Mr. Chairman, this particular clause embodies the provision that—

This amount is made up of two amounts, as can be clearly seen in the schedule to the Bill. Firstly there is an amount of approximately R496 000 for the Department of Defence …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In view of the fact that the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts has been presented to this House, and in view of the fact that this House has accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee that these amounts be authorized, is the hon. member allowed to move an amendment which, in fact, has the effect…

You are jumping the gun.

Order! The hon. member has not moved any amendment yet. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, the amount of R507 000 is made up of R496 000 for the Department of Defence and an amount of R11 509 to be paid to one Chris van Rensburg, who runs Van Rensburg Publications and who was implicated in the Information Department scandal. I do not intend dwelling on this at length, because I have already done so in another debate. I should, however, like to remind the House of the fact that the Erasmus Commission commented unfavourably regarding Mr. Van Rensburg. The Select Committee for Public Accounts commented unfavourably on Mr. Van Rensburg, while the hon. member for Walmer called Mr. Van Rensburg a number of extremely harsh names in this very House. Mr. Van Rensburg is also still being investigated by the Trust Board in connection with an amount of R30 000 paid to him out of the secret funds of the former Department of Information. Therefore we in these benches believe it would be very wrong of the House to ratify this amount of R11 509.

I have placed amendments on clause 2 and on the schedule on the Order Paper, but as I understand that these amendments will not be in order if moved, I do not intend moving them. I do, however, want to make it quite clear that we as a party are not prepared to support any legislation which makes provision for the paying of a sum of money to Mr. Van Rensburg. Therefore we intend voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having thought that the hon. member was in the process of moving his amendment. There was rather a noise and I could not hear properly.

The circumstances surrounding the sum of R11 509 were thoroughly discussed when the report of the Select Committee was discussed here. At the time I said, and I want to repeat it now, that the Select Committee did not make a recommendation in its report with regard to this amount, but asked that a further investigation should be undertaken. After it had been investigated, the Exchequer informed us that, in the light of the investigation, they had no choice but to recommend that the sum be agreed to. The reason was, as I have already said before, that there was no proof that the cost increase that Mr. Van Rensburg requested, contained an element of profit. Due to the investigation in terms of the decision of the Select Committee, I feel we can freely recommend that this sum be approved.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to pause for a while on this clause and, in fact, to pay tribute to the National Parks Board for what it has done for conservation in South Africa. At present, the board is responsible for the conservation of approximately 2,5% of the land mass of South Africa and the provinces in South Africa are responsible for 5%. In other words, Sir, we are conserving approximately 7½% of the land mass of South Africa. This is in fact below the level recommended by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which recommends a figure of 10%. For example, a country like Botswana…

Mr. Chairman: On a point of order: Should the hon. member not whisper a little louder? It is very difficult to hear what he is saying.

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

Mr. Chairman, I shall treat that interruption by the hon. member with the contempt it deserves. Mr. Chairman, when we look at a country like Botswana, we find that they are conserving approximately 14%. A country like Japan has eight national parks of more than 100 000 ha while in South Africa we have only two. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be sympathetic to the voices of those who wish to conserve the environment in South Africa. I think we have a tremendous environment but I fear that familiarity breeds contempt. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be sympathetic in this regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives the Minister the authority to enter into commitments in respect of certain loans on behalf of Community Councils. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible in terms of this clause to convert those loans into grants at a later stage. I ask this question because I notice from subsection (3) of the proposed new section 30A that amounts made available from the State Revenue Fund “shall” be repaid, not “may” be repaid. Yesterday, when we were discussing another finance measure, the hon. member for Yeoville gave examples of where certain loans had been converted into grants. We on these benches are rather anxious, therefore, that the same possibility should be present in so far as loans which are granted on behalf of Community Councils. I say this too, Sir, in view of the history of the financing of expenditure in the Black urban areas. There is a long history attached to this—I shall not go into it now because it is not relevant—but those urban councils be they looked after, as at one stage they were, by the municipalities or, as now, by the Administration Boards and, in the future, presumably when autonomy is granted, by the Community Councils, have always been expected to be self-sufficient, to be able to be financially self-sufficient. When one considers the sources of revenue on which they have to rely—rents, fines, licence fees, registration fees and on profits from the sale of beer and liquor; they have no rateable property because there is no freehold and they have no central business district on which rates can be charged—one wonders whether they will ever be able to accumulate sufficient finance to repay such loans which are urgently needed. As I say, the urban councils and the Community Councils have had to be self-sufficient over many years. There is a big shortfall in housing because the municipalities and the boards have never fulfilled their duties and responsibilities in this regard and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it should be made possible in law for such loans to be converted, if necessary, into grants.

