itself that communism should not be given any room to operate freely inside South Africa. This certainly is the attitude we of this party adopt. Having declared their political intentions so openly to all, there is no reason why communism should be allowed the privileges of democracy and the freedom to destroy freedom itself. What we will have to face at the same time, however, is the fact that there is a limit to what military preparedness and legislative steps against communism can achieve. If we want to make South Africa safe we will first have to establish a positive basis at home for united resistance against communist intervention, or, as I phrased it in my motion, we shall, as a first priority, have to create a just political and social order within our country.

That is where the present Government has failed South Africa completely. Their rigid race policies are South Africa’s greatest weakness in the face of aggression. Because of these policies we are our own best enemy. It was precisely because of this, because the Czars of pre-communist Russia failed to comprehend the forces of change and remained unyielding to the movement of history, that they prepared the seed-bed out of which Bolshevism and their own overthrow grew.

Let us be frank. In many ways the present Government are the modem political Czars of our time. Let us be frank about this. Despite the cosmetic changes which the apartheid policies of the Government have undergone from time to time it remains basically an unjust and untenable system which is deeply and bitterly resented by the vast majority of the people in this country, and which in several respects differs very little from the regimentation of people one finds under communist rule.

It has truly been said that a Black man or a Coloured man does not need to read Marx to react with hostility to the present system. The present race policies of the Government do not provide a basis on which the security of Our country and of our peoples can be built. If a fundamental change is not brought about, and is not brought about soon, then I have no doubt that we are marked for disaster. What we need is not minor adaptations grudgingly made to existing policies; we need a great leap forward. All forms of discrimination based on colour will have to be eliminated in a determined and decisive manner. The whole spirit behind apartheid will have to change. Let me say that what is euphemistically called separate development, which is a negative concept—the very word “separate” is a negative concept—should be replaced by a positive concept, viz. the concept of cooperative development. In other words, the forced apartheid society must disappear and must make room for a co-operative system and a co-operative society where people will have the freedom to choose with whom they wish to associate on a personal level.

Someone has described the cunningness of communism in the following terms—

Communism offers many appeals for different kinds of people, and therein lies one of its biggest dangers. Dr. Anton Rupert, a man we all know, summed up the position very powerfully when he described the steps we should take against the communist thrust as follows—

Let me say for the benefit of members on the opposite side that we are as much multi-racial as we are multi-national. Dr. Rupert also said—

He added—

We agree with him. Only if we follow political policies in this country which are capable of forging a common and forceful patriotism, can we hope to make South Africa safe.

Of course, once we have established such a healthy basis at home for resistance against communist intervention, it speaks for itself that we will have to begin repairing the state of our relations abroad. We cannot afford to have both the communist world and the free world against us. No country can afford it, we least of all. We will simply not survive. For this reason we shall have to come to an early, I would say an almost immediate, accommodation with the free world. We shall have to create a situation where particularly the major Western powers will once again, as in the past, be prepared openly to side with us in defence.

We realize that to achieve this there are several matters we will have to put right. In the first place there is the question of South West Africa. South West Africa must be established as a sovereign independent State. We shall have to take the lead ourselves. However, there is no reason why we cannot find room for co-operation with the United Nations. And, of course, all South West Africa’s peoples will have to be given a share in the government of their country. The principle of independence was accepted by the Government nearly a decade ago. It is already an accepted principle. One wonders when the Government is going to realize that, having accepted the principle of self-determination and of independence, time is unfortunately not on our side in this matter. With the passing of the years our chances of achieving a peaceful and satisfactory arrangement for and in South West Africa have been diminishing all the time. Now, after Angola, we are faced with a situation which is even more complicated and more difficult than before.

It is clear that further delay in bringing this issue to a successful conclusion does not serve the interests of anybody, least of all the inhabitants, be they White or Black, because we all know that nothing has such a depressing effect on business and on development and on a country as a whole as uncertainty. Unfortunately there is an air of deep uncertainty now prevailing in South West Africa. If we want to make South Africa safe for ourselves and for the sake of our neighbours, then we believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should take an active lead in the matter himself and get the dispute over South West Africa out of the way. I believe that if he acts with expedition there is every chance that a new South West Africa will become a friendly neighbour and a valuable ally against communist intervention.

The second priority is related to the first. I believe that we shall have to seek a fresh accommodation with the United Nations, however little the idea may appeal to us. With all its blatant defects, the world community cannot afford to be without an international organization such as the United Nations is. No international body, representative of all the world’s conflicting interests, can ever hope to be without problems and weaknesses. To try to break it down, however, can serve no purpose at all, except to benefit the organized world of the communists. We must therefore work for an improvement of the United Nations. We in South Africa are in a position to play a unique role in this direction, if we want to. In fact, I have a feeling that we are going to see a quite surprising and perhaps even ironical situation developing in respect of our relations with the United Nations. I believe that with the growth of the menace of communist imperialism in our part of the continent we may well come to the stage where we find ourselves in the position of having to invoke the good offices of the United Nations on our behalf. Several signs already point in that direction.

There is a third priority that I wish to mention. We are almost chronically on the wrong side of the propaganda battle between the free world and the communist world. That is one of our main weaknesses, that we continually find ourselves on the wrong side. We claim, quite rightly, that we were the first African country to free ourselves from European imperialism or European colonial rule. Unfortunately, over the years we have not been as sympathetic as we should have been to the many movements of Black independence in Africa. One of Russia’s major propaganda weapons in the case of Angola was the fact that it started to support the MPLA more than ten years ago when it was fighting for independence against the Portuguese regime of Caetano. The fact that it then took the side of the battle against the colonial power, was one of its major propaganda weapons in getting support in Africa. It is the height of irony, if not the depth of tragedy, that the masters of communism of all people should time and again succeed in manoeuvring themselves into a position where they appear to be the true backers of those who fight for national freedom. They managed it in Vietnam, Algeria and Malaya with varying degrees of success and now they have managed it in Angola.

They have the remarkable ability to switch costumes according to changing circumstances while we too often allow ourselves to be seen as the upholders of a decaying status quo. The hon. the Minister of Information often expresses the desire that South Africa should become a real part of the African world and that we should be accepted as a member of the Organization of African Unity. It is an excellent sentiment and one which we have very often expressed on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister, however, sits in one of the seats of power and he can get things done if he really wants to. I wonder if he has ever had a look at the charter of the OAU, because both in the preamble to the charter and in the statement of purposes of the organization, the OAU stands dedicated to the promotion of the ideals set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration is a set of ideals, and although nobody claims to have followed it through completely, it is there as a guide-line for the world at large. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a pertinent question: Is he in favour of South Africa declaring adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or is he not? I can see that the hon. the Minister is going to dodge the question, but I want to say to him that if he cannot reply to this question, then his desire for our country to become a member of the OAU amounts to meaningless speechmaking.

In regard to our future relations with Africa, the Government will soon have to tell us openly where we stand in respect of the recognition of the MPLA as the new controlling Government of Angola. Admittedly, our position is not an easy or an enviable one, but the possibilities should have been foreseen. Most of the major countries have now recognized the MPLA as the Government in control in Angola, while we still have a military presence in the territory in terms of a previous position. In fact, we have arrived at the difficult but logical conclusion of our participation in Angola and it is in the interests of South Africa that the Government should soon tell us what they intend to do, because the way in which we handle the Angolan situation now may have a vital bearing on the safety of our country and on the future place we have in Africa.

Finally, if we really want to make South Africa safe against communist aggression, then we shall have to seek a firm alliance with the major powers of the West and there can be no doubt about that. The prevailing acidness which has become evident on the Government side over what the role of the United States was supposed to have been or should have been in Angola, can be of no help whatsoever to our country. It has been allowed to seep through that the United States has “left South Africa in the lurch” in Angola, and from Government quarters the Western world is continually being denounced as lame and tame and as an almost stupid lot who cannot stand up to the strain of events.

Do you disagree?

I do. The hon. the Minister of Information himself—and here I must say he is a man who lives in a glass house—has not been slow to hurl unflattering remarks in the direction of the Western powers. If he speaks, he or whoever speaks for him will probably do so again. I call him “a man in a glass house”, because he is as much responsible as anybody else in his party for the policies that have landed South Africa with the grave disadvantages with which it is faced every time we are in need of allied support. When the American Senate met last month and turned down the proposal of the President that America should support the FNLA and Unita in Angola, the decision there was dominated by two major considerations and one of them involved South Africa. The one consideration against America’s participation in Angola was the United States’ experience in Vietnam. I think we all understand what that experience was and what the effects on the American people were. However, the other main consideration—and I am quoting direct words which were put to me authoritatively—was “not wanting to be associated with apartheid”.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister ought to know it. It was told to me authoritatively and I stand by it.

By whom?

I say that to him, and if he thinks it is untrue let him say so and we can check it. If in fact it is untrue, then this hon. Minister of Information must be doing an awfully bad job. Let me tell him that I have authoritative information that that was the other main consideration, and when I inquired about which of the two was the stronger, I was told that both played equal roles.

