Order! I have to inform hon members that I received a letter from Dr F van Zyl Slabbert. It read as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower, dated 6 February 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I move:

The National Study Loan and Bursary Fund came into being in 1964 in terms of section 2 of the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act, Act 89 of 1964. Moneys paid into the fund are used to grant study loans or bursaries, or both, to students in need of financial assistance to enable them to continue their studies at a university or declared institution. At present, all the universities, the technikons that fall under the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly, the M L Sultan Technikon and the Witwatersrand College of Education participate in the scheme.

The State made an initial contribution of R500 000 to the fund. It was hoped that the private sector would contribute generously to the fund since contributions were eligible for tax concessions. Owing to the poor support of the private sector a public relations officer was appointed in 1969 to increase awareness of the fund and approach the private sector for contributions. Although contributions increased, the fund remained relatively low. The post of public relations officer was abolished at the beginning of 1979 at the insistance of the Commission for Administration. The Department of National Education then approached well-known donors by letter for donations. With the public relations officer in the field the annual donations amounted to roughly R54 000, the expenses to the State amounting to R14 000. Donations dropped in 1983-84 to roughly R25 000 and in 1984-85 to approximately R8 000. It was established that the decrease could be attributed almost exclusively to the fact that certain donors preferred to make direct donations to institutions since they received the same tax concessions in terms of section 18A of the Income Tax Act, 1962.

The fund had at its disposal a capital amount of approximately R2 400 000 on 1 April 1985, about R2 300 000 of which is already in the possession of the institutions I have mentioned. The State contributed a further sum of R200 000 in each of the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. Therefore, the State has, up to now, contributed R1 300 000 to the fund. The income from other sources, namely donations, interest on investments with the Public Investment Commissioners and interest paid by students was, on average, about R37 000 per annum. As regards the interest on investments with the Public Investment Commissioners, for the first seven years only the interest on the State contribution and the donations was made available to the institutions. According to the 1983 financial statements of the 10 residential universities under the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly, and of the University of South Africa, they spent a total of R18,78 million on bursaries alone. As against this, they received R27 000 from the fund for bursaries and R241 000 for loans from a total sum of R400 000 shared among the 23 institutions participating in the scheme. Of this amount the private sector contributed only about R25 000.

The State subsidises approximately 80% of the total costs per student at universities and technikons. In the light of developments in connection with the financing of universities and technikons since 1964, it is considered wrong in principle that the State is affording additional assistance to universities through other channels such as the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. Although the various subsidy formulae for universities and technikons do not make specific provision for bursary funds, the universities and technikons are free to use at their discretion a sum of money from the subsidy paid by the State for bursaries. This is, in fact, the case.

Donors to the fund receive the same tax concessions in terms of section 18A of the Income Tax Act of 1962, for donations for bursaries which are made directly to universities, technikons and any other “educational fund”, as is the case with donations to the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. However, the fund is receiving relatively poor support from the private sector at present, besides which universities and technikons employ public relations officers who collect funds, including bursary funds. In view of this and the need for rationalisation of Government activities and legislation, it has been decided that the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act, 1964, should be repealed. Any balance in the fund will as soon as possible after the Bill has become an Act of Parliament, be divided by the Director-General of my department among universities and declared institutions as defined in the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act, 1964 (Act 89 of 1964), on a basis determined by me with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

Mr Speaker, this was a considerably better speech than the previous one made by the hon the Minister. It will not do South Africa nearly as much harm as the previous one.

Grant me the opportunity of addressing a few words to the officials of the Department of National Education. During the present and the past year we devoted quite a lot of time to discussing this as well as other legislation. The relevant documents, i e copies of existing legislation, the amending legislation, copies of all submissions, as well as comments and policy statements of the Ministers involved were made available to us in advance by officials to make it possible for us to make a meaningful study of the matter and, to our way of thinking, make a meaningful contribution to that discussion. I do not know if other departments adopt the same approach, but if it is not the case I want to suggest that the approach of officials of the Department of National Education sets a very good example for other departments to follow.

Not the Minister.

I am not meaning that the hon the Minister with his controversial political speeches, is an example to emulate, but rather the example of his department.

Obviously we support the Amending Bill under discussion. The hon the Minister discussed the matter in detail and we shall not repeat what he has said. I just want to state that more attention should be paid, not only by the Government, but chiefly by private undertakings, to the concept of schemes for study loans. There are various definite advantages associated with study loans in comparison to bursaries—not that I want to detract from the idea of bursaries, but there are, in fact, certain advantages in study loans. Firstly the money is paid back so that revolving funds can be established and the same money can be used to provide a large number of students and pupils with an education.

I also think that one could expect a measure of responsibility from the recipient of such a loan, in the sense that everyone making use of a study loan would have to realise that he would have to repay the study loan at some stage or other. As a result such people are most likely to behave more responsibly and to pay more attention to their studies. It would quite probably also have a positive effect on the failure rate at our universities and other institutions.

We support this legislation and hope that in future larger amounts of money will be made available for those who do not have the means to study themselves or whose parents cannot afford to pay for them. As far as tertiary education is concerned—and this applies more to technikons than universities—a tremendous shortage of trained people in certain disciplines exists in South Africa. We shall simply have to ensure that all South Africans who have the necessary ability can complete their studies and receive the necessary qualifications in order to make a contribution to the development of the South African economy.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Bryanston said about the helpfulness of the officials of the Department of National Education towards the standing committee, not only in the handling of this amending Bill, but also in regard to all the submissions in connection with all the other amending Bills we are still dealing with. With those documents at our disposal it really is a privilege to study the legislation we are dealing with. We should like to express our appreciation for this to the officials.

We also want to thank the chairman of the standing committee concerned. It was a privilege to work with him due to the manner in which he deals with matters in the standing committee. There is a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere and this is beneficial to education in general.

The repeal of the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act is an almost obvious repeal of an existing measure because it no longer appears to be necessary. By this we do not mean that it is a case of bursaries and loans no longer being made readily available. Rising costs are a problem and university fees, in particular, have soared. It therefore only remains necessary for students and pupils to be given the opportunity of making use of loan and bursary facilities. Pupils and students who are academic achievers could certainly also lay claim to financial assistance because financial assistance and support goes hand in hand with academic training. Their financial circumstances often oblige students to make use of bursaries and loans. There would therefore still have to be bodies that make such facilities available. These are bodies that are prepared to accommodate applicants on a merit basis so that those who do well, or need funds for financial reasons, may make use of the funds. There are also those who are prepared to give financial assistance in exchange for the rendering of service and they should continue with their assistance. The bursaries are made available to bursary holders who are prepared to render certain services after they have completed their studies.

This arrangement of a student receiving a bursary, and rendering a particular service in exchange, is a common practice. It is in fact greatly advantageous to the student and is particularly appreciated.

This Act determined that donors could make donations to a central fund and, as a result, would be given certain tax rebates. As the hon the Minister said in his second reading speech, that same rebate can also be obtained for donations to universities, technikons, etc. The result was that donors donated money to the university of their choice. Let me express the hope that the repeal of this Act will not result in the cessation of donations to universities and technikons. We trust that donors will continue giving their donations so that there will still be the opportunity for those who do well and who require financial assistance, to be able to get such assistance in order to continue their studies. We should like to support the repeal of this Act.

Mr Chairman, during the past year in the House we had to witness how the Government repealed one law after another, laws which had been placed on the Statute Book with great forethought in the past. We now have an uncontentious measure which the Government wants to repeal, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that we do not really have a problem as far as the repeal of this Act is concerned.

This is one of a whole range of measures discussed by the standing committee. It seems as if some of the other measures that will be discussed later are very contentious. The debate on education will be far more incisive and penetrating from this year on, because any aspect dealing with education is coupled to one of the so-called non-negotiable principles of the Government. Let me therefore tell the hon the Minister that this particular Bill would possibly be more easily passed by the House. As far as the CP are concerned, every measure in which the word “Minister” appears, causes us concern because it is very clear, following on the debates of the past week as well, that the Government has lost its direction. As the Government’s activities result in greater political uncertainty in South Africa, so there will also be much greater uncertainty in education.

This repeal is contained in a very brief Bill. Obviously, however, attention is again being focussed to a great extent on our academic institutions, our schools and universities, with regard to the research being done, and attention is also being focussed on the students or pupils themselves. I think it will always remain one of the important educational measures of all because in our country there are so many students and pupils who really cannot meet the material requirements for studying. It therefore appears to me that the Government—and I do not want to criticise them now—in spite of the repeal of this law, would after all still very much like large institutions and companies, including the Government itself, to continue making their donations to needy students.

I think that in time it will become necessary for us to take a very calm and in-depth look at our education system—from the preprimary to the tertiary levels—to see to it that our students are, in fact, utilising the funds available to them correctly and effectively and to see whether the country and society as a whole really are receiving the maximum or optimum benefits from the students who are being financed.

In conclusion, although one would like private institutions to donate money to the universities, concern has grown in my mind during the past two years about the fact that large monopolies, very powerful financial institutions have, by means of large donations of money to the universities, to a certain extent tried to gain indirect control which could prove detrimental to the actual scientific and empirical research that is being done at our universities.

Having made these few points, Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon the Minister that we support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made concerning the department, and especially concerning the preparation of documents for the standing committee, not only in respect of this particular legislation but also in respect of other legislation which the standing committee discussed and debated during the recess. A great deal of preparation has gone into the drafting of the various Bills, many of which still have to come before this House and many of which will give rise to considerable debate. Of course the Bills are of immense importance to the country as a whole.