Mr. Chairman, the clause as it stands does not allow such loans to be converted into grants. If that were to be done at a later stage, Parliament would have to come into the picture. In answer to the hon. member’s point that this should be a type of measure which facilitates the financing of a Community Council of this kind in particular or Community Councils in general, I want to tell her that this is in fact a very important aspect of development ahead.

What we really have in mind here can be illustrated by: taking Soweto, which is often regarded as a very good example. If development in Soweto, which is taking place all the time, continues and needs to be financed, we should like to see a position where the Community Council could itself have the power to take up loans, but obviously the Government would, normally speaking, have to guarantee those loans. I would not exclude external loans. If a loan would be taken up abroad by the Community Council, the Government clearly would have to guarantee that loan and it could easily be that the Government would hold itself responsible to service that loan, that is to say to pay the interest which the lender requires in terms of the loan, and the Government itself then might be able to grant easier terms to the Community Council.

This is the sort of thing that is envisaged, precisely, I think, to try to achieve the sort of thing the hon. member has in mind. From the point of view of the public debt position the Government would then accept this sort of loan as part of the public debt and therefore it would be serviced as all other loans which form part of the public debt are serviced. The Community Council might be able to get the benefit of very much better terms than the lender might be prepared to give. That is the real philosophy here. We think that this could be very important in the future development of this sort of area.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in this way the situation will be met partially, but will it not in the meantime be possible to make a change in the law as it stands by substituting the word “may” for the word “shall”? If such an amendment were to be accepted, then before the situation would be reached to servicing the loan and so on, a decision could be taken. One should bear in mind that the Community Council is going to take a long time before it will become any way nearfinancially self-sufficient. In view of the history of the sort of manner in which the Community Councils have had to finance themselves and the shortage of funds forthcoming both from the Central Government and the local authorities, would the hon. the Minister consider accepting an amendment to substitute the word “shall” by the word “may”?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talks about a shortage in the funds which the Government makes available. I think if one looks at the position as a whole and at all the claims on the Exchequer for all sorts of purposes, one ought to agree that the Government is from its side really not doing very badly in the provision of funds for this sort of purpose.

Well, only over the last couple of years.

It may be, but it is taking place on a bigger and bigger scale.

I shall take careful cognizance of what the hon. member has said, but I should prefer to study this carefully to establish the full implications. I therefore should like to leave this clause as worded at the moment to see how it works. If it should prove necessary, we can always introduce an amendment. We shall keep the matter under close surveillance, as they say, and we can talk again if necessary.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Since I am moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should like to inform the House that the result in Piketberg is as follows: National Party—7 969; HNP—1 225; majority—6 744; spoilt votes—37.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, may we perhaps point out that that is a reduced majority?

But you are pleased about it!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on page 166 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 19, to omit “ten” and to substitute “one”;
2. (2) on page 2, in line 20, to omit “five years” and to substitute “one year”.

During the course of the Second Reading debate we warned that it would be inappropriate and, in fact, wrong to over-react to the situation we are dealing with in terms of this clause—in other words, that it would be wrong to over-react in legislating for this particular problem, since this would create the impression that desecration of and disrespect towards the flag in general had become endemic in South Africa. We further said that such an over-reaction would be inappropriate because there were deep divisions in the South African society. We are after all, supporting the outlawing of the desecration of the flag, but irrespective of the way people react to it, we have to take cognizance of the reality of these divisions which exist in our society. Going hand in hand with this is the dissatisfaction with the Government in this regard.

Sir, the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech accused members on this side of the House of being apologists for those who wish to desecrate the flag. This is obvious nonsense. We are supporting the principle of outlawing the desecration of the flag. The hon. the Minister did in fact mention the fact that one should not, because you disapprove of the constitutional set-up in the country or the actions of the Government, resort to actions against the symbols of State. We agree. We obviously agree, and that is why we are supporting this clause, in terms of which this sort of action is being outlawed. But, Sir, we cannot lose sight of the realities with which we live, or of the difficulties which some people may find in feeling the same sort of loyalty and commitment towards symbols of State.

I have, in these two amendments, moved that the penalties be reduced. In the first amendment I have proposed that the fine be reduced from R10 000 to a maximum amount of R1 000, and in the second amendment I have moved that the prison sentence be reduced from five years to one year. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech also tried to indicate that we ignore the fact that these are maximum penalties. In fact, we do not. I do wish to point out, however, that the maximum penalties that are prescribed in law certainly are at least an indication to the courts of how the legislature views a particular offence and how in its view such offences should be penalized.