That is only one individual.

Tragically, even in our hour of need, one of the two dominating reasons why the American Senate decided to stay out of Angola was the fact of not wanting to be associated with apartheid. That is all the more reason why Government members should be the last to cast stones. If a miscalculation has been made about Angola or in Angola, the American Administration was not the only one to have made such a miscalculation. The simple fact is that America is a vast democracy of 200 million people with a complicated system of government. In the Second World War Mr. Roosevelt was forced to move slowly in the direction of involving his country with the Allies. In the end, however, America proved to be the saving factor. Let us face facts, however. As far as the struggle against communist imperialism is concerned, no country has so far matched the contribution and the sacrifices that have come from the United States, sacrifices they are continually making. Like any other country, it has its internal and international problems, and the desired action may sometimes come slowly. However, by continually pointing accusing fingers at the West, we are going to get nowhere. I therefore believe it is imperative for us—for our safety and our security—to solidify relations with the United States and other leading nations.

In moving my motion, I deliberately avoided a too academic discussion, because references to communism and anti-communist speeches are not going to stop the thrust of communist imperialism, and I hope the hon. the Minister will realize that. What we want the Government to tell us, is what they intend to do and how they intend to prepare the whole of South Africa for the onslaught of communist imperialism which has already begun.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout hardly came anywhere near the motion which is before the House, except for referring to the so-called “co-operative development” which is a new concept of integration. In the course of my speech I shall also refer to the motion which is before us. I disagree so radically with this new concept of integration, i.e. co-operative development, that I want to begin by moving the following amendment to the hon. member’s motion—

South Africa has repeatedly proved in the past that it is the bulwark against communism in Southern Africa. Because we have always been the bulwark against communism, we have ensured order, stability and security for all peoples in Southern Africa, and this is there for everyone to see. We formed this bulwark against communism for three main reasons. Actually there are more reasons, but I do not have time to mention more than three. In the first place, our Christian view of life obliges us to be an enemy of communism. There must be no misunderstanding about this. In the second place, we are forced into this role by our right of self-determination, as contained in our political policy, by means of which our whole way of life is arranged in its entire compass, from a free economy, because we are a capitalist country, up to a political and social order, because we are a democratic country. It is a political and social order which is unique to South Africa because of the particular composition of its population. In the third place we have done this in order to seek alliance, understanding and co-operation from the non-communist powers of the West. We do not want that desire for co-operation to be terminated now. We shall persevere in it.

From the events in Angola, however, it would appear, superficially seen, as if the non-communist powers of the West attach no importance whatsoever to the fact that an anti-communist State on the southern tip of Africa is able to offer them certain vital guarantees in respect of important offensives against communism. Superficially viewed, it would appear that the West would not be unduly disturbed if Russia were to extend its sphere of influence to this part of the world and to establish it here and to assume a dominant position which would even threaten the survival of the whole West. May I say, too, that they have no apartheid either.

For this reason it would appear that this last reason why we have fought communism was a mistaken strategy on our part, because we are not part of the West or part of Europe, but an inseparable part of Africa. This concept has been well highlighted by our hon. Prime Minister over the past two years. The present state of affairs proves to us that all previous Governments have erred in this respect and that the delightful “home” sentiments, which have been felt by so many of our people, have been nothing but idle daydreams. South Africa has to fend for itself, not only in the fight against the ideology of communism in which we have been principally engaged in recent times, but also in protecting and safeguarding ourselves against a violent takeover.

I agree with the motion that a national dispensation which ensures happiness and satisfaction among the population is able to ward off communist threats, but where this motion seeks to suggest that we are a so-called “unjust society”, I disagree completely with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and that is the reason for the amendment I have moved. Because of the particular composition of our population in South Africa, we must always take care not to suggest or propagate things which could in fact promote the aims of communism, namely the creation of revolutionary unrest which must develop into violent action.

This will flow from your actions.

The philosophy of communism, which aims to instigate insurgence and revolution, is very simple. The masses must be activated. If there is a large under-privileged working class—no matter whether its members are Black or White—this is all for the better, because then the masses can be incited much more easily. I now want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether our policy of separate development is basic to the policy of any party in, for example, Portugal, Italy, Spain, France or England, where communism is rapidly gaining ground. Of course not! However, there are great masses of people belonging to the under-privileged working class, and they are not Black; they are White. This working class, which is found in any community throughout the world and which, as a matter of economic inevitability, occupies a less favourable position as against the élite and wealthy groups, and which is not at all characteristic of a so-called unjust society, are to be incited to dissatisfaction with and resistance to the existing dispensation by people who are ready and willing to keep suggesting, repeating and emphasizing that specific groups of people are supposedly being oppressed.

Japie Basson.

They must be persuaded that they have grievances. They must be persuaded that they are being treated in an unjust and oppressive manner. They must be persuaded that they are deliberately being placed in a less favourable position in the political and economic sphere. I need not quote any notable authorities on communism to substantiate my statement, because this is a well-known method of communism in forcing its ideology upon an unwilling population by means of violence.

With reference to the motion which is before us, I want to state that the fact that large numbers of non-Whites are living within the White area of South Africa, non-Whites who do not share in the political processes which the White man has created for himself in his area and who are excluded from the social intercourse between Whites, is not a feature of a so-called unjust society, a term which the Opposition and the English Press use at will to damage South Africa abroad.

You are talking nonsense!

In South Africa, with its population composed of White and Black, where the Government in the White area is rightly in the hands of the Whites, just as the Government in non-White areas is rightly in the hands of the non-Whites, no particular knowledge and skill in the techniques of communism are required to create extreme emotional conditions between White and Black and then to exploit these, as large parts of the Opposition keep doing. If a group of Whites keep telling Black people that they are being unjustly treated and oppressed, and they continue in this vein, surely the Black people would be foolish not to end up by believing this. If this is done by White people towards the Black people, the situation becomes so much more explosive.

The motion before the House, to the effect that a just political and social order must be created, reminds me very much of the techniques which I have just mentioned to you, Sir, because it does not even suggest indirectly that there is an unjust and oppressive situation in the political and social sphere in South Africa, but this is blatantly stated as a fact and held up before the world as a truth. Surely this is an unforgiveable lie. Surely this is the greatest lie about South Africa. It is political deception. This is the kind of action that makes the communists rub their hands with satisfaction and laugh for joy from here to Moscow and all over the world, because it contains the germ of revolution. For almost 30 years now the Opposition—and they are Whites—have been telling the outside world from this House of Assembly that there is an unjust, oppressive social and political order in South Africa as far as the non-Whites are concerned.

I want to ask the Opposition: What is wrong with the fact that there is a White nation here which derives its identity from the deeds of its forbears, from the hardships that were suffered and from the battle that was fought—yes, even against bloodthirsty Black people in bloody border wars of which there were a great many in our history—but a nation which also derives its identity from the victories which were won and even from the defeats which were suffered; by which the knowledged was engraved upon our minds that this is a nation whose feelings are different, whose intentions are different and whose being is different from what the Opposition wants them to be? This is my nation and I am proud of my national identity which no other nation on earth can share with me, even if it wanted to. I am proud, too, of my people’s religion and its moral code in its variety—because there is variety. I am proud of my people’s language and culture in its diversity between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking countrymen—because there is diversity. But I am proud, too, of the political dispensation and the social order which the White man has created for himself within his area to reflect the things I have just mentioned to you. To be proud of that which is my own, after all, does not mean that I hate the Black man. It does not mean that I oppress him. Nor does it mean that I begrudge him that which is his own. There on the other side of the House people are sitting who continually do South Africa the disservice of telling the outside world that there is an oppressive political and social dispensation in South Africa because I do not want to surrender my national identity to the Black man—that is what they want; they want me to surrender it.

They are a bunch of hands-uppers!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hands-uppers”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Opposition have any right to tell the outside world that there is an unjust political and social order in the Transkei or in any other homeland? Why does the Opposition not tell the outside world that South Africa’s policy of separate development has had the most spectacular political result in modem history, namely the creation of independent states which in many respects are more meaningful in regard to their infrastructure, their economy and their political stability than a host of other states who are full-fledged members of the UNO today? Surely it is an unprecedented achievement to lead people to full awareness of the fact that they are a nation with a destiny of their own and to lead them through political development to full independence without its being necessary to shed a single drop of blood through violent action in the striving for self-realization. This is South Africa’s proud record—I say this with reference to this motion—in respect of its domestic policy which is founded on separate development. I see no injustice in this—I see honesty. I see no oppression in this, but security. I see no discrimination in this, but achievement. And that is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, having heard the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parys, we looked forward to a speech in which this alteration would to some extent be justified. Indeed, he began well because he started with what seemed likely to develop into a rational analysis of what communism is really about. However, his speech very rapidly and unfortunately deteriorated into an emotional approach to the whole question. [Interjections.] It is all very well to say to me that I should not criticize him, but surely this is a matter of such seriousness that we might expect a more logical and a less emotional approach. It is entirely true that the emotional approach is an old familiar sound-track and does not impress anybody very much. However, it still does impress a few, for example, the hon. member for Lydenburg, who got out his old wartime musket, and you were obliged to restrain him, Sir, to disarm him. I do not wish to spend very much more time directly on the hon. member for Parys because a great deal of my argument deals directly with his own argument.