I think it is quite obvious, Sir, that once the Income Tax Act was applied to private donors to universities, the usefulness of this legislation fell away because universities were then placed in a position whereby they could, through their public relations officers and other field workers, do their own promotion work in respect of donors to their various bursary funds. Bursary funds are quite obviously something that is near and dear to the hearts of all universities, and so they are probably better able to administer these themselves than could be done by means of a central fund. That is, in fact, the real reason why the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act has fallen into disuse. It is really important that the universities themselves contribute towards their own funding, and that they be granted a greater deal of autonomy, even in respect of bursaries. We in this party therefore have no reservations in supporting this legislation for the repeal of this particular Act.

Mr Chairman, let me begin by thanking all the hon members for supporting this legislation. I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the words of tribute and thanks that were addressed to my department’s officials. I am proud of these men and women who do such outstanding work in a very sensitive department. This applies also to the vast amount of work they have done regarding the bills we shall be dealing with later this afternoon and those to be introduced later on in the session.

In regard to the Bills on this afternoon’s agenda, dealing as they do with National Education, I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman and members of the standing committee. Some of the Bills contain amendments that were the subject of argument in the standing committee. I was told that the spirit during these discussions was a constructive one. If one compares the original Bills with the final product, one finds that very constructive work has been done. Let me add that the system of standing committees, which look incisively at legislation, really has borne fruit for South Africa. I think that we get better legislation as a result.

As far as the contents of the Bill are concerned, I want to associate myself with hon members who argued that the repeal of the law should in no way be interpreted as a shift of emphasis concerning the necessity that school bursaries and study bursaries should be available to our young people of all population groups so as to develop their talents optimally. I support this appeal. It is important that the private sector, which depends so heavily on the products of the universities, should also be involved by investing in the careers of particular students. They eventually reap the benefit of it.

Although blood cannot be squeezed from a stone, figuratively speaking, we know that the hon member for Rissik is always trying to squeeze politics out of every stone. When it is more to the point and really meaningful to cross political swords with him in future debates, I shall do so gladly. If he wants to cross swords on this matter, however, let me say that he really is looking in vain for something that does not exist. Out of this stone there is no politics to be squeezed. I thank the hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The “Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal” Act, 1973, has been in operation for 12 years now and, as a result of changed circumstances, and with a view to the effective practical application of the Act, it has become necessary to introduce certain amendments. Whilst these amendments specifically concern the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, I am also aware of the existence of other lexicographical units. I am likewise aware of the fact that questions could be asked about the aims and the nature of a possible policy regarding the important dictionary projects.

The HSRC has just completed an investigation that will address these problems. I should like to inform hon members about the fact that this report is at present being considered. I shall therefore now be dealing with the amending Bill as it effects the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal.

In order to acknowledge and consolidate the long association that has existed, since 1930, between the Woordeboek and the University of Stellenbosch, the seat of the bureau that compiles and publishes the Woordeboek under the control of the board is being more explicitly specified. For the sake of clarity and completeness the functions of the bureau are further defined.

The present Act provides that the objectives of the bureau are to continue with the compilation of the Woordeboek, to complete the task and from time to time effect improvements. The proposed amendment clearly provides what material should be collected and how it should be collected, arranged and stored. The Bill further provides for the collected material to be incorporated in a dictionary of definitions in accordance with lexicographical principles.

The composition of the control board is being so amended that the Director-General of the Department of National Education shall no longer serve as chairman of the control board and that the administrator, who is Rector of the University of Stellenbosch, shall now assume this role. With the proposed composition of the control board, and its expansion to six members, provision is being made for sufficient responsibility and expertise to carry out the task efficiently.

In future the control board will be able to decide, without the approval of the Government Printer, on a printer for the Woordeboek. Hereby the control board is being granted the same autonomy as that granted to other similar statutory bodies.

In the past the Woordeboek was printed and distributed by the Government Printer. My department pays for the printing, whilst the returns from sales are paid into the State Revenue Account. Since the Government Printer cannot be held to a set delivery date and, in accordance with the procedure, funds have to be budgeted for long before the commencement of a financial year, it does happen that claims for printing are received from the Government Printer during a financial year in which no funds have been provided for this purpose in the department’s estimates of expenditure.

In order to overcome this practical problem, both subsidies for the printing of the Woordeboek, and the revenue from its sales, will henceforth be deposited in the board’s fund. Especially when the printing is undertaken by a printer other than the Government Printer, this is a more practical arrangement. The Minister will, however, still decide, in consulation with the Treasury, on the selling price of the Woordeboek, since this is related to the extent to which the State subsidises the selling price of the Woordeboek.

The remaining amendments are of a consequential nature and merely serve to correct certain designations.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister mentioned the fact that the system of standing committees contributes to a very thorough discussion of all aspects of legislation taking place behind closed doors, where the opportunity exists to call witnesses and to cross-examine them on every possible aspect of the legislation affecting their organisations. I want to confirm that the system of standing committees is a very great improvement on that of the previous constitution that we had in South Africa. I must add immediately, however, that it is the only real improvement if one were to draw a comparison between the two systems.

The PFP will also support this amending Bill, and we do so gladly. The WAT has made a very big contribution to the development of the young, vigorous Afrikaans language. I should just like to suggest that perhaps an investigation could be made into whether the Woordeboek, and similar projects could in future continue without dependence on Government support. One should look to see whether it can be supported financially and otherwise, by the interested parties in the population as such, so that the direct financial ties with the Government could be lessened to such an extent that the whole system would be seen as being independent of the Government in all respects. I think that would be in the interest of a language and of a dictionary.

At this stage I do not want to—one could possibly at a later stage—debate the threat to a language’s survival if that language were seen as the exclusive property of a single political group in the country and if it were the language that was continuously being used to force the very unacceptable political policy trends and applications of such a government on other groups in the country.

Mr Chairman, the assurance given by the hon the Minister that an investigation, which includes other projects of this nature as well has been launched we do, of course, welcome. In fact, we are looking forward to examining the report. I also think that it would perhaps be a good opportunity, too, for the introduction of a broad policy, which would cover all projects of this nature, and that the criteria in regard to all projects of this nature should be the same; that there should therefore be no differences that could perhaps give rise to charges that preference was being given to the one or other language, particularly in view of the multilingual set-up we do, in fact, have here in South Africa.

It is with pleasure, however, Mr Chairman, that we support this legislation. We also think that it can only contribute to positive progress in the development of the language and the acquisition of a dictionary of this kind. When one looks at the actual scope of the Woordeboek, and also bears in mind that Afrikaans is a very young language, the language of a very small part of the population; small in number in comparison to other language groups in the world—one is really impressed by the enormous progress that this young language has made in such a short period of time.

Mr Chairman, I should also very much like to associate myself with the expressions of thanks conveyed, by the hon member for Bryanston and other members, to the department. I would strongly like to support and endorse what they have said, particularly with regard to the bureaucracy, and specifically the support which the officials, and in particular the Director General, Dr Ree Venter, has given the standing committee and still continues to give in regard to the work this committee does. I endorse every word that has been said about this matter.

I should also like to associate myself with what the hon the Minister—and the hon member for Bryanston just now too—has said in regard to the activities of the standing committee; standing committees in general, for that matter. I think we could really say that due to the interaction that takes place there, a constructive contribution is made, in the long run, to the introduction of sound legislation, as well as a thorough study of the subject that is being dealt with at a given time by a particular standing committee. I think one could consequently also look forward with great expectation, to further future developments of the standing committee concept within our present parliamentary set-up.

As far as the legislation under discussion is concerned, Mr Chairman, in addition to what the hon the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech, I want to make one further remark or so. I think we are dealing here with an example of privatisation, in the sense that a larger measure of functional autonomy is being granted to the Board of Control of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, particularly as far as the control of its financial affairs is concerned as well as the continued publishing and printing of the Woordeboek itself, of course. I think this is a favourable development, not merely to go along with the idea of privatisation, but certainly also for reasons of efficacy, owing to the particular practical problems in this regard as well as the present experience with regard to specific present-day ties with the Government Printer. In the light of this it is very clear that this is a step forward and that for reasons of efficacy it presents a practical solution to the present problems in this connection.

I should also like to express my appreciation for, and pay tribute to, the work that has been done so far by the Board of Control of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal and the officials under its control. One should also, however, like to say that that Board of Control and the officials under its control should be allowed to continue with their work as expeditiously and as effectively as possible with a view to being able to expedite and advance the further development of the Woordeboek project as much as possible.

With reference to the other dictionary projects that are in progress I can mention the following. At the moment there is the South African English dictionary project at Rhodes University, the dictionary project in regard to the Zulu language which has been undertaken at the University of Zululand as well as a project on the Xhosa language at the University of Fort Hare.

In the light of this the standing committee has therefore also recommend a measure of rationalisation in its report. I should like to quote as follows from the particular paragraph of the report (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 22):

I think this corresponds to what the hon the Minister has said regarding an investigation by the HSRC and that report which is already under consideration. It is clearly fitting, at this stage, to look at this matter in its entirety to ensure that there can be equal treatment as far as the issue of the two official languages are concerned and in so far as it is the duty of the authorities to see to this matter.

That the authorities are duty-bound, none of us I think disputes. The authorities have a responsibility to see to it, by means of subsidising too, that the language develops and receives the necessary stimulation. At the same time it is also a fact that any language can only be as effective and dynamic as the people using it permit it to be.

I am therefore pleased to say that it is the responsibility of all of us in the final analysis—the Afrikaans speaker, the Afrikaner people as such, including everyone in this country who uses Afrikaans in the widest sense, and this includes people of other language groups who use Afrikaans on ocassion. The responsibility lies with all of us to give forceful impetus to the advancement of this young language. I should like to support the measure.