Obviously, in trying to establish to what extent we should like to have these penalties reduced, we had to look at the position in other countries. Examples have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Namakwaland and others. We felt that the example of the United States of America was probably the most appropriate one because although legislation against the desecration of the American flag was introduced in 1947 in the district of Columbia only, the main legislation that is today still applicable to the same sort of situation in the United States was only enacted in 1968, during the time when the whole Vietnam situation was a particularly hot issue and when flag-burning in fact became quite a problem, a much more serious problem than we have in South Africa today, I may say. These incidents were much more prevalent in America than they are in South Africa today. I said that it is a comparable situation in the sense that people resort to actions against the flag because of their disapproval of their Government’s involvement in Vietnam. In other words, it was also a situation where people confused the State, its sovereignty and its symbols, with the Government and its actions and its policy. Therefore we felt that this was probably the most sensibly comparable example which we could find in other countries. In the case of the United States of America the penalty that is prescribed is a maximum of one year’s imprisonment or a maximum fine of $1 000. For these reasons we felt that it would make sense to reduce the penalties prescribed in the legislation before us in order to introduce perspective into the question of legislation to make desecration of the flag an offence.

Mr. Chairman, we in the New Republic Party quite obviously honour and respect our flag, probably more than many others in that, I believe, in the past the NRP members and their predecessors in the United Party were the first to go into battle and die under the South African flag as it presently exists.

What do you mean? [Interjections.]

We were amongst the first.

You are making a claim which you cannot substantiate.

I want to go further. Not only that, but over the years we in this party, and the members of the former United Party, frequently had to defend this same flag against the actions of people who wanted to alter the flag. So I make the point clear that we very definitely strongly honour our flag. However, although in the past there have been great problems in connection with the retention of this particular flag, it fortunately would seem that all three parties in this House today hold our South African flag in the same high esteem. There is no doubt about it that during the Second Reading debate we supported the Bill in principle on the grounds that our flag should be protected and honoured. However, we cannot help but feel that honour is something that one should not put a price tag on, and therefore we are not happy about the large sum of money which can buy off someone who dishonours our flag. I there fore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, to begin I want to reply briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point. That hon. member said that his party supports the principle that the flag of the Republic should enjoy statutory protection as a national symbol. During the Second Reading I said that an ambivalence could be detected in the arguments of the official Opposition. In one respect they want to satisfy a certain element that they hold the symbols of the country in high regard and on the other hand they must represent an element that does not do so in the first place or that does so with less enthusiasm than others. Let us look at the motivation that the hon. member gave this afternoon. The hon. member’s motivation follows exactly the same pattern as that of his argument during the Second Reading, because he says that in a certain sense the Government is responsible for the dissatisfaction prevailing in the community. No one is denying that dissatisfaction does in fact exist. The extent of dissatisfaction amongst voters is in fact reflected in the numerical strength of those sitting opposite us. On the basis of that the hon. member alleges that we should not ascribe the same sanction because there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the Government. However, the flag does not represent the Government, but the State, and that is why the penalty in this case is determined according to the value attached to that symbol of the State. The respect that the Government grants it has nothing to do with that.

An opinion poll was held in order to establish what degree of protection the flag should enjoy, and it is interesting to note that 82,6% of the sample that was questioned, asked for steps to be taken to protect the flag. 62% of this sample indicated that the steps should be drastic, whilst 19,7% indicated that they did not think they should be drastic. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the standpoints of the different political parties on the question as to whether they wanted heavy penalties for the desecration of the flag, are a significant reflection of the dilemma in which the official Opposition find themselves.

There we find that only 32,1% of that sample that supports the official Opposition, agrees that there should be drastic protective measures. The attitude that the hon. member for Green Point is adopting here today, is completely in agreement with the divergent standpoints within the ranks of his own party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, not now. I am already in the process of replying to the hon. member’s question. [Interjections.] The penal provisions must indicate clearly that this House has no patience whatsoever with people who desecrate the symbols of the State and of the country. Since this House has to adopt a specific standpoint in this regard, has to display a specific disposition, we cannot allow a contradictory conclusion to be drawn from the penal measure in the legislation itself. That is why the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point is not acceptable to us on this side of the House. Apparently his standpoint is not acceptable to hon. members of the NRP either.

Finally the hon. member says—and this is very interesting—that similar legislation in America—which he considers a suitable example—was passed in 1969 because at that time a pattern of flag burning arose due to the internal differences with regard to America’s participation in the Vietnam war. If I understood it correctly, that is the hon. member’s argument. Therefore, the hon. member is approving the fact that legislation had to be passed in America in order to protect the flag of that country, under the abovementioned circumstances. However, I want to ask him whether the circumstances in South Africa and the powers that the domestic circumstances in our country want to use as part of their total pattern of destroying the order within the borders of our country, are not more widespread in his opinion and of greater significance than the mere point of difference that existed in America with regard to the question of whether to participate in the Vietnam war or not. If we are to use that norm, I think there can be little doubt that