I think that it is fair to say that South Africa in this day and age is generally aware of the dangers of communism. It is aware of the dangers of communism in its particular manifestations which have become familiar to us. I think, though, that it is fair to say that not everybody in this country is yet aware of the multiple threats posed by communism. I think it is most important that this country should be, because there is indeed a multiple threat. It was Gen. Eisenhower who said during his presidency the following—

Not to know the true nature of communism, not to know its diversity, is to fight your enemy blindfold. We must arm our people not only against the ugly and bad side, the obvious imperialism, the obvious aggressions of communism, but also against its more insidious ideological appeal, compounded of false promises, of misleading insinuations and a spurious philosophy. These are the real dangers. If communism appeared to all as wholly bad and wholly ugly, we should have nothing to fear for everybody would recognize it for what it truly is. Those of our people who are vulnerable to it, are vulnerable precisely because communism plays on their weaknesses and on their fears and on their frustrated hopes and on their dissatisfactions because it promises them a better life than they have or the one which they think they have. I propose, therefore, this afternoon not to deal so much with the obvious manifestations of communism, the violent aggressions, the assaults on religion, the domination of countries and the brutal suppression of human freedoms. These we know about, and we are forewarned. The revolutions, civil wars, execution squads, the purges, the forced labour camps of Siberia and the Gulag Archipelago are well known; we are rightly on our guard. I propose to deal instead with the more dangerous, the more insidious, the more seductive and insinuating aspects of communism and in particular with our own people’s vulnerability to those things.

It has been calculated that one-third of the world is already enslaved by communism, or is living within various kinds of the communist system. It is only too easy to say that all these people, or most of them, have been enslaved by violence. But who then are the other millions who enslaved them? Who are the others who willingly and zealously took part in the campaign of enslavement and who fought the communist wars? Why did they fight these wars? What are the basic principles that convert people to communism and unite them in their zeal to conquer the world and to make it their own Red communist world? I think that we must look at these principles because they are highly relevant to us and to our own society. It is, as I have said, easy to recognize the aggressive enemy who comes to your gate. It is not so easy to identify the man who comes in by stealth at night through a back window. I think that the first of the principles which we ought to look at is a very old principle. It goes back to the Communist Manifesto of 1848, more than 125 years ago. One of the things it says is this, and I quote—

The doctrine goes on to teach that the proletariat, the great under-privileged classes, must secure political supremacy in order to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all the means of production into the hands of the State, i.e. into the hands of the proletariat as the new ruling class, and to revolutionize by violence if necessary the whole system of production, indeed, the whole economy. Mr. Speaker, can anyone who has read the recent report of the Snyman Commission on Turfloop doubt that people such as those whom Judge Snyman describes, people suffering from the frustrations which he accurately and dispassionately describes, will not be susceptible to the teachings of the communist international and to arguments such as these?

Have you read the whole report?

I have read most of it. I have not read the whole report. I have certainly read portions which describe the frustrations of these people.

There are two sides to this report.

I know that there are two sides to this report. But I am asking hon. members to accept that the Snyman Commission describes a state of mind and a state of frustration amongst the people at those universities which is susceptible—and I put it no higher than that—to this kind of teaching. They are people who, because of their dissatisfactions, are vulnerable to this kind of teaching, to this kind of insinuation, to this kind of philosophy. That is all that I am saying.

It has become clear in recent years that the Black states of Africa, economically and militarily weak, are in fáct vulnerable to Russian imperialism, to Soviet aggression, to Soviet pressures, are willing to accept aid because of their very weakness and make themselves vulnerable to the kind of pressures that may be put upon them. Interestingly enough it has also become clear over the recent decades that the Black states of Africa are not particularly vulnerable to the communist ideology. The communists have been very active in Africa since the Second World War. There is not yet a single Black communist state in Africa, nor even a Black opposition, which is a communist party, because Black nationalism as a political force in Black Africa is superior in its attractions to any form of external philosophy. While this is a very important fact and something for which perhaps we should be grateful, namely the vulnerability on the one side and the resistance on the other, we must recognize that in South Africa it is precisely the other way around. In South Africa, because we are economically well-developed, because we have military strength, we are less vulnerable than the Black states to communist aggression, to force, to pressure, to leverage by technical aid and the other methods which the communists use. But, because we are a more developed industrial society, because we have a White/Black contra-position, because in this country of ours there is in fact the makings of a class struggle in places and in parts, in the minds of many people a real class struggle is already being waged. For this reason, while we are less vulnerable to the one aspect of communism which is imperialism and aggression, we are more vulnerable to the other, which is ideological insinuation, the ideological takeover, the attractions of the communist ideology and philosophy. This is something which we need to recognize and identify because if we are to defend ourselves we must know our enemy, we must know our own weaknesses and our own vulnerability.

The second communist principle which poses a threat to us and to which I wish to draw attention is the following, and I quote from the Manifesto—

This needs to be understood because people often fail to understand why it is that communists are so ready to support movements which have nothing whatsoever to do with communism. In Africa, for example, they have frequently supported Black nationalist movements. They have supported anticolonialist movements which had nothing to do with communism whatsoever. They even warmly welcome it if we, in our propaganda, describe such movements as communist—as we frequently do—because by doing this we give to communism a wider meaning, a wider support and a wider identification than it really earns or justifies. We make them look stronger and bolder and better than they really are. I believe that when our propaganda does this and we describe, indiscriminately, anybody who is trying to break down authority as a communist, we make a great mistake and we do ourselves a very great disservice. In our own Suppression of Communism Act passed by this Parliament we tend to define the term “communist” far too widely and in doing so we give a credence and credibility and a wide reputation to the communists by identifying with them people who have nothing whatsoever to do with communism. The simple aim of communism is to use all available means to destroy the existing system. If we help them by describing every revolt against every existing system as being inspired by communism, we are doing their own work. We have much to lose and little to gain by this kind of propaganda.

I want to describe a further development of communism which again is relevant to our society. In 1875 Karl Marx distinguished between two phases of communist society. In the first of these he argued that inequalities of property and income from property would disappear. People would be paid each according to his own work. This phase, now described as socialism, because there is a later communist phase, is hardly likely to be rejected in South Africa by that stratum which sees the free right to property, the free enjoyment of property and the right to earn income from property where you wish anywhere in this country, as something belonging to one class of people only. It stands to reason that if you belong to the class which does not have those property rights and which does not have the right to use property and earn money from property, then obviously your attitude must be one of resentment against those who do enjoy these rights. You must be readily persuadable by those who say that the thing to do with the property, if it is unevenly owned and unequally used, is in fact to remove property from private ownership and to put it in the hands of the State, to demand that the ownership of private property be abolished and that each be paid, quite simply, according to his work. That is the communist principle.

Another phase of Marxism is that in which all economic inequality will disappear and be replaced by the principle “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs”. This is the higher form of communism which is as little seen in Russia as it is seen anywhere else in the world. It was later, under Lenin, that the concept of world dictatorship was produced and a series of restrictions on liberty, not only outside Russia but in Russia itself, was introduced, the concept that the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists, should be crushed in order to free humanity from wage exploitation. This ruthless system was put into force in Russia and it was seen, under the rule of the commissars, as being economically immeasurably superior, and what indeed has it produced? Let this nevertheless be food for thought to those on that side of the House who so glibly accuse us of lack of patriotism when we criticize the growing inroads of State corporations on private enterprise in South Africa. If we want to prove the merits of private enterprise within a vigorously competitive free economic society, let us be sure that we really have such a society in South Africa and that we are really determined to create and defend and maintain such a system. How can we argue effectively against State capitalism and against domination by the State of a private enterprise economy when the State itself is steadily encroaching on private enterprise by the growth of State corporations which eat up more and more of the precious area of freedom left to our economy?

Another fundamental aspect of communism developed under Stalin was the aspect which might be described as human engineering. This is nothing less than the assumed right of the ruling class, the narrow sector which the communists describe as democratic centralism—because they deliberately use double talk in their own language—to make people conform to preconceived ideological patterns. Whole sectors of the population in Russia were forcibly removed, forcibly uprooted to fit into the framework of an arbitrary political and economic plan. Those who would not conform were simply treated as enemies of the State and were forcibly ejected from the mainstream of society. We need to stop and ask ourselves a few questions in that regard as well. Communism has moved closer to us in South Africa. We rightly prepare ourselves to meet and combat its external manifestations of military force, of aggression, of enslavement and of systematic world domination.