Mr Chairman, 6 April 1973 was the august day on which we first discussed this legislation in its the form of a Bill. Hon members who have not yet had the opportunity to read those debates, after the stormy and dramatic events of last week, would do well to go and read them to see how our predecessors felt about these matters. At the time one of the hon members who was making a speech said, amongst other things: (Hansard: Vol 43, col 4339)

These were indeed fine words on this issue spoken at the time by one of the then members of the Opposition.

The Bill before us today does not lend itself to allowing one to speak in such broad terms about the Afrikaans language. I none the less think, when it comes to a matter such as this, that it is fitting for this House nevertheless to spend some time discussing our language, our mother tongue, what constitutes the second official language for our English-speaking colleagues.

I do not share in the euphoria of the hon members for Bryanston and Johannesburg West over the wonderful way in which those standing committees are now functioning, as if this were the first time in the history of our parliamentary institution that we have had a standing committee in which we could thrash out matters and give each other a fair hearing.

What about the contribution of people of colour?

I was a member of various select committees for many years in the old dispensation under the so-called Westminster system. There we acquitted ourselves just as well. We listened to the evidence of people who made submissions to us and we introduced very fine legislation in this House. This kind of hand-in-glove approach of the hon member for Bryanston—he has gone off again—to the standing committee, after the hon the Minister’s speech of last week, is in my view not quite relevant. [Interjections.]

The CP have many serious problems with quite a few matters that cropped up during the consideration of this Bill. There is very deep concern, and obviously that concern stems from the new dispensation created here in South Africa. It stems from the lack of direction of the present Government that we are experiencing. It also stems from the fact that the Afrikaner establishment has, to a great extent and in many respects, gained control over certain things which were established by our predecessors in the past and which were carefully and selectivity nurtured, in the field of focus of strong, unswerving ideals. We are concerned about that establishment and the control it also wishes to have, at present, over such things as the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, our cultural organizations and so forth. I am saying this very frankly to the hon the Minister. The reason for our finding ourselves in this traumatic, uncertain situation in South Africa today, is that the Government, in the name of the NP, has deviated from these basic principles.

I just want to begin at clause 1:

As an Afrikaner I am deeply concerned about my language—because language is an integral facet of culture—a very important facet—particularly now that the control of the language under the present circumstances shall be the domain of our universities, and I am speaking of Afrikaans universities in particular. Let me also state here today that I am very dubious about what the Afrikaans universities intend doing to the Afrikaner, his language, his culture and his survival. I feel a grave concern, and that applies to the University of Pretoria as well. Apart from the fact of being a Van der Merwe chauvinist, I am also a Tukkie chauvinist. [Interjections.] The hon members to my right here would do well to keep quiet. They have been decapitated. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon members that over the past 20 years or more—since the end of the ‘fifties decade when the hon member Prof Olivier and various others taught there in their capacity as professors and lecturers—there was an implantation of leftist-liberal elements into the University of Stellenbosch. [Interjections.]

From that time onwards Stellenbosch, which was born out of the heart of Afrika-nerdom and which really formed the cradle of the dissemination of scientific Afrikaans, has adopted a course about which is of great concern to me, and I should like to mention the following example. [Interjections.]

Where did Andries swot?

That was in the good old days. [Interjections.] In the Pretoria News of 5 February the following was written, among other things:

[Interjections.] I am focussing on these matters to bring to the notice of the universities that there is an increasing resistance in South Africa to the fact that academics have allowed themselves to be misled by a Government that has lost its way. [Interjections.]

It has found its way again; do not worry. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon the Minister that when Dr Piet Koornhof was the Minister of Education a number of years ago and these things started happening, we held in-depth discussions on the change in student numbers at our universities. Allow me to say that as early on as that meeting, Dr Koornhof and the rectors of some of the Afrikaans universities were a great deal more willing to have a larger number of non-Whites at those universities than the Ikeys were prepared to accommodate at that stage. I therefore say that I am deeply concerned about the fact that I now have to vote on legislation determining that the University of Stellenbosch be the seat of the bureau. [Interjections.]

Has Tukkies closed down then?

No, Tukkies has not closed down; that is my dilemma. They are running after the Stellenbosch crowd. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am very thankful to everyone who has laboured over the years to make the Woordeboek available and also to those who are working on it at present. Let me just say too, however, that the time has passed for conservative Afrikaner simply to accept that anyone, merely by virtue of his being a professor or a doctor, and a linguist with an Afrikaans surname, could go and rewrite the dictionaries—in the same way as they want to rewrite the history of South Africa today—to fit in with the liberal milieu created by the Government. [Interjections.]

Although we are very appreciative of the work being done, we want to express the criticism that at present just about every facet of our way of life is not only being privatised, but also being politicised and liberalised by this Government. I state this so that there should be no doubt about it.

Daan, surely one can use words as one wishes.

That hon member does not yet know what the liberals on that side of the House—the Government side—are like. They do strange things with words. [Interjections.]

I also have a second problem in regard to this amending Bill, and it concerns the so-called process of privatisation raised by the hon member for Johannesburg West. [Interjections.] I am sceptical about everything that comes from that side of the House “Privatisation” was one of the terms often used by the State President when enlarging on the position in South Africa. I am very concerned that with this step we could possibly affront the Government Printing Works which is itself a Governmental institution. I am worried about the fact that this so-called privatisation could result in the cost of dictionaries increasing drastically. [Interjections.]

Sir, if I heard correctly, an hon member has just said it was nonsense. I want to caution that a dictionary is virtually one of the first things one buys one’s child when he starts attending school. [Interjections.] Regardless of whether one is rich or poor, a dictionary is one of the most important books that a child or student should have on his shelf. [Interjections.] The Bible would have been placed there much earlier. I must agree with that—firstly the Bible and then the dictionary, and then the programme of principles of the CP. [Interjections.]

I am concerned about the cost of dictionaries being increased as a result of so-called privatisation, making it very difficult for the average family man to buy a dictionary.

The second important issue is that a dictionary—for the very reason that it is used so often—should be printed on a good quality paper and should be sturdily bound. It actually is something that really should last one thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years. After a time it even becomes useful if you want to do research on the etymology or changes in meaning of words.

Therefore the CP is very sceptical about this. Although we are sceptical on the one hand, on the other we want to state very clearly to the other side that a language—like a people—is a living organism. A language grows, for example, by assimilating foreign words and by creating terms for new bodies and situations. Obviously one should keep up to date with these matters. We are therefore going to listen very calmly to what the hon the Minister has to say. I think we shall probably just allow this legislation to be passed, regardless of what he is going to say, but with the reservations and warnings that I have expressed to the hon the Minister.

Let me conclude with the words that I used on 6 April 1973—and how prophetic have my fears of the past not become—namely that the literary artists, such as the writers and poets, would definitely be one of the influences that would introduce liberalism and decadence into Afrikaner society.

[Inaudible.]

What did the hon member for Johannesburg West say? [Interjections.] I concluded my contribution to that debate in the following way. (Hansard: Vol 43, col 4358):

The Afrikaans language should not finally be used to seek the destruction of the Afrikaner people.

Mr Chairman, I thought that by this time I could no longer be surprised by the hon member for Rissik, but, would you believe it, this afternoon he surprised me again. The hon member for Rissik said that he was worried about this Bill, and his worries emanated from the new dispensation of the Government, the Government’s lack of direction and the fact that the seat of the dictionary was now finally being established at the University of Stellenbosch. This will ostensibly mean that the Afrikaner “establishment” have taken over the dictionary.

He referred to the University of Stellenbosch as a university at which so many Black people were studing nowadays, as he quoted from an English newspaper. English newspapers are incline to refer to Coloureds as Black people too. There are Black people there—I am not denying that—but the vast majority of the non-White students at the University of Stellenbosch are Coloured. These Coloureds are Afrikaans-speaking.

Now the hon member for Rissik comes along and he says—and I agree wholeheartedly with him; I share his sentiment—that the Afrikaans language is sacred to the Afrikaner. This is as it should be, but Mr Chairman, I want to tell you—and the hon member for Rissik—that Afrikaans is also sacred to people other than those who fall under the narrowly meaning of Afrikaner. I think he must know that for that reason we also refer to Afrikaans as a living organism. Afrikaans grows through inputs from all quarters. Afrikaans also grows through the inputs from our Afrikaans-speaking non-Whites, for which I am sincerely grateful, because this makes our language a rich and living language which we can be increasingly proud of.

I do not want to pursue this matter, and I want to say that I welcome this Bill. I welcome it in particular because of the recognition which it now gives to the very long association which exists between the University of Stellenbosch and this dictionary. As long ago as 10 July 1920 the late Prof J J Smit discussed the need for a unilingual dictionary in an article in what was then De Burger. He said:

In consequence of this stated need discussions were held between Prof Smit, Nasionale Pers—which is also part of the Afrikaner “establishment”; always has been—the University of Stellenbosch and the Government. The SA Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns—also part of the “establishment”—was also involved in the agreement which was reached between the University, the Pers and Prof Smit. On 12 March 1925 a joint committee of the House of Aseembly and the Senate recommended that Dutch be replaced by Afrikaans as the official language, and added that a complete and authoritative dictionary should be compiled with the support of the State. The earlier agreement between the Pers, the University and Prof Smith then came into effect as a result of a contract which was entered into on 25 March 1926 between the Nasionale Pers and the then Minister of Education and the Interior, the late Dr D F Malan.

At that stage the magnitude of the task being undertaken was totally underestimated. When it did become clear what the magnitude was, the University of Stellenbosch offered to take over the responsibility for the dictionary from Nasionale Pers.

This offer was accepted by the Government and on 1 April 1930 the office of the Dictionary was moved to Stellenbosch where the University of Stellenbosch has since housed it free of charge. As a matter of fact there was a time in 1945-46 when, owing to a lack of State funds, the University bore the entire financial responsibility.

The Bill also makes it very clear that the objective is not merely to produce a dictionary, but also “the continuous and comprehensive collecting, arranging and storing in a lexicographically workable form, of the vocabulary of the Afrikaans language”. This puts the activities of the Bureau of the Dictionary in better perspective.

In the introduction to the first part of the dictionary it was already said:

The range of meaning of a language is a multiplicity of its vocabulary. The simple Afrikaans woord “hoogte” can, for example, be used in many combinations, such as “op die hoogte bly”, “op die hoogte bring”, “in die hoogte gaan”, “op die hoogte hou”, “tot op sekere hoogte”, “uit die hoogte neersien op”, “op die hoogte wees”, “die vliegtuig vlieg op ’n hoogte van 2 000 meter”, and many others such as “borshoogte”, “dak-hoogte”, “kniehoogte”, “skouerhoogte”, and so on.

The word “hoogte” is acceptable, but not the word “links”.

The office of the Dictionary already has a set of more than 3 million cards and the number is still increasing at a rate of between 30 000 and 40 000 per year. [Interjections.] Collecting is also still going on. As the hon member for Bryanston, who is trying to find a release for his emotions in this way, has said—I agree with him—Afrikaans is a young language, but from the information which has already been collected, it is also clearly apparent that Afrikaans is an extremely rich language. We are grateful and proud that this is the case.

Consequently the Bureau is undeniably a cultural asset of lasting importance to Afrikaans. The late Prof Thom put the nature and the value of the work being done there succinctly into perspective when he said:

Mr Chairman, the NRP takes pleasure in supporting this Bill. There only remain a few things for me to say, and one of these is that I am inclined to think that the CP, if it had existed when it was decided to make Afrikaans an official language of South Africa, would most probably have voted against it. [Interjections.] They are so opposed to any progress or change.

You speak Afrikaans well!

Yes, I am making progress, not so? As an English-speaking person who is also very fond of Afrikaans, it seems to me as if Afrikaans-speaking people in general must take a careful look at the use of their language in the political arena of the present situation in South Africa. They have so much talent and so many attributes which are of advantage to the country which they must convey to others. But they are inclined to be introspective to ensure that they are safe and will still exist if they reach out to someone else. [Interjections.] That is in fact what the CP is going to do to the Afrikaans language. They will protect it so much, that it will eventually die.

No, do not worry!

Honestly, in this Parliament, in the House of Representatives there are members representing approximately 2 million people, of whom 80% are probably Afrikaans speaking. What a golden opportunity this would have been for the NP and the Afrikaans-speaking people if they had reached out to these people long ago. It could usher in an entirely new era for their language. In this way Afrikaans can be developed to become stronger and far more acceptable to the whole of South Africa. I think that the Afrikaans-speaking people must make use of every opportunity to protect and develop this fantastic product of South Africa. They must not do as the CP prescribes, namely let it die. They are really going to let it die! [Interjections.]

We take pleasure in supporting this Bill. It was only the words of the hon chairman in our standing committee, who said that even we English-speaking people must try to speak a little Afrikaans, that gave me the courage to rise to my feet in this House and make a speech in Afrikaans for the first time.

Mr Chairman, I hope and pray that the previous speaker and my benchmate who delivered a veiled argument here that the Afrikaner must move outwards will be able to keep track of what I would like to submit to this House now.

One can say a great deal about a dictionary and about the entire phenomenon of dictionaries. But that is not the aim of my argument here this afternoon. We can talk about the great work that was done in the past. We can talk about the present serious problems affecting Afrikaans. I am thinking, for example, of the alarming infiltration—at times almost inundation—of anglicisms and other pseudo-Afrikaans expressions in the Afrikaans newspapers.

In the days when Die Burger was still Die Burger, and I was a member of the editorial staff … [Interjections.] … every morning we had carefully to read through the mistakes we had made the previous day under the supervision of a great linguist—one of the greatest South Africa has ever known—the late L W Hiemstra. We were drilled in Afrikaans in a way which I do not know whether and almost cannot believe is being done in our Press today.

At time it is shocking—I am not going to go into details, there is no time for that—how far advanced the decline in Afrikaans is. This is not only the case with idiomatic Afrikaans, but with the spirit which is being expressed in Afrikaans today, which is not Afrikaans.

With these words I want to associate myself with my good friend, the hon member for Rissik, who voiced his misgivings about this a while ago. I support this Bill. Our party is in favour of it. But we also have our misgivings; very serious misgivings.

A dictionary is not only a technical matter; it also breathes a specific tone. The question is whether the dictionary still continues to breath the tone of a Hiemstra and of men who were really imbued with everything that is genuine, good, attractive and pure in Afrikaans. If this is not the case, the appropriate steps will have to be taken in future.

I want to dwell for a moment on an ideal—slumbering over the decades, and today pulsing and increasingly lively—that Afrikaans—and in this connection the dictionary is going to play an enormous role—will still be elevated to the only official or national language of the White Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] When I say this I am saying it on very good authority. [Interjections.]

On page 311 of C M van den Heever’s famous book on Gen Hertzog—the hon members of the NP in particular must now listen attentively because for 16 years they so grossly misrepresented and lied about the standpoint of the HNP with regard to language, that it was actually a disgrace. That is why I would like to state this matter very clearly this afternoon. On page 311 of his famous book on Gen Hertzog, C M van den Heever said:

Take note, the integrationists!

Like my friend sitting here next to me …

But there was no doubt in Gen Hertzog’s mind that the stream which emanated from the South African soil, history and traditions, would eventually be decisive and victorious. Consequently Gen Hertzog foresaw this possibility. One could say that it was one of Gen Hertzog’s desires and dreams of the future that these two streams would eventually flow together, but that the one which would eventually be decisive would be the one which was his own—to use Langenhoven’s expression, the only White man’s language to develop outside Europe.

But, in the times in which we live, one cannot base a party’s policy only on one man’s view, or on what was said only by an Afrikaner. Contrary to what many people think the HNP…

Order! Which clause is the hon member discussing now?

I am discussing the future role of the dictionary, which is what this amending Bill deals with.

The hon member must confine himself to the relevant clauses of the amending Bill. I have allowed him to digress in his speech, but since we are dealing with amending legislation, strictly speaking one may only discuss the relevant clauses. The hon member must not digress too far from this—I will have to stop him.

Mr Chairman, I am only interested in depicting an image of the greater role which the Afrikaans dictionary may play in future than it has in the past in the situation which may possibly develop later. [Interjections.]

In his book At Last We have Got our Country Back, G H Calpin said the following on page 54:

Consequently it is this future ideal of Afrikaans, which the dictionary must give substance to and must have an enormous share in developing, on which the party which I represent here has based its language standpoint.

It is also our view that today people in our community see the new future possibilities of Afrikaans virtually only in the Coloureds. That is far from true! In the first place the HNP sees the future possibilities of Afrikaans in the eventual combining and uniting into one stream of the two main components of the White people. By this I mean that we foresee that Afrikaans may develop into a new symbol of Whitehood. Today one finds that all the Indians, virtually all the Blacks and a growing number of Coloureds, if not the vast majority of people from the professional and economic upper class of the Coloured community, use English rather than Afrikaans to express their ideas and feeling.

For that reason we argue that the work being done on the Afrikaans dictionary should be continued with vigour and that the compilers of the dictionary will bear in mind, in all the good work they are doing, that there is the wish and ideal that we as a White people will eventually be united by language, to an even greater extent that becoming a Republic united us. Language will serve as a symbol of the mutual unity of the White people in South Africa. In this regard the Afrikaans language has a greater future than we ever dreamed, greater even than anything we have established since becoming a Republic.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members on this side of the House for their motivated support for this legislation, and hon members of the Opposition parties for the fact that they support the legislation. I must, however, add that I have a great deal of fault to find with their motivations for this support.

The hon member for Bryanston advocated less state involvement in projects such as the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. This is one of the consequences of the Bill before the House, but definitely not on the strength of the motivation put forward by the hon member. If I understood him correctly, he argued that a language would be more viable if it did not also get State assistance in respect of, for example, its recording in dictionaries and its further development through the use of dictionaries. That is really a feeble argument which has no foundation. We can all use it for petty political gain.

Must we attack English because the hon member for Pinelands uses it to argue against the restrictions placed on the ANC and to say that they should be lifted? In the same language the hon member for Bryanston by implication advocated the retention of the restrictions on the ANC. English has nothing to do with it. Standpoints are not good or bad as a result of the language in which they are stated; they are good or bad, and they are convincing or unconvincing on the basis of the strength of the argument itself.

I think it is disgraceful by implication to latch onto the propaganda and the argument of the anti-South African forces who imply that Afrikaans is the language of the oppressor, as the hon member for Bryanston did. That is all he did. After all Afrikaans is also the language of Breyten Breytenbach. Afrikaans is also the language of the hon member for Bryanston. His leader who has just resigned, chose to say in his concluding words in this House that he was an Afrikaner. In this regard I think that the hon member, a front-bencher, was really guilty this afternoon of behaviour of which he should be ashamed.

You did not listen properly and did not understand me.

In lighter vein, the hon member uses the same language as other members of his party but if you listen carefully it is not the same language. All that still binds them together is not a language but hope for a future.