We prepare ourselves rightly to defend ourselves against these things. Are we equally prepared to meet its internal manifestations, the slow insinuation of a political philosophy, a philosophy which has won the fervent and zealous support of millions of underprivileged people in many parts of the world? Are we prepared to defend ourselves against that as well? Can we convince our Black people that their own hopes for the future do not lie in a fatal class struggle? Can we convince them that South African society is not and need not be divided into two camps, the privileged bourgeoisie and the underprivileged and deprived proletariat, from which confrontation the latter, the proletariat, the Blacks in South African terms, must eventually emerge victorious? Can we convince our own people that they have nothing to gain from communist support for every revolutionary movement against extant social and political conditions? Can we persuade them that they may look to us for their hope, for their future, for justice and for a just society and that they do not need to lean on external aid and external support? Are we ready to prove to all South Africans that the rewards of ambition still go to each according to his work and not to each according to his privilege? Can we hope to escape the brutal consequences of the communist system if we do not prove to our own people that our system offers them greater satisfaction and greater eventual reward? Can we convince them that we do not need to be crushed in order that they may be free? Can we persuade them by example that the system of free enterprise can produce greater rewards than can ever be promised to them by those who stand outside and spur them on to revolution? Can we disabuse them of the belief that a ruling class in South Africa has unilaterally seized the permanent right to dominate them and to impose its own ideological patterns on them without consulting them? Can we persuade them of this?

Why don’t you also tell them …

The hon. the Deputy Minister may make his own speech when his time comes.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, my time is nearly up. I am sorry, but I cannot answer any questions now.

Can we persuade them that they have the right to play their own part—a consultative part—in determining their own future in this country? If we can do these things, we shall have nothing to fear from internal communism. And if we have nothing to fear from internal communism, we shall have little to fear from external communism because we shall then be able to meet the threats and challenges of external aggression from communists, secure in the belief that every South African, regardless of colour, is united in a common loyalty as a South African in South Africa and for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, because I want to answer some of the points raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis in the course of my speech, I shall not react to these immediately. In the short time at my disposal, I want to refer to the motion now before this House, as well as to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In connection with the motion I just want to say that it is unreasonable, unfair, misleading and indeed dangerous. Why is this so? It is so because the hon. member maintains in his motion that we in South Africa have an unjust political and social order. He tells this to the people in this country, to White, Brown and Black. He tells this to the outside world and to the enemies of South Africa. This is the very language of the UNO, of our enemies, of the communists. This is what they are always saying. They say that we have an unjust order in this country. This proceeds from previous statements made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This type of language, which we have often heard from him before, sounds as though it comes from the mouth of a stranger to the people.

According to a report in the Natal Mercury of 13 June 1975 the hon. member said the following at a very important international symposium on conflict held in Munich—

We must bear in mind where the hon. member said these things. It is in a foreign country, where he should take up the cudgels for his country, that he acts as an enemy, as a prosecutor of South Africa.

He does not work for Connie.

There he bids against South Africa together with our enemies. However, this is not all which the hon. member said. I quote further. In an interview with him published in the Sunday Times on 30 March 1974, he says—

Mr. Speaker, here is a final quotation. He said in an interview with The Natal Mercury—

The hon. member says these things not only to the people in this country, but also to everyone in the outside world. In his speech here today, he said once again, “We are marked for disaster.” Just like this unfortunate and misplaced motion, these statements of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout bring grist to the mill of the enemy, they are dynamite which can be used against South Africa and they are dynamite in the racial set-up we have in this country. What the hon. member had to say, suits the purpose of the Russians in their propaganda campaign against South Africa. We know that it is the aim of communism to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. In order to achieve their objective—and this we know—the communists continue with sowing suspicion against and undermining this order. That which is fine and good, that which is fair and just, is represented as being unjust and suppressive. These are the very things about which the hon. member speaks the language of our energies.

In our counter-offensive to Russian propaganda, this sort of statement is used as damning evidence against us. Our enemies make use of this as the basis on which they can say to us: But your leading political leaders in South Africa themselves say that South Africa is still the only country which discriminates on grounds of colour. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must be careful that he does not unwittingly, through his actions and statements, become a tool in the hands of the communists.

Surely the hon. member knows what attempts are being made by this Government to move away from discrimination and to invest everyone in this country with full human dignity. After all, he is not a stranger in Jerusalem. More is probably being done in South Africa than in any other country in the world to eliminate poverty. Therefore the standard of living of our Black people is higher than that in any other African State. Nor does one find discrimination in South Africa only. Discrimination—colour discrimination—exists throughout the world. It has existed at all times in all civilizations where people of different languages, cultural backgrounds and descent have been living together within the borders of the same country. In all such civilizations there has been discrimination.

There is no discrimination; it is just stratification.

The most developed countries of the world are battling with discrimination. There is discrimination in America, in Britain and in many other countries. Why has the militant Black Power Movement in America caused so much violence in cities and on university campuses in that country? This was merely resistance against discrimination. Historically we have also inherited discrimination in South Africa. This we do not deny, but we are moving away from this. What is very important, is the fact that discrimination will inevitably disappear as our policy of separate development unfolds. There is no better antipode of discrimination than this government’s very policy of separate development. Under a system of unitary government and under a policy of power sharing, however, there would be never-ending discrimination. It would simply be impossible to eliminate it ever. The motion under discussion as well as the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, amounts to nothing more, in essence, than power sharing.

I can quote many examples to you of situations which exist in the world today, where the co-existence of people of different languages, religions and cultures created problems and led to bloodshed. I am thinking, for example, of Pakistan where 500 000 people were killed and 8 million had to flee. Must we in South Africa, with its multi-racial composition, make the same mistake that other people have made? Must we make this mistake and pay for it with bloodshed? The Government’s policy of separate development is intent on avoiding the violence and dissatisfaction which can so easily arise when different national groups are put together.

What about a federal policy?

In spite of the variety of peoples in South Africa, the Republic has an enviable record of internal peace and stability, but what will the effect of power sharing be in this country? I also direct this to our friends before me, the Progrefs. Power sharing will tear this country apart as nothing has ever done, and what is more, power sharing will cause so much friction between the races in this country and eventually create so much chaos here that it will send us headlong into the hands of the communists. Sir, this government does not have to lower its head in shame, because it has already done much. Not only has it filled the stomachs of the people of this country and recognized their human dignity, but it has also looked to their other aspirations. It has not made the mistake, which has so often been made in other countries, of suppressing nationalism. On the contrary, it has stimulated nationalism to a point at which it can flourish. The success story of South Africa’s homeland development has no equal in the world. One day if the history of our homelands is written, it will develop into a powerful epoch of a small people who helped eight other peoples to their feet. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must not be under the illusion that it is the policy of the communist countries to leave their Western neighbours in peace, no matter how well they deal with their internal affairs.

The communist countries do not allow themselves to be stopped by the so-called “just political and social order”. Whatever we may do here to create a just dispensation, the communist struggle against South Africa will continue in all its facets, such as terrorism and boycotts and sanctions. We see this in Western Europe, where few countries can boast of internal peace. The reason for this is obvious. The communist states of Eastern Europe want no permanent peace with their neighbours of Western Europe, because this does not suit communism. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is of the opinion that his motion will afford South Africa an effective, practical defence against communism, he is completely mistaken. I want to ask the hon. member whether he believes that the Russians intervened in Angola, after the withdrawal of the Portuguese, because they believed that an unjust political or social order existed there as well, or are they intervening in Angola because they believe that they can create an idyllic state of peace there? No, Sir, the Russians are intervening in Angola for completely different reasons. The aim of their intervention is brutal aggression and nothing else. Sir, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout really so naïve as to believe that if we had created a heaven on earth for all our people here in South Africa, the mighty Russia or Red China would say: “Well done, South Africa! You have made everyone so happy that we shall leave you in peace.” The hon. member errs if this is what he thinks. Similarly the hon. member erred when he speculated in this House about what could be done with the money we were spending on defence. Sir, even if that hon. member were to spend our whole defence budget of R1 000 million on uplifting the people in South Africa, the Russians would not abandon their objectives. With a motion such as this the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is just stirring up unrest amongst the Black and Brown people in this country. This is the only thing that he will gain by this.

Order! The hon. member may not say this. It is unparliamentary to maintain that an hon. member is stirring up unrest.

I withdraw it, but I want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that with a motion like this he is playing right into the hands of the communists.

Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody who means well with South Africa and its people, must, after having listened to the sort of speeches we have heard from the Government speakers today in response to the responsible and enlightened plea by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, feel terribly depressed. The answers of hon. members on that side of the House leads one to believe that there is no hope of getting a responsible response from the Government irrespective of how responsible the plea may be that the Opposition in this democratic State of South Africa, puts to them. The Government must realize that their acts and deeds of discrimination speak far more loudly in the world and in South Africa than the words of truth spoken by their critics.

May I put a question?

No, I have no time. Maybe later. If they would only try to realize that and start to reform their policies to meet the pleas which are directed to them, then they would make a contribution towards the security, safety and happiness of South Africa and all its people.

I think it is characteristic of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout once again to have brought his analytical thinking to bear on the problems facing this country. He has called for effective action to meet the real threat to our security. We White South Africans, and particularly the Afrikaners have many outstanding thinkers in our ranks, capable of providing enlightened and inspired leadership. I do not want to create any false impressions but those outstanding thinkers do unfortunately not sit on that side of this House. Just as often White South Africa has stubbornly and unwisely refused to be guided by this leadership. One such Afrikaner thinker is the prophet, Schalk Pienaar, Afrikaner intellectual extraordinary and the most inspiring Afrikaner editor of the past decade. Over the years he has given South Africa and this Government the benefit of his incisive, analytical mind and he has given sound political guidance and advice. I think his greatest achievement will be that he actually managed to persuade Nationalist White South Africa to move tentatively away from verkramptheid and tentatively towards verligtheid. But the tragedy of the situation is, that in spite of the responsibility, in spite of the enlightenment and in spite of the intelligence and the sympathy of his pleas, they have often fallen on deaf ears and have gone unheeded. On many occasions in Rapport he wrote about race discrimination as on 2 June 1974. I wish members of the Government would read those reports. In his concluding paragraph he used these prophetic and significant words, and I want the members of the Nationalist Party to listen to these words—

Now, Sir, did anyone in the Nationalist Government pay any attention to these words of wisdom? That was 21 months ago, and what has happened since then? Since then the African political and social revolution has moved south with gathering confidence and momentum. Mozambique has become an African State under a Marxist influence, not because the people there wanted to be communists but because the communists were the only people who were prepared to assist them in the fight against colonial oppression. The same thing is happening in Angola. The communists have been supporting freedom movements there for a long time and the West, and South Africa, have been seen as propping up the enemy, colonialism.

And now South Africa has negated the fundamental principle of non-intervention and has become embroiled in a civil war beyond our borders. The consequences of this will be far-reaching and serious. To this day South Africa has been left in the dark by the Nationalist Government, because it refuses to take the nation into its confidence. Yet it expects the nation to support it in everything it does. On the one hand we have the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence saying that South Africa did not become involved in the Angolan civil war, and on the other hand we have the National Party candidate in the Durban North parliamentary by-election saying that South Africa was involved in the Angolan civil war. South Africa, he said, was given assurances by America and “knocked hell out of the Cubans there”. Did the candidate in Durban North not know what the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence had said? Did he find it necessary to repudiate them, and why is neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor the hon. the Minister of Defence prepared to correct the situation?

The Blacks in South Africa are clearly rejecting the policies of the Nationalist Government. The Coloureds have rejected the constitutional proposals the Government has worked out for them. The Coloureds have clearly told us that they are not prepared to accept what we offered them. They want equal citizenship in their own fatherland. Even if the Nationalist Government should take its homeland policy to its logical conclusion, it will still be faced with the reality that in the so-called White South Africa there will be a majority of citizens whose skins are not white and who will, with increasing insistence and impatience, demand equal citizenship, human dignity and political, economic and social rights.

The socio-political revolution that has swept through Africa is knocking impatiently at our door. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it going to continue to turn a deaf ear and procrastinate, or is it, at the eleventh hour, going to pay some attention to the very urgent situation that has arisen? Calls to the blood will not help. A military confrontation with communism will not help at this stage. We need far more than that.

Are you going back to Japie, or is he coming over to you?

After Schalk Pienaar had written his article 21 months ago, our ambassador at the United Nations undertook that the Government would move away from discrimination. He made a promise on behalf of South Africa that the Government would move away from discrimination. The hon. the Prime Minister asked to be given six months. Everybody would then see where we stood. The only place we got to in the six months was the Benguela railway line, and I do not think that was the intention. South Africa and the world, as well as the non-White people of South Africa, expected dramatic action for the removal of race discrimination and for the acceptance of the reasonable and realistic aspirations of our Black and Brown people. However, what has happened? The Government has failed dismally in meeting these requirements and in fulfilling their promises.

We may now, as Schalk Pienaar did, ask whether young South Africans can be expected to be prepared to die in defence of a system which is manifestly unjust. We may well ask, as did Schalk Pienaar 21 months ago, whether young Black South Africans should be expected to die in defence of a system whereby an imposed White Government deprives them of their rights as citizens, excludes them from participation in the Government of South Africa and applies discrimination, hurtful discrimination, to them every minute of every day. The answer to this has been given—a spine-chilling “No”. Mr. David Curry, on behalf of the Coloureds, said that we could not expect them to be loyal to South Africa after 25 years of discrimination. “When the crunch really comes, the Whites will wake up with a rude shock and find that the Blacks are not with them.”

The Indians have shown the same attitude and the same sense of impatience.

The Nationalists in anger—or is it in fear—may denounce us as being unpatriotic or even treasonable. However, I believe they will begin to understand the reluctance of some of the Whites to fight for an unjust cause if they cast their minds back to 1939, when they were not prepared to fight for South Africa when our country faced a danger as evil as communism. They were not prepared to show loyalty and patriotism to South Africa then. And the system under which they “suffered” at that time was not nearly as “unfair” or as “unjust” to them as the system under which the non-Whites today have to exist is to them.

You know that is not true.

Is there anybody in this House, or in South Africa, who believes that this situation can last? Is there anybody in South Africa who believes that the present discriminatory policy of the Nationalist Government, the present policy of White domination over all the other race groups in the country can last, that it can be maintained even with force?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say “You know that is not true”?

I do not mind if the hon. the Minister did say that.

Order! If the hon. the Minister said that, he must withdraw it.

I shall withdraw the words. However, the hon. member ought to know that it is not true.

I do not mind the hon. Minister saying that, because I am more frightened at the prospect that the hon. the Minister does not realize that what I am saying is true. Is there anybody, including the hon. the Minister, who does not realize that there has to be rapid and radical change in South Africa towards an entirely new political and socio-economic order? And is there anybody who does not realize that it is going to come about? We have two alternatives. We can, on the one hand, as a result of an enlightened initiative by the Whites, bring all South Africans together around the conference table and hammer out a new constitution for South Africa, a constitution which will make provision for a new non-discriminatory society. Only in a South Africa free of discrimination, where equal citizenship will be the birthright of every citizen, with a new and common South African patriotism to a common fatherland, will racial peace, prosperity and security for all South Africa’s people be ensured. This is the one alternative. The other alternative is that the Government allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where violence becomes the only way out. If rapid and radical change does not take place on an evolutionary basis, under control, and as a result of the initiative of the Whites using the opportunities still available to us and exploiting the still existing goodwill among the non-White people towards the Whites, then the only alternative is one of violence.

These forbidding alternatives are the inescapable and unavoidable destiny of our country and of our people. The question is only which alternative the Government is prepared to accept and which decision we as White persons are going to take.

I support the spirit of the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I believe it is a fine motion and that it was well put. I would like however to add to the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout an amendment which I would like to put to this House. The amendment reads as follows—

In spirit and principle it is the same as the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It merely adds … [Interjections.] I do not want anybody to think that apparently being soft on Scientology yesterday, we are now becoming soft on the United Party as well.

This new order should include a new economic order in South Africa, because economic discrimination and economic disadvantages are fundamental to the problem. It is an important aspect of the work of reform that still has to be done. With this goes the need urgently and immediately to call together a multi-racial national convention to attend to these problems and to evolve a new constitution for South Africa. There is not very much time left for South Africa, and unless, therefore, the Government is prepared to take this action, they must be prepared for the inevitable bloody confrontation which will follow.

I do not think anybody really believe in their hearts that anybody in this House has any sympathy whatsoever for communism and its practices. All of us fear the advance of communism. [Interjections.]

Order! I want hon. members to listen in a calm atmosphere to the calm speech being made by the hon. member.