Seen from another angle, the hon member for Rissik was guilty of exactly the same behaviour. I really think he made an unpleasant attack on Afrikaans institutions this afternoon. Can we not at least rise above petty politics as far as our language is concerned? Can we not at least for the sake of what has been established with regard to the Afrikaans language in this country, maintain a common pride in spite of political differences which divide us? Now the hon member makes a bitter attack on universities, for example.

Do not complain to us if you get a beating.

Order!

Of course I do not find this all that strange because universities are among the places where the CP are not making progress because people there try to work with facts and to be scientific. They cannot survive in such an atmosphere. In the same way that they have established their own organisations along the way, their own cultural organisations, the hon member will have to establish a university at Mossel Bay or Morgenzon before he will be satisfied with it.

The Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal is a valuable treasure for the Afrikaans language. It is a credit to everyone who worked on it over the years, irrespective of their political convictions, irrespective of chauvinism in connection with this or that university, and they deserve our praise for their contributions of a high standard to develop this young, strong language, to increase the vitality of this language of the future, to increase its versatility and further to refine its ability to express ideas.

It is significant that it was the hon members in that party—and they are members who rely most on Afrikaner chauvinism in their political activities—who used the only two English words in this debate. The hon member could not find a way of saying “establishment” in Afrikaans, while the hon member for Langlaagte, who is sitting behind him, referred to fellow members in this House as my “pal”. [Interjections.] Yet Afrikaans is the banner under which, through thick and thin, they want to motivate people politically—to such an extent that in this debate which concerns a valuable treasure in the hand of Afrikaans, namely, the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, they want to drag it down to the level of their political debate. I think that was really disgraceful.

Order! Does the hon member for Greytown want to ask a question?

Yes, Sir, I merely want to ask what the Afrikaans word for “establishment” is.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, the hon member is a Cronjé. He can think about this creatively. I have a word for it and after the debate we can compare notes on this.

Afrikaans is not the language of despondency or inflexibility. Afrikaans was born in hope and in anticipation of the future. It is a young language in a young country full of promise for the future. Afrikaans is not the language of regression but the language of progress. That is why I am sorry that we cannot all agree on this valuable possession of ours. After all, Afrikaans is not only the language of the Afrikaner. Every English-speaking South African realises how he can enrich his life by being able to speak and use Afrikaans—in the same way that I as an Afrikaner appreciate it as a valuable privilege that through our system and official recognition of English I have access to world literature through English. I appreciate it that I can also speak a world language.

That is why, in contrast to other countries where bilingualism is an issue, we in South Africa have succeeded—and this is a unique achievement—in developing bilingualism in South Africa—and now I am referring to the speech of the hon member for Sasolburg—into an asset for everyone in this country. [Interjections.] It is an asset which has already been of great benefit to us. It is an asset which can enrich everyone’s outlook on life.

That is why my party and I stand by the constitution with regard to Afrikaans and English as official languages. We stand by that principle in our constitution which since 1910 has been a principle which can only be changed by a two-thirds majority—an entrenched provision.

The HNP deviates …

We still stand by that provision. [Interjections.]

Oh! One would have difficulty in believing that if one had listened to the hon member. [Interjections.] I thought it was one of their elevated objections to get that specific provision changed. [Interjections.] I am not saying that the hon member does not want to get it changed with a two-thirds majority. But one thing he can be certain of is that he will never get a two-thirds majority regarding this matter or any other matter. Judging by the rate at which the HNP is entering the House of Assembly, by the year 2050 they should have four members here. [Interjections.]

Some people also said “never” as far as the Republic was concerned. Never say “never”.

The hon member spoke about the spirit of Afrikaans. The spirit of Afrikaans is that it is a strong language. It is a language which in itself was the taking up of a challenge. The spirit of Afrikaans is that it will remain established here by virtue of its inherent strength and not by virtue of the confused ideas of the hon member for Sasolburg and what he represents here.

Let us consider his confused ideas. He spoke about the uniting of the main components of the White people. If ever I heard a confused sentence it was that one. After all a nation has a language, and the Whites in South Africa do not all have one language as their first language. This clearly proves that the way in which the hon member for Sasolburg interpreted the word “people” a while ago was totally wrong. What other nation which can be defined scientifically has more than one language? Do the Zulus or the Xhosas have more than one language? Now suddenly there is a White people!

Mr Chairman, I feel that I am trying your patience. You allowed me a little freedom to reply to the politicising of a matter which should not have been politicised.

I want to end on a positive note. By means of these amendments to the Act the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal is being better equipped to render its vital contribution to the further development of this valuable treasure of South Africa. For that reason we on this side of the House feel that here we are dealing with a Bill by which South Africa can only benefit. We are grateful that we do have everyone’s support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Section 2(1) of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, Act No 76 of 1984, provides for the following:

1. (a) norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education for all population groups;
2. (b) salaries and conditions of employment of staff;
3. (c) the professional registration of teachers;
4. (d) norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations, and for certification of qualifications …

Policy concerning various matters has been finalised, or is in the process of being finalised. The policy concerning these matters is, in most cases, contained in bulky reports that should be read in conjunction with other relevant reports. This makes it impracticable to publish the policy by notice in the Government Gazette. Subordinate legislation must satisfy the requirement of reasonable clarity. Consequently, it is not possible to gazette the policy in abbreviated form since it would lack clarity. Since it is necessary, on the other hand, to make the policy determined by the Minister of National Education public, and since it is impracticable to publish the policy in full in the Government Gazette, the Bill provides for certain amendments to Act 76 of 1984. It is provided that any policy determined by the Minister of National Education in terms of section 2(1) of the Act shall be tabled in Parliament. Members of Parliament will therefore at all times be fully informed of any policy determined by the Minister.

It is further provided that any policy determined by the Minister shall be announced in the Government Gazette. The notice shall also contain an indication where such policy will be available for perusal by any member of the public.

Mr Chairman, we shall support this legislation but there are a few provisos and questions attached. The hon the Minister has just mentioned that the general policy determined by him in terms of the provisions of the relevant legislation will see the light in the form of hefty documents. In consequence it will be impossible to publish them in the Government Gazette. I have two questions on this. The first is naturally whether it is the object of the Bill for the Minister to establish a policy in such detail without Parliament having had any opportunity whatsoever to examine it before completion.

Secondly, there is the question whether such a policy should not be published in the Government Gazette so that all interested parties will have easy access to it for study and subsequent application.

In the standing committee I recommended that before such a policy is finalised, it should be submitted to the standing committee in draft form for scrutiny and comment. Here we are dealing with a policy in which all population groups in South Africa are directly involved and in which they all have a direct interest.

Nevertheless we are now faced with a situation in which such a policy is drawn up by someone like the hon the Minister of National Education based on contributions of his department without other population groups and the other Houses of this Parliament having had the opportunity of contributing to or commenting on such a policy before finalisation. I think this is a most unwise step.

That is not correct.

That is correct.

No, you must read the principal Act and you will see that there must be consultation with other Ministers.

Yes, with the other Ministers.

They represent their own parties.

Yes, with the other Ministers. I think, however, that the standing committee, which is more broadly based and more representative of the other groups, could make a better study of the draft policy. I think the inputs and comment of the other groups could contribute greatly in ensuring the acceptability of the policy in the first place—that it is practicable and suited to the purpose it has to serve.

We have often warned that it is counterproductive to give the Minister the sole right to establish policy on such a broad base because it results in the ideological policy of the Minister’s party being forced willy-nilly upon the rest of the country in consequence. Representatives of the other groups in South Africa therefore do not have the opportunity for contributions and comment. I think this is a flaw in the legislation. Secondly, I think all interested parties in the country should have a better and more effective opportunity to study and apply this policy.

I should like to suggest that the hon the Minister consider drawing up a policy in draft form in future. He should then convene the standing committee and direct them to study that policy carefully and let him have their comments so that they may be taken into consideration in the finalisation of a policy of this nature.

The excuse will naturally be that it is difficult to convene such a committee within the space of a few days, that there are attendant expenses as well as other problems. I totally reject such excuses. The committee can be convened very easily and the committee members will be prepared to accept such an additional responsibility. I have already discussed this with many of them and they all feel it essential for the acceptability and legality of such policy that they also have the opportunity to put their case.

If this were to happen, the Government would perhaps progress and ensure that its policy were acceptable to more than a part of the NP. Actually this is the only place where their statements of policy are still acceptable today—among a section of the governing party only, no longer even among the governing party in toto. Consequently their policy is totally unacceptable to the rest of South Africa. Nevertheless it is forced upon the rest of the country. Just think, Mr Chairman, what would have happened if the hon the Minister had submitted his speech of last week to our committee. Imagine how we could have improved upon it and so have saved the Government and South Africa the embarrassment which it actually caused them.

I therefore wish to request the hon the Minister to consider that proposal favourably.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I wish to say the degree in which the hon member for Bryanston supported the measure under discussion upsets one somewhat. I wish to point out to him that as far as we are concerned we could rapidly list 35 reasons why our party differs radically with his on fundamental matters. I believe the hon member has entirely missed the underlying question—the actual basic question—in this Bill. The question forming the basis of the current Bill is whether the Minister’s policy should be made public or not. I believe it should obviously be made public. On its announcement, the next question is whether it should be published for general consumption. The reply to that question is positive as well. Naturally it should be published for general consumption.