All of us desire an adequate and effective defence against communism. The only way to beat communism is not to fight it militarily only, but also to compete effectively and persistently with it for the hearts and minds of people, and that cannot be achieved unless we give the people of South Africa a better life than is promised to them by communist ideology.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston spoke and spoke. He made me think back to the days when we were still young and rode around the back of the house on long reeds pretending to be horses. Every now and again you kicked backwards, waved your arms, indicated to the horse to jump and then jumped until the bell rang. You then went to fetch your ice-cream. [Interjections.] The speech by the hon. member gave me only one idea and that was the impression he created that he was still with the hon. members for Edenvale and Bezuidenhout in spirit. He has not yet become entirely estranged from them. However, I want to leave him at that.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the most defeatist speech we have ever heard in this House. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already capitulated as far as South Africa’s future is concerned. However, I also want to praise the hon. member a little. He is known as one of our experts in the sphere of world affairs. He is the chief spokesman of the United Party on international politics and foreign affairs. He was their shadow Minister and now he is introducing a motion here requesting that we change our domestic policy and foreign policy. I quote the hon. member’s own words, spoken during the no-confidence debate—

This expert on foreign and international politics now states—

Go to any country in the world and ask what its foreign policy is. Virtually every country will say that its foreign policy is the reflection of its domestic policy, an extension and mirror image of its domestic policy. However, this hon. member wants us to change it so that our domestic policy is to the fore. As a doctor I now want to explain carefully to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what he wants to do. The hon. member says that you are dying, but he does not mention sickness you are suffering from. However, he sees only one solution and that is to excise all the healthy parts of your body so that only the cancer remains. The hon. member insisted that we should change our foreign policy in order to fall into line with the rest of the world, but I should like to quote one short sentence to him from The Anatomy of Communist Take-over by P. T. Hammond, in which this editor came to the following conclusion—

Communist imperialism—the hon. member adds the word “imperialism” too—has nothing to do with one’s domestic policy—when it tackles you, it tackles you “boots and all”. The communist objective is to create confusion and uncertainty, as the hon. member for Von Brandis said. They strive to water down the thinking of the people as regards the validity of their ideas, their conceptions and policy in regard to human relations and their principles, in such a way as to make them divided among themselves. The one incites the other and confusion, lack of agreement and mutual competition occurs. All this forms part of the communist plan to weaken nations and people so that their ability to resist communist conquest is weakened. In Africa at the moment, Russia is converting African nationalism into a jellylike ideological brew controlled by a tyrannical military dictatorship for its own material gain. I got these words from the hon. member for Greylingstad. We must beware of using the danger of communism to further the aims of communism. We can in fact do so by holding out to other peoples within our borders certain rights which we ourselves know we cannot give them, which we shall not give them and which they, furthermore, are unable to obtain.

I now want to mention a few examples of communist imperialism in its true form. Marx had a saying: “Religion is the opium of the people.” In my opinion this is one of the cardinal reasons why that side of the House must stand beside us in order to eliminate this idea of international communism root and branch. Hon. members must know that the Bible is regarded as pornography in Russia, but what support have we ever had from that side of the House as regards the protection of our morals and religious values?

Now that is entirely unjustified. If you go on like that, you will never combat communism.

It seems to me that the hon. member is drowsy. In the few minutes I have left, I want to mention another aspect to the House. One of the greatest experts on communism, the late J. Edgar Hoover, who is known to all of us, wrote the following in Masters of Deceit. I should just like to adapt it to our hon. Opposition parties and with reference to what I am going to read, I want to put certain questions to them. He states—

The hon. member for Houghton should listen carefully now—

We too make mistakes; we have never said that we are perfect. Now however I want to put the following questions to hon. members opposite: Who of us in this House, whatever the party we may belong to, has questioned police action and placed it under suspicion when action has been taken against demonstrators? Who of us, whichever party we may belong to, refers disparagingly to the Bureau for State Security as “Boss”? Who has debated here about the right to demonstrate? Who has queried the death, or even the treatment, of a communist in jail? These are the questions we must ask when we want to know who does and who does not walk the same road.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is so fond of referring to UNO and to world opinion as reflected by UNO. Every time UNO refers to South Africa’s discrimination, they say: “Yes, it is so.” Every time the UNO refers to colonialization, they say: “Yes, it is so.” Every time the UNO condemns us for racism, they say: “Yes, it is so.” An enormous number of votes were cast when UNO expressed itself strongly against Zionism, stating that it was racist, and I now want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether they still say: “Yes, it is so”? We must bear in mind that we must do nothing here which does not reflect reality. We are not racist, we are not colonialist nor are we imperialist. A fine example of what is really going on here was expounded last night over the radio by a grandson of a highly regarded English gentleman for whom we all have great respect. I refer to young Winston Churchill. I hope he is going to become as strong as his grandfather. He said—

If the hon. Opposition wants to assist in combating communism here, then they should stop putting racist ideas into the hands of the communists. They must realize that we are engaged in an ideological struggle for survival against communism. They would then be doing South Africa a great favour.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This motion gives the House the opportunity to debate certain deep-felt needs in South African affairs, but I am sorry the Government has not risen to the occasion. Why have they put their known verkramptes into this debate? Are they trying to placate or appease them or are they trying to suppress the verligtes?

No one doubts for a moment that Russia, and recently China, have global ambitions. One only has to look at a map of the world. In 1945 Russia stood alone, but today the number of socialist heads at the United Nations is gratifying to Russia alone. In the last decade the communist shadow has crept inexorably down the continent of Africa and now South Africa is faced with a communist threat very close to its borders. We are faced by an enemy whose declared purpose is world domination. It has vast resources at its disposal; it has the advantage of a consistent policy available to a totalitarian state and it has a variety of experience from which it has developed and perfected its tactics and flexible strategy. It is imbued with political missionary zeal and its ambition is abetted by the seeming retreat of America into traditional isolation. Where does South Africa fit into their grand design?

South Africa is the Aladdin lamp of Africa. Whoever holds South Africa, holds wealth, power and prestige. In order to consolidate itself in Southern Africa and to counter Chinese influence from the East, Russia has recently gone political big-game hunting in Angola. This to my mind is just the thin end of the wedge. We must ask ourselves in what state South Africa’s defences are—militarily and politically—in the face of the threat which presents itself. I believe we stand on very fragile ground.

We went into Angola; our troops were superb. As the hon. the Prime Minister said, “we chased the communists back a very long way.” This was a military action designed to achieve a political solution, but what was the result? The support did not materialize. Where was America? Where were Zaire, Zambia and the AOU states that professed to be anticommunist? Where were the major Western powers who trade so willingly with us? They were nowhere to be seen, not a whisper of public support was heard. The halls of power echoed with silence. We stood naked in the world. Was it really such a shock? Was it not inevitable? Was it not the final rejection by a world which, after 27 years, has finally got tired of us? Was this not the awful glimpse of the destiny that faces us, viz. to fight in utter loneliness while our pleas for support fall on deaf ears?

I believe it can be seen this way and I think the attitude was inevitable. I believe that for 27 years the anti-apartheid movement overseas has fed ravenously on the discriminatory political and social legislation of this Government to effectively isolate this country from our erstwhile allies. The list of bodies we have already been excluded from as a result of this Government’s race doctrines is as long as my arm. Our let-down over Angola should not come as a surprise. What it should serve, is a dire warning that the Nationalist Government’s policies are a threat to our peace and security.

Racial separation in this country never became antagonistic until the addition of the ideological doctrine of apartheid, as imposed on us by this Government and, particularly, under their political prophet, Dr. Verwoerd. The coming to power of the Nationalist Government was not just the succession of another Government to power; it was the complete transformation, politically and socially, of the whole of South African society.

You are a “bitterbek”.

They adopted a policy designed to secure Nationalist Party succession in unchallengeable power indefinitely. Favourable delimitations, disproportionate representation, nepotism, and removal of the Coloureds from the common roll were moves designed to preserve political power for themselves. What was the political residue? A distaste, a cynicism, a distrust and a fragmented country. And worse for South Africa, this nationalist racial ideology plays directly into communist hands.

Russian objectives are quite clear and have not altered from what Lenin said in 1906—

Their appeal is to the masses where empty promises are most likely to excite response. Our urban Blacks, those “vast stores of human material” that Stalin spoke of, provide the very fertile ground required.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I have not time. These people have advanced to a level where they expect more from life than simply more hard work; in other words, they have developed middle-class aspirations. However, what does this Government give them? They are restrained from competing on an open market with what talents they have, they are denied the country’s full educational advantages, they are controlled in their physical movements, their families are split up, they are voiceless in the laws of this country, they are compelled to use amenities of a limited and inferior nature and they are condemned to live a life under Nationalist “baasskap” as second-rate citizens. [Interjections.]

There is very little joy in telling these millions that communist rule strips man of his freedom and robs the human personality of its dignity. It serves little purpose to tell our subject races that those who will survive a communist blood-bath, will be subjected to unending misery and tyranny in a totalitarian State. To hundreds of thousands the dictatorship of the proletariat offers a means of integration to people whose souls and social structures are obviously disintegrating. Twenty per cent—such is the figure—of our Coloured people may be beyond hope under Nationalist policies, but the worhship of collective human power, as preached by communism, might be the religion that could revive them. The promiscuity of the tsotsi’s in the townships, the frustrated sodomy in the all-male labour compounds, the prostitution in the she been dens, all present a very real picture of discarded moral virtue. It is an appealing step to make immorality a virtue by the acceptance of Lenin’s dictate of 1920—

Radio Leningrad on 27 August 1950 broadcast—

They are quite right. Religion and communism are incompatible. Communism cannot compete with God. Yet how loud a shout do the Christian churches put up against the discriminatory injustices of the Nationalist Government in South Africa? What sort of Christian ethic do they practice? Why is it that in the largest religious denomination in this country a worshipper whose skin is not white is not welcome in the White’s church? What a terrible indictment against Christ’s Gospel.