The previous legislation provided for publication in the Gazette. For practical reasons and considerations of effectiveness, however, it has been amended. Even in the standing committee an amendment was accepted in terms of which an abbreviated version of it could be published with an indication of where it was to appear. It is a fact that the documents are sometimes hefty. The hon member has himself just mentioned the large number of documents made available to the standing committees. Add to this the high costs involved and publication in the Gazette is impossible which is why I believe the hon member to be somewhat unfair in his criticism. He obviously attempted to drag in matters by the hair which were in no way concerned with the purpose for which the amendment actually provided.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein East said he was most upset by the way in which the hon member for Bryanston had supported the measure under discussion. I wish to advise the hon member to reread the little piece he wrote after Blyde River from which he will deduce that an upsetting future awaits him in politics. I believe one upset after another awaits him. In the light of his political standpoints—which he committed to writing as well—I find it most difficult to understand how he can support even a trifling scrap of legislation such as this. In any case we shall pursue the discussion on this somewhat later. [Interjections.]

Further, Mr Chairman, I have only one positive remark on this amendment which is that in any case it is an improvement on the existing legislation in the sense that our party as well as the public will be able to examine the policy determined by the hon the Minister. Mr Chairman, I should like to make that small positive statement to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] Naturally I immediately wish to tell the hon the Minister that we are obviously voting against the relevant Bill—not so much on account of its content but because in principle we oppose the point of view embodied in the Constitution—as the hon the Minister once again indicated—namely that education was now a so-called own affair but simultaneously actually subordinate to the so-called broader general education. The hon member for Bryanston, in fact, in his address attempted argument on the existing statement of educational policy. Consequently I wish to put it to the hon the Minister that we are not supporting this Bill as we were opposed to the original legislation in principle. It is contrary to the principle of ethnic diversity which we continue to maintain in South Africa and we believe that if the hon the Minister—who in any case has achieved only a temporary triumph over the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs … [Interjections.] All right, I can assure the hon the Minister I believe the interpetation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is correct as far as it concerns the political side of matters. Ultimately, however, the Government will lose control not only in the political sphere but finally also total control regarding education—relinquish control to a state in which a Black majority government will rule. In the long run White education—which is a First World educational system—will be controlled by people who actually belong in a Third World educational system.

Mr Chairman, this is why I wish to state clearly that we shall not support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we support the amendment. I think the crux of the matter is that this amendment really relates to action which it will be impossible to bring to fruition without gazetting the entire policy. I would say that the realities of this provision will really only manifest themselves over the next few years. This is because in terms of the principal Act which was passed in 1984, bringing with it a new educational system, any decisions in respect of policy, norms and standards will really be determined by the level of consultation between the hon the Minister and bodies such as the South African Council for Education and the various Ministers’ councils and specialist committees which serve in an advisory capacity and which include members of the organised teaching profession. There are a host of people with whom consultation has to take place before policy is formulated. Consequently, it all depends upon who serves on those committees, and upon the level of their participation as well as the degree to which the hon the Minister hearkens to their opinions. Whether or not the principal Act will hold water will depend on what happens during the next two or three years. That will be the acid test and perhaps that really applies to all legislation. It all depends on the personalities on the stage. I want to say that my party has no problem in supporting this legislation but that we shall be watching the principal Act—and particularly its effect on education—with great interest over the next few years. We support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, the debate on education will probably be pursued much further in this House as well as the principle referred to by the hon member for Rissik—that of general affairs as against own affairs in education.

For purposes of debate I think we should accept that in future there will be two components in education. According to declared Government policy there will be one department for the establishment of norms and standards for all persons and institutions in South Africa. It would be absolutely wrong to argue that each group should set guidelines in isolation as regards norms and standards. That is why it is necessary in respect of educational planning that specific guidelines be laid down by a general department structured like the Department of National Education to enable it to use those departments in creating a broad educational framework as a whole upon which to act.

It becomes a totally different debate to be dealt with later when one gets to the functions of various departments, the inclusion of departments, the demand for one department and that type of discussion.

It is a good thing that this measure provides for the submission to Parliament of the educational policy which will also give us the opportunity to discuss and attend to points of policy here. It could so easily happen for such a policy simply to be published in the Gazette and consequently not come to public notice to the same extent as when it is tabled in Parliament. Consequently we shall wish to make use of the opportunity for detailed discussion at the next tabling of policy on general education.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina referred to the declared policy of the Government party that education should fall under one State department in toto. It is also to be the responsibility of the hon Minister who has introduced this amending Bill.

The amending Bill provides for the Minister to announce certain standpoints, or the policy on which he has decided, within a fixed number of days. I think the hon the Minister should use this opportunity—not because the legislation demands it but in the context of this House—to inform us on the policy he intends following in this new department which covers general affairs.

There has been reference today to the standing committee which had to reach consensus on this legislation, a committee consisting of eleven Whites, seven Coloureds and five Indians, and of which the hon member for Johannesburg West is the chairman and Mr M R E Lewis, a Coloured and member of the Labour Party, is the vice chairman. The standing committee has to reach consensus on legislation concerning education in South Africa in general but at the moment it is Government policy—as has already been indicated—that the Minister of National Education could be a Coloured or an Indian.

Black education in South Africa also resorts under the Minister of National Education, however. Numerically Black pupils form the majority in South Africa by far. The hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Planning said on 8 September 1985 on the TV programme Netwerk that the number of Black pupils was growing by 60 000 per year. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister continued:

As this amending Bill creates a channel for the publishing of decisions on principle, I now wish to ask the hon the Minister, in the light of the statement that the Minister of National Education could be a Coloured or an Indian, whether he foresees that this Minister could be a Black as well in terms of Government policy in the coming dispensation in which this legislation would also apply.

The largest number of pupils resorting under this hon Minister’s Vote are Black children. Black people are involved in the national council to advise the Minister. This is a general affair and I now wish to ask the hon the Minister—as the hon member for Tygervallei has also decided on power sharing and the scrapping of apartheid—whether a Black man could be the Minister of National Education.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is not very clear which clause of the amending Bill the hon member for Kuruman is dealing with.

I am listening attentively to the hon member for Kuruman. He may proceed but he should keep a little more closely to the amending Bill.

Thank you, Sir. It does not surprise me that the hon member for Johannesburg West, the chairman of the study group on national education, does not know what this is all about. [Interjections.]

After this Minister, who could also be a Coloured or an Indian, has taken advice, he has to establish the general policy. According to this legislation he then has to direct its execution. I wish to ask the hon Minister today whether the Minister of National Education could also be a Black man and whether there will be further discrimination against Black people in future through modifications to this legislation so that a Coloured or an Indian could become the Minister but not a Black man. I should like the hon the Minister to use this opportunity to set this out clearly for us. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like first of all to respond to what the hon member for Kuruman said and, a little earlier to an interjection from the hon the Minister. I think it is very important that we say quite plainly and quite clearly that regarding this hon Minister’s portfolio a lot has been said in the past 10 days and a lot has been written in advertising that needs to be closely examined. Particularly opinions have been given regarding this portfolio of National Education that are simply not true. This is not one central education department. Of that there can be no doubt and I think the sooner South Africans get that clear in their minds the better.

Secondly, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman is quite correct. There is no possibility of a Black man becoming Minister. I am answering the question for him. Until such time as Blacks are included in this Parliament there is no possibility whatsoever.

I should like to concentrate on the interjection of the hon Minister of National Education a little earlier. He referred to the principal Act and he referred to the fact that the policy determined has to be determined in consultation with the other Ministers. He said, if I judged him right by way of his interjection, those Ministers represent the majority parties in the other Houses.

Without referring to any other legislation, indeed I would suggest that one of the major problems we are facing is that this hon Minister in consultation with other Ministers is in fact not representing or getting representative views of either those communities or even of those political parties. Rightly or wrongly, we can say this hon Minister may stand up and he represents NP policy, and when he sits down in consultation with other Ministers he is also similarly representing NP policy. I would submit to you that when it comes to detailed discussions on policy determined by this hon Minister in consultation with other Ministers, certainly not the views of the other political parties and definitely not the views of the other communities are being represented.

It is just untrue what you are saying, and I shall prove it to you.

Order! Hon members are not allowed to read newspapers in the House. The hon member may continue.

May I then say, Mr Chairman, that when this hon Minister comes to determine the general policy with regard to macro matters in the four categories represented here the impression can be given—this is the unfortunate impression—that because he happens to have to consult with the other four hon Ministers of Education, they are representing their communities. Now, nothing could be further from the truth. What my colleague has called for is that this policy, before it is announced, be at least submitted to the standing committee for further discussion because then at least one has a sounding-board that at times is not purely made up of Ministers. It is quite clear to me that if this hon Minister is going to stand up and say that when he consults with other Ministers, their consensus represents the consensus of their political parties, then he has major problems because the hon Minister knows as well as I do that other legislation has proved this to be false.

As far as the point made by the hon member for Bloemfontein East is concerned the policy we are looking at here is major public information. My problem as an educationist, as somebody involved in education for a number of years, is that too much of our policy, far too much, is made in secret. We have the situation where this amending Bill is necessary because the policies determined by this hon Minister which run to hundreds of pages cannot be printed in the Gazette. As a practical measure I agree with it, we have to make it publicly available. My problem is that insufficient public debate has taken place before that on those very measures. The hon Minister needs to recognise the fact that if we are going to sell a policy of reform in education—which we are going to debate later, I have no doubt—if the hon the Minister wants to sell a policy of reform it must be in co-operation with the very people he has to sell it to. It is no use presenting a policy which is a fait accompli, but that is exactly what we continue doing. Therefore I appeal to the hon the Minister to give due consideration to the suggestion of my colleague before he finally determines policy. Let me give an example. The policy on the financing of education will appear very shortly, I hope. It has been appearing very shortly for five months, but hopefully it will appear shortly, and I appeal to the hon the Minister that he submits that policy for discussion to the standing committee before he makes it public. He can at least listen to our views, even if he does not change the policy. I believe he cannot submit it to the public without at least having tested it on outside organisations. After all, in the standing committee which is confidential he can test the views. I really appeal to him to give that serious consideration. Nevertheless, as a practical measure, we in the PFP will support this amendment.

Mr Chairman, numerous hon members on that side have attempted to entice me into participation in a broad debate which is really not indicated for a trifling Bill like this. There will be enough time during the session. I am not shying away from a broad debate on educational policy but the legislation before the House does not demand authorisation by the House on how the policy should be established—Parliament has decided that already. Neither does it require authorisation on whom to consult as Parliament has decided that already. With great respect to the Chair, in reality all the arguments on the formulation of policy and procedures to be followed by the Minister in this regard were irrelevant to the Bill. These matters have already been debated in this House and have already been incorporated in legislation as well. I wish to point out, however, how incompletely hon members debated to suit their arguments.

†The hon member who spoke last is a knowledgeable member with regard to education, but he created the wrong impression about the content of the Act. He did so in the presence of his new acting leader. He must be careful about what he does in front of his new acting leader. [Interjections.] The Act, as it stands, does not say that only Ministers must be consulted. He omitted to mention the following, and I quote from section 2(2) of the Act:

What does “the council” mean? It means the South African Council for Education as established by section 3 of the Act.

It must be debated before it reaches the council.

That is all right, but the fact of the matter is that the hon member created the wrong impression with regard to the consultation procedure. The Minister also has to consult with a specialised advisory body on which are represented, inter alia, all the recognised teachers’ associations. That is a much wider base than mere consultation with a few other political appointees. However, the hon members of the PFP argue from the wrong departure point. The wrong departure point they adopt is the role of Parliament with regard to the formulation of policy. Parliament is basically a place where policy is put to the test. It is a place where policy receives either approval or disapproval. They, however, want to be legislators as well as being part of the executive. The hon member for Yeoville pleaded for many years that the Opposition should have a role to play in the executive, but it is just not on because it does not recognise the basic principles of our constitutional structure. It is impossible to play that role and be part of the legislature itself.

*Hon members are propounding an incorrect procedure because they are frustrated in their role of the Opposition and they have my sympathy. We are going to table that policy here. Hon members, regardless of party, will have the fullest opportunity to attack that policy and to make use of parliamentary procedures to indicate how unwise it is if it is actually so. That policy—if it should prove so unwise—could then be used as a means of moving from wherever they find themselves to this side of the House. That is how democracy works—not as hon members wish to operate it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik said this Bill and the principal Act were contrary to the principle of ethnic diversity. This obviously underrates the autonomy of education departments—as far as I can deduce.

This cannot all be true. On the one hand the hon member for Pinetown challenged me in saying this department was not a single one. He said it fell far short of this because he acknowledged the own education departments were autonomous institutions as regards aspects which could not be defined as common. The hon member over there denied this. This autonomy granted by the Constitution to education as an own affair was supposedly worth absolutely nothing—not even the paper on which it was written. Once again this is an incorrect appraisal of facts.

May I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Please permit me to complete my argument first. Once again it is an incorrect appraisal of facts as included in our legislation on the actual system.

This department is a single department—and I do not wish to expand on this fully now—and is clearly the policy-making department as regards national policy on certain fundamental facets which are common to education for all. It is the duty and mandate of this department in terms of the Constitution to ensure that the aims of equal educational provision are attained; that equal standards are maintained in examining and as regards syllabusses and that the teaching profession is dealt with on a uniform basis. This appears in the Constitution. Those are the instructions of this department as they appear in the White Paper we issued following upon the De Lange Committee.

At the same time this is not a department which can in any way erode the autonomous education departments in which the exercise of education—in an autonomous department for each population group with the power of enrichment within its own cultural context and within its own tradition—maintains its own stamp and character above and beyond minimum standards set.

In consequence the new system of management in education, with its division into departments, meets the full reality of South Africa in respect of education too.

We find the old type of error in Opposition arguments. The PFP absolutises one facet of the reality, which is the necessity for co-ordination. The CP absolutises the other facet of reality, which is the necessity to recognise group differences. The truth is that reality has to be dealt with in its entirety. Both are necessary to maintain a balance in a co-ordinated way.

The hon member for Kuruman said the following and I shall read his words precisely as I wrote them down. I believe they are right. He said:

He can refer to Hansard for what he said. This creates the wrong impression. It simply is not so and I have just dealt with it. He attempted to create instant confusion about standing committees by referring to them as mixed bodies. He mentioned figures, added Black totals and so created the impression that through a numerical superiority within the present committee system one group could dominate another. He is well aware that the voting procedure works differently. He is well aware that there can be no consensus if the three majority parties do not reach the same conclusion. One of those three majority parties on the standing committee is the majority party in this House. As long as the NP remains the majority party in the committee, he need not concern himself that care will not be taken in guarding the interests of every group in this country. [Interjections.] He should read the Constitution if he wishes to know who may be a Minister and who may not. I am really not prepared to start an entire debate on the Constitution with him. We debated the Constitution for hours and hours and he obtained certain assurances from the State President on the procedure to be followed for future constitutional development.

The hon member for Pinetown is free to put his question now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister the following question. He has gone to great lengths discussing his department setting out macro-policy, guidelines and, in fact, determining it, which is very important. Does his department have an inspecting and enforcing function? Is there any way by which he can ensure that each of the own affair departments carries out his policy?

Mr Chairman, that hon member knows the content of legislation still under consideration. Part of that legislation will put that kind of machinery into the hands of this department. It is not this party that is holding up that legislation. I agree with him that with regard to certain facets we need certain added functions and the establishment of certain machinery. We are in the process of creating that very machinery and I am anxious to get that legislation on the Statute Book as soon as possible. However, in the final analysis with regard to the functions entrusted to it, this department must be able to ensure that the standards it lays down will be complied with. If I may refer to norms and standards for financing, I may add that, once that they agree upon it is obvious that this department will, through the Minister of Finance, have the authority to ensure that those standards will be complied with. For that reason I do not think there is any merit in the argument underlying the hon member’s question.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Mr S P Barnard, Dr F Hartzenberg, Messrs J H Hoon, T Langley, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L F Stofberg, L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs H D K van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, R F van Heerden and J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

During the debate in the House of Assembly on the War Graves and National Monuments Amendment Act, it became clear that the clause that would empower the National Monuments Council to declare wreck national monuments, did not cover the entire field of the protection and utilisation of wreck. In December 1979 the Cabinet decided that the Department of Transport should take the initiative in setting up an inter-departmental committee to investigate the conservation and protection of wreck and the contents of wreck.

The committee was not in favour of a separate Act dealing with wreck and was of the opinion that the various Acts relating to wreck should not be amended; instead it recommended that the War Graves and National Monuments Act, 1969 (Act No 28 of 1969), as amended in 1981, be appropriately amended to ensure the necessary protection and utilisation of wreck.

In proposing draft legislation to deal with the pressing need in regard to wreck in particular at present, I am aware that national and international standards will make high demands on both the Act and those who have to administer it. Consideration will therefore have to be given to conducting a comprehensive further investigation into all aspects of conservation and wreck with a view to rationalisation and compliance with national and international standards.

A draft War Graves and National Monuments Amendment Bill was drawn up and published in the Gazette on 5 June 1985 for general information and comment. Written comment was also requested from various departments and other bodies.

The most important reason for the amendment Bill is, therefore, to put into effect the committee’s recommendation, namely that provision be made for the protection and utilisation of wreck. Another important reason for the amendment is to make provision for the institution of a register of immovable property considered worthy of consideration and conservation areas.

A conservation area means any area of land which is designated as a conservation area on the grounds of its historic, aesthetic or scientific importance. The designation of such an area simultaneously provides for the conservation of individual structures. This procedure will prevent the possible destruction of individual structures of historical importance while the long drawn-out process of individual proclamation takes place. In each instance the designation of such an area will be effected after consultation with the relevant local authorities.

Provision is made in clause 3 for the compilation and maintenance of a register of movable property regarded by the National Monuments Council as worthy of conservation on the grounds of its historical, cultural or aesthetic importance or value. No entry should, however, be made in the register without prior consultation with the local authority.

More than 5 000 national monuments have already been declared, and approximately another 1 500 are being processed. All structures and objects worthy of conservation in various towns and cities such as Worcester, Mossel Bay, Swellendam, Bellville, Pietermaritzburg and Durbanville, have already been listed, while the council is participating in the listing of about 20 other projects in various centres. The listing process has therefore already begun and in many cases was initiated at the request of a local authority or a local group of enthusiasts. It is clear that planning on this basis is gradually developing up to a national level. To protect buildings and areas it is essential that they be identified with a view to their conservation. The establishment of a register will serve this purpose.

I now turn to clause 7, which relates to wreck. Clause 7(d) provides that no person shall disturb or remove any wreck 50 years old or older, unless he is in possession of a permit issued by the National Monuments Council. The Council will issue a permit only to a person who has submitted written proof of affiliation to a museum approved by the council. Nor will the council issue a permit for the salvaging of wreck in a security area or a conservation area or an area bordering on a conservation area without the prior approval of the department which exercises control over such security or conservation area. The issue of permits provides the necessary protection and control over wreck.

Clause 7(f) provides that all material reclaimed from wreck or a wreck site shall be placed in the custody of a museum. The museum may, after consultation with the council and the permit holder, decide on the disposal of the reclaimed material.