Lenin also said—

What difference in principle have we in South Africa? Is this not a minority Government forcing its will on the whole of society? Blacks see force as the modus operandi. The police van is a symbol of fear, not security. Do the Blacks see much difference between Lenin and Nationalist authoritarianism? To them there can be little to choose between a dictatorship of the left and a dictatorship of the right. Our job in these Opposition benches is to fight both evils. Many have been the reports and warnings to this Government from the UP that political and social changes must be made in South Africa. The time has arrived when, with the communist giant looming on our borders, we can no longer ignore the injustices in our society, injustices which create conditions favourable to the growth of communism. The Group Areas Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Pass Laws, the Separate Amenities Act, the Universities Act and the Immorality Act are some of the iniquitous statutes that must be reviewed. The truth cannot be ignored, except at our peril.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to reflect on any Act of Parliament. He must therefore withdraw the word “iniquitous”.

I withdraw it, Sir. South Africa will be faced with the heat of increasing political and military insurgency. While we practise racial discrimination, the communists have a custom-made casus belli to secure friendly and grateful Governments from which to launch attacks against South Africa. These trials will be a lot easier to face with support of friends and allies, but this we cannot expect until we get rid of the Nationalist Government and their race doctrines which are anathema to the free world and to the natural aspirations of all our peoples to share in the national prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member was speaking I jotted down three notes: The first was “write out essay”, the second was “attended drama class”; and the third was “Hyde Park quality”. More than that I cannot say.

I am grateful for the motion introduced here today by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am also grateful for the participation of hon. members, particularly those on this side of the House who, in my opinion, made exceptional contributions. I want to say at the outset that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston will not even be considered by this side or by me, or at least will not be accepted.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the mistake today of never getting to the heart of the motion which he placed on the Order Paper.

Then you never listened.

I am very sorry that the hon. member actually devoted the essence of his speech to matters relating purely to foreign affairs. The heart of the hon. member’s motion was that this House—

Surely that is the heart of the motion. Unfortunately the hon. member never got so far.

Read the first part of the motion.

The hon. member exceeded the limits of the first part.

The hon. member for Von Brandis gave us a rather interesting lecture on the subject, but I am sorry to say that not one of the hon. members opposite got to the heart of the matter. If time allows, I should like to get to the heart of the matter and argue it out with the hon. member.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been told before not to come here and pour out his frustrations in this public forum. He is frustrated in politics. He no longer knows which way to turn. He cannot fit into the party to which he belongs because he adopts one standpoint, he advocates a multi-national confederation, while he is trapped in a multi-national federation. Surely he knows this. That is where his frustration originates.

It is the same thing.

Now the hon. member pours out his frustration with ever-increasing bitterness here, to the detriment not only of himself—we are not concerned about that because he is big enough to do himself an injury; we need not help him do that—but also to the detriment of this House in which he serves. But now the hon. member has put certain questions to us. I am quite prepared to reply to those questions.

Do not be personal.

I think it is sometimes necessary for us to be a little personal, for the hon. member can be very acrimonious in his speeches. He must not cry now. The hon. member said the following: “The Government are the modem political Czars of our time.” Does the hon. member mean by that that we, this Government, are creating the breeding ground for a revolution? Is that what the hon. member is saying?

It is true.

Does the hon. member realize what he is saying, particularly in the present circumstances? The hon. member followed this up by saying: “Black and Coloured men do not have to read Marx to react against the Government.’ Should we therefore accept that the hon. member already regards these people as the proletariat which is ripe for a revolution? Is that what the hon. member is saying to our other peoples in South Africa? In other words, he is saying to them: “You are, within the concept of Marxism, the proletariat which is already ripe for the revolution, and there sit the czars who are further preparing the breeding-ground for you.” Surely that was the essence of the hon. member’s speech today. Sir, surely that was an irresponsible speech. Surely one should not say such things. The hon. member went on to discuss South West Africa, the UNO and the question of why we are not giving attention to certain organizations in other countries in time. He mentioned these as being the reasons which are advanced to explain why there should be changed circumstances. Allow me now to furnish the hon. member with a reply in this regard. The hon. member accused the Government of our official attitude to the Declaration of Human Rights being one of the fundamental causes of our rejection by the world.

I never said that.

That is the basis of what the hon. member said. He went further and suggested that, to bring about an improvement of our position in the world, we should recognize the Declaration of Human Rights. Sir, I have no fault to find with the Declaration of Human Rights as such. But I do want to ask the hon. member this question: Is it necessary to recognize that Declaration officially? We in South Africa are putting into effect far more than is stated in that Declaration.

Why do you not subscribe to it then?

We are granting more freedoms in South Africa than are requested even in that Declaration, and we are also pre-eminently the country, the official policy of which is based on the creation of freedoms and opportunities for people. Therefore it is not necessary for us to recognize the Declaration of Human Rights officially. All anyone need do is to look at what is being done in practice in South Africa to find the answer to our attitude in regard to that Declaration. Becoming signatories to it is not the decisive factor. What is decisive is what one is doing in one’s own country, and that is precisely what we are doing in our country.

The hon. member also referred to our attitude in regard to Angola. The hon. member is probably aware that we were one of the first countries to recognize the State of Angola, but now the hon. member is expecting us to recognize the MPLA immediately, if I understood him correctly.

I never said that.

The hon. member went further and linked to this the statement that we did not take cognizance in time of the actions of movements in countries which ultimately develop in this direction. Surely the hon. member knows that this Government has always taken cognizance in time, and at the right time, of any constitutional authority which is established in a particular country. The best example of this is our attitude towards Mozambique, and our recognition of the State of Mozambique. The hon. member realizes that the position in Angola is a fluid one. The Government will, in its own time, take a decision with regard to Angola. As far as our own involvement there is concerned, surely the hon. member realizes, too, that we were involved in Angola, to the extent which has already been described by the hon. the Prime Minister and by other hon. Ministers, because we saw a threat to our interests on the part of the Russians and the Cubans. That is, after all, why we were involved there. I therefore want to leave that part of the hon. member’s argument, in which he told us what we should take cognizance of to achieve an improved position in the world, at that, for it was not really the essence of the hon. member’s motion. If one elaborates on this now, there is a further question which one asks oneself, namely: What is the hon. member’s real aim in South Africa? The hon. member and the hon. members of the Progressive Party envisage one and the same thing in South Africa, namely an “open society”. Inter alia the hon. member puts it in this way: Every person should be able to decide according to his own choice. Those were almost the words he used today. I should like to quote a statement which the hon. member made on a previous occasion—

We then find the hon. member for Yeoville using almost identical words—

What is that open community that is being advocated? That open community manifested itself in the recent debate when the hon. member for Parktown said that that open community was “nothing but a community of total, race-mixed integration”. Are we to understand that this is the standpoint of the official Opposition? We know that it is the standpoint of the Progressive Reform Party, but is it the standpoint of the official Opposition that we should have a total, race-mixed integrated community in South Africa?

We do not stand for coercion.

That is the only reply the hon. member gives: “We do not stand for coercion.” I want to ask the hon. members, who are waxing so eloquent about communism today, since when they have been so excited about communism. What is that party’s record in this House with regard to legislation on communism which we introduced? We can begin in 1950 and enumerate one debate after another in which they opposed such legislation in the First Reading, the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading. They are therefore the last party in this country which can point a finger at this side of the House as far as communism, the threat of communism and the combating of communism is concerned.

Sam Kahn would turn in his grave.

Yes, that I can well understand. Last week in a debate the hon. member for Green Point said that we had racial peace in South Africa. He said it when he participated in the debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Edenvale, and the words the hon. member used were: “We must not disturb the peaceful race relations which exist.’’ Why are there peaceful race relations in South Africa? There are peaceful race relations in South Africa for one reason and one reason only: The policy which is being followed by this side of the House. It is, after all, this side of the House which creates opportunities for people; it is this side of the House which offers people opportunities for development, but it is also this side of the House which is honest in its policy as far as the population is concerned. That is why there is racial peace, and do you know why we are quite entitled to debate the essence of this motion, why we are quite entitled to say on our part that it is a fair political dispensation, and are quite entitled to say that there is fair social order here? It is because we adopt an honest course with all the people in South Africa. They know where they stand with regard to the National Party. We do not have a policy in terms of which we tell the other population groups that they could have a share in the government of the country provided we first consider the contributions they are making to the economic welfare of South Africa. With this economic qualification in their policy the official Opposition wishes to buy apartheid. What is the position with the Progressive Reform Party. This party uses words such as “basic literacy” and “a certain level of education”. However, not a single member of that party can tell me clearly what those two concepts mean. What, then, is their purpose with them? Surely this is a qualified concept which may be distorted as it suits people, and I am not imputing this to them but the fact remains that there is an element of dishonesty in it. That is why we on this side of the House are quite entitled to say that the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Parys, is the essence of the matter. This Government took the necessary steps in time to establish a just political order and a just social order. What does a just political order entail? Does it not also entail a fair political order? Does it not entail a political order which affords each individual an opportunity to develop to the full extent of his rights? What you appropriate to yourself, you surely offer the other man as well. That is precisely what this side of the House is doing. That is precisely the policy of this Government.

You have succeeded very well, particularly with the Coloureds.

Yes, particularly with the Coloureds. After all, it was we who placed the legislation on the Statute Book. It was we who introduced the legislation to set these people on the road to self-government. As far as the Bantu areas are concerned, surely it was we who introduced the legislation which made it possible for the Transkei to become independent. After all, it was we who gave these people national citizenship in their respective homelands. We have gradually—and on every occasion so far we have done so in time—given people national constitutional status symbols. We introduced the legislation in terms of which all the various homelands can acquire self-government. We have given recognition to political parties. Are not all these things part of a political order? Are the things which are being done here not part of a just political order? We created public services for these people, established judicial authorities and created organs of local government. Is that not part of a political system? Is it not due to the policy of the National Party that the Black leaders in the homelands today enjoy international recognition? All this is the product of our policy. Black leaders, Coloured leaders and Indian leaders, have been sent by this Government to the UNO. Is this not all part of a just political system? What we demand for ourselves, we also offer to others. [Interjections.] As a member of the Erica Theron Commission that hon. member ought to know very well what the latest steps are that are being considered by the Government to place liaison with the CRC on a sound basis. After all, they have already been made public. He ought to know what they amount to, that they entail various things, including the conversion of the Executive into a Cabinet, the reorganization of the administration of Coloured Affairs, a new fiscal dispensation, a Cabinet Consulting Council and the appointment of Coloured persons to various boards. Is not all this part of a just political dispensation?

What are the results of this? What are the results of this basic premise in practice? The result is that peoples are being afforded an opportunity to discover themselves, to develop self-respect and to realize their own ideals. What other elements does the hon. member think should there be in the concept of “a just political dispensation”? He must tell me, because I do not know.

However, it is not only we who propagate this policy as such. If one listens to the reaction of hon. members on the opposite side of this House, one would think that, apart from the National Party, no one on this earth accepts this policy. The basis of this policy is accepted by everyone in South Africa. It is also accepted by the non-Whites as the policy of the future. I cannot help it if the United Party cannot understand it. I do not have the time to go into details about this. It can be done in another debate.

There are, of course, people who are prickly about the application of this policy. However, I am discussing the basis of the policy. That is, after all, what the motion of the hon. member deals with. The homeland leaders, in their public statements, recognize and accept the essence of the policy. Recent elections in two homelands produced conclusive proof of this. Approximately 60% of the voters in the Transkei have ranged themselves alongside the members of the political party who support the concept of separate development, and in Bophuthatswana the figure was approximately 71% in favour of separate development. I do not believe the hon. member knows on whose behalf he is speaking. He is apparently speaking on behalf of a small group of people who form part of his party’s parliamentary administration. We have achieved a political order in South Africa on a fundamental basis, and as it is being applied in practice—whether it is accepted here and elsewhere—it creates no problems for us.

Now I want to refer briefly to the social order. What does the official Opposition understand under the concept “social order”?—Apparently nothing but the abolition of all discriminatory measures and the equalization of the social order. Apparently there is almost no Act on the Statute Book which is not going to be abolished by the official Opposition if they should come into power. As it is, the Opposition is even now urging the Government to abolish certain laws. There are almost daily demands for the abolition of the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself insists very strongly on the abolition of these laws. He demands this in speech after speech. However, how does the hon. member want to achieve his concept of “multi-nationalism” in South Africa if he abolishes these four fundamental laws? That I cannot understand. If he removes the one he must also remove the other. Ultimately an “open society” will then develop, that kind of society of which the hon. member, and many other people as well in other spheres, are the champions. It will not achieve their envisaged result. We on this side of the House are not prepared to do anything of this nature, for we place a premium on the identity of each individual regardless of whether he is White or non-White. We therefore have no intention of abolishing the legislation which serves as the basis of our policy. That we do not intend doing. However, we are in fact taking cognizance of the fact that circumstances exist in South Africa which compel attention, and attention is in fact being given to such circumstances. In a previous debate the hon. Minister of Justice mentioned a Cabinet Committee, which has been constituted under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister Mr. M. C. Botha, that will devote attention to these matters. Other steps, too, are being taken with regard to these matters. During the past few months the Government has in fact taken steps with regard to theatres and hotels. I want to emphasize another important step, and that is the step taken by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to appoint Coloured Relations Committees. Where is there a finer attempt in the direction of the creation of a fair and just social order than the steps taken by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs making it possible for people to discuss matters, and if there are points of friction, to make efforts to eliminate them? Surely this is a positive step on the part of the Government. However, when hon. members on the opposite side of the House discuss this matter, one does not find a single motion relating to the positive steps which have been taken.

A just social order does not consist only of the abolition of laws. Surely a just social order also consist of the creation of opportunities enabling one to enjoy a social order. What is the Government doing in this regard? During the past 18 months the Government has graded 40 hotels in the homelands and urban areas. The Government has made a contribution to the establishment of holiday resorts for our non-White population, something which never existed previously. I want to refer you to one specific holiday resort, i.e. Umgababa, on the South Coast of Natal. The Government has created opportunities in the sphere of sport. Today we already have the position that more Black professional golf players participate in our professional golf tournaments than Black players in the USA. I can continue in this way, but it seems to me my time has expired. [Interjections.] My hon. Whip next to me here will help me. The hon. member opposite may as well stop trying to distract my attention. If he wants me to continue as long as time allows, I shall gladly do so.

To conclude: It is the attitude of this side of the House that we shall not allow ourselves to be led around by leftist radicals. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he pays too much heed to the attitude of leftist radicals in South Africa. There are members in his party who can talk to him about this. However, the hon. member does not want to do so. The hon. member does not want to talk to hon. members such as those for Green Point and Mooi River, because it does not suit him. If he did talk to them, he would not pay such serious heed to leftist radicals and formulate his standpoint accordingly. Any person who has read the report of the Snyman Commission … Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition would not go and sit elsewhere and carry on his fight there because I cannot even hear myself speaking. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please not converse so loudly. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I do not know what reason the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition has to storm at me on my side of the House. [Interjections.] But the hon. member has returned peacefully to his own side now, and therefore I can now proceed.

What we need, is not the kind of attitude displayed in the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What we need, is an inner conviction which emanates from this House, an inner conviction of confidence in our own cause. We do get this example from our soldiers, and we could do the same and, as they do, perform our task freely. We also have this example from our non-White leaders. Before I resume my seat I should briefly like to quote as an example what Mr. Mangope said—

This is the attitude of a Black leader and not the spineless attitude we get from the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon was an absolute contradiction of the promise made by our ambassador to the UNO. In reality the hon. the Minister intimated in his speech that the Government will not abolish certain discriminatory measures in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the United Party wanted to abolish them, but not they on that side of the House. I have here a speech made by the hon. member for Algoa when he was addressing a group of young people at Oudtshoorn last year. On that occasion he said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister said they were not going to do this, while the hon. member for Algoa said that it was no longer necessary to have this kind of law on the Statute Book, that he had enough confidence in the concept of nationhood among the Whites to feel that we would remain Whites without this type of legislation. The hon. gentleman is therefore saying things without being aware of speeches and statements made by members of his side of the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke this afternoon as though he was interceding for the Hertzogites. He has not taken into consideration the changes which have occurred in the Nationalist Party. If he makes such statements, it is an indication to me that he is not keeping pace with certain changes which have already occurred in his own party. The hon. the Minister of Transport made a speech during the by-election in Caledon last year, in which he said—

But according to the hon. the Deputy Minister they need all this discriminatory legislation to keep us White in this country. The point of the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that if we really want to combat communism, we ought to be honest in this country. If they say they want to move away from discrimination—and this side of the House agrees with them—then we must have tangible examples of our moving away from discrimination. This is the only way in which we can fight communism in South Africa. I am not going to become involved in an argument with the hon. the Deputy Minister about the separate freedoms which they envisage for the Black man. That is the only policy which they could possibly justify.

Theoretically.

Yes, theoretically. But how do they justify their policy in respect of the Coloureds in South Africa? The hon. the Minister of Information, Dr. Connie Mulder, made a speech last year and said on that occasion that as far as the Coloureds were concerned, all avenues were still open to them. He said the Coloureds were a nation-in-the-making. But a month or so prior to that, the hon. member for Moorreesburg made a speech in which he said that the Coloureds were not a nation-in-the-making. It is this kind of obscurity and ambiguity on that side of the House which makes it impossible for us to tell the Coloureds what their actual position in South African politics is. Unless hon. members on that side of the House therefore clarify their policy in respect of the Coloureds, these people are and will remain a prey to any form of communism in this country. If we want to keep these people as close as possible to the Whites, if we want to retain them as part of 25 million South Africans, if we really want to give them a share and if we really want to give them a say, then that side of the House must decide whether the Coloureds are a nation-in-the-making or not. It is this obscurity which affords some of the so-called leaders among the Coloured population an opportunity of exploiting the situation. It is this Government which creates the opportunity for the extremists to take the place of the moderates in Coloured politics.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.