Clause 7(k) provides for more drastic penalties in cases of unauthorised disturbance or removal of wreck. At present it is difficult to enforce the protection of wreck. There are so few historic shipwrecks left that have escaped plundering by indiscriminate divers that it is essential that these cultural relics be protected. This proposed legislation on the protection of wreck should therefore be seen as a welcome step in the right direction.

I also wish to deal with clause 4 and explain the reason for this proposed amendment of section 5A of the Act. In terms of the present Act only an authority or a body of persons which restores and preserves monuments and which has been registered by the council may apply for financial assistance from the council, and then only for the purpose of restoration and preservation. The proposed legislation also provides for the rendering of financial assistance to registered individuals as well as for defraying expenditure other than for the purpose of restoration and preservation, as determined by the Minister of National Education.

Sir, I do not deem it necessary to deal with each of the previous clauses in detail, since they do not relate to matters of principle but are merely intended to bring increased clarity to the legislation. Finally, however, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Act will henceforth be known as the National Monuments Act, 1969. In the past there were two separate Acts, namely the War Graves Act, 1967—Act 34 of 1967—and the National Monuments Act, 1969—Act 28 of 1969. The War Graves Act was repealed by Act 13 of 1981 and included in the present War Graves and National Monuments Act. The War Graves Board and the British War Graves Board, which were committees in terms of the War Graves Act, are now subcommittees of the National Monuments Council in terms of the present Act. There is therefore no longer any reason why the words “war graves” should be retained in the title of the Act.

If this proposed amendment is accepted the name of the Act will be shorter but still adequately descriptive.

Mr Chairman, the PFP has pleasure in supporting this amending Bill as it has come from the standing committee. I think it is necessary at the start to give due thanks and congratulations to the Department of National Education for the way in which it handled this Bill in the initial stages of publication in the Government Gazette and in the giving of evidence before the standing committee.

The standing committee met for some considerable time in October and November to discuss this and other measures. The manner in which the technical nature of this legislation was dealt with, obliges me to agree with the comments made a little earlier about the workings of the standing committee system.

With due deference to you, Mr Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks directly concerning culture and the policy of the Department of National Education and the Government regarding culture. There are two features of this amending Bill which make definite reference to culture. One is the concept of cultural treasures and the second is the whole question of conservation areas and wrecks.

Let me, firstly, talk about culture. When, in the near future, the NP Government has fallen, I have no doubt that historians viewing their policies will look askance at those regarding educational and particularly cultural matters. There is no justification whatsoever for the division which the NP have imposed upon culture in South Africa. Let me give an example. At lunchtime today I wandered down Government Avenue to the South African Cultural History Museum. This magnificent building used to be the old slave quarters where, according to the historical records, foreign White sailors and Black slaves enjoyed themselves together and helped create the South African nation.

Only British sailors, remember!

The interesting thing about the South African Cultural History Museum is that, unlike the vast majority of other museums in South Africa which are cultural institutions falling within the responsibility of the Minister of National Education and are therefore general affairs, it is a White own affair. I find this fascinating. Having paid my 50c, I first walked into the Egyptian Room. A White own affair? I then had a look at some relics from shipwrecks of Chinese origin and some Japanese coinage. Upstairs I found two rooms devoted to the Cape Muslim culture. A White own affair! There is an absolute, unmitigated farce going on here, emotively created for public consumption, that culture can be determined in racial terms. It cannot.

I think the members on this side of the House recognise that there is such a thing as culture.

Are you sure?

I am proud of my culture and the historical background from which I come—the heritage of Milton, Shakespeare and Cromwell and everything that goes with them. I am proud of the institution of Parliament which is part of my historical culture. I can talk of fellow South Africans of Greek or Portuguese origin who have a different cultural background. I can talk of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who also have a different cultural background, but there is no such thing as White culture. [Interjections.]

What about Black culture?

“Blackbeard” culture maybe, but not Black culture. The hon the Minister of own affairs Education and Culture in the White House, who was laughing a moment ago, is going to have a lot of explaining to do to history as to how he came to look after the South African Cultural History Museum in which the minority of exhibits are of White origin.

I think we have to be absolutely clear that when we handle a measure of this nature that refers to war graves and national monuments we are talking of the whole of South Africa and every cultural heritage.

In the standing committee we referred to the Kruger Bible which was up for auction recently. That is part of the cultural heritage not only of the Afrikaner but of South Africa. I feel one has to respect that. In these terms one has to look at a broader concept than simply the narrow predetermined group concept of the NP.

What we need to have is free association, the ability of people to determine who they are and where they stand. The South African Cultural History Museum should certainly never be a White own affair; every South African has the right to view it as representing his cultural heritage.

In terms of this legislation one must start off by reaching absolute clarity concerning the report of the standing committee and the position that it adopted. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned this is an interim measure. We do not believe that this represents the final word in the four areas with which it is concerned.

Similarly—one will not quote the individual —people who gave evidence before the standing committee referred to the principal Act as it is formulated now as “sloppy legislation”. The reason is that it has been added to several times without reassessing the purpose of the principal Act. I am glad therefore that the hon the Minister has indicated in his speech that the Government will give due consideration to a reassessment of the whole legislative framework of conservation in South Africa, as well as the matter of shipwrecks.

The amending Bill is concerned with four key matters, namely conservation areas, a register of immovable property, cultural treasures and shipwrecks. I would like to touch on each of these areas.

I will deal firstly with cultural treasures. The hon the Minister will be pleased to read in the amending Bill a clause which states that the National Monuments Council has the right “by notice in the Gazette to declare, after consultation with the owner, any movable property to be a cultural treasure as described in such notice”. I feel I must with due deference take my hat off to the hon the Minister and thank him.

Last year we had a measure before us concerning National Libraries. One of the matters I mentioned in my speech related to this measure was the concern I felt about the protection of manuscript material of recent origin to prevent its leaving the country and ending up in the museums, or more particularly, the universities of the USA. The hon the Minister wrote back to me and indicated that there was concern and also that there was a report dealing with this. This report which was made available to me was an internal departmental document. The report made it quite clear that there was a need to cover more recent material than was covered by existing legislation.

The idea behind this declaration of cultural treasures is to cover up to the present date properties which exist in South Africa. I feel we should give due recognition to some of these cultural treasures of which I would like to mention a few. I have already touched on the Kruger Bible but I am thinking of far more recent material such as manuscript material from writers like Langenhoven, Olive Schreiner, Adam Small, Sol Plaatje and Es’kia Mphalele. These are all writers of South African significance whose manuscript material we should not allow to leave South Africa. Similarly one could mention paintings, sculptures and other matters. I feel that this amending Bill gives the National Monuments Council some ability to hold on to these treasures.

The second area to which I should like to refer is that of the entire planning role of the National Monuments Council. This is one of the conflict areas that existed in the standing committee. It was a matter which we debated for two or three days—the relevant merit of granting the National Monuments Council a role in planning and with planning authorities in South Africa. One must of course make significant reference to the original amending Bill and also to the later one. There is a significant difference in that the amending Bill as it is before us now gives a lot more teeth to the National Monuments Council while at the same time making prior consultation necessary.

I am sure the hon member for Sundays River will probably speak at length on the matter of conservation areas and the register. All I should like to say is that the representations we received from various municipalities and from the United Municipal Executive made it quite clear that those people were very concerned about the role of the National Monuments Council in planning. What we have indicated here again—because this an an interim measure—is that there must be a lot of consultation in connection with planning, the role of the National Monuments Council in planning etc. We must also wait and see what recommendations we receive from the President’s Council in its report on planning which, I understand, is before the Cabinet. All of these things need to be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I should like to refer at some length to the whole question of shipwrecks. I want to do so because what I believe we have here is a signal example of the success of the standing committee system, where the original draft legislation which was received by the standing committee caused considerable heartache to a number of the authorities concerned, and, in particular, organisations such as university archaeology departments, museums and marine archeologists in South Africa.

Now, why were they concerned? They were concerned because we had relegated shipwrecks in this country to a position in which there had been an exploitation phase, where shipwrecks had been seen as gold mines to be rippped off by individuals for their own gain. Museums, marine archaeologists and the archaeological institutes were extremely concerned that shipwrecks should be seen in the same light as land archeology, that exploitation should not be allowed. So, Mr Chairman, the two particular areas which needed to be very accurately assessed were, first of all, the right of someone to dive on a shipwreck. Who had that right? Who gave him that right? Secondly, there was the right of someone to acquire and hold material from a shipwreck.

I believe that the amending measure—and I must say I have received confirmation of this from certain museums—is a very good piece of legislation. Various museums have already indicated that they are very happy with it as it now stands. The situation is now that the amending legislation makes it a necessity for a diver to be in written affiliation with a museum before he dives so that the museum can lay down what that diver should do, how he should exploit the area, and what he has to look for. He has to follow the demands of the museum very carefully indeed. [Interjections.] I hear one of my colleagues making a very facetious remark about gold coins, Sir. It is not as funny as it sounds because one of our greatest problems is in relation to what has happened in the past. Divers have gone down. They have taken the good small stuff leaving the big bad stuff to the museums. That has not really benefited the museums. Looking after a cannon is of course more expensive than actually looking after a gold coin. The importance of this measure now, however, regarding property acquired at a shipwreck is very significant in that all material recovered from a wreck must be placed in the custody of the museum referred to in the Bill.

I feel that the museums themselves should be extremely pleased with this. Again, however, I believe we are in an interim phase. The Australians—they are not great examples in many spheres; particularly not in the cricket sphere—produced their Historic Shipwrecks Act of 1976, which is a model piece of legislation in relation to shipwrecks, and I believe it well deserves to be looked at by our authorities in this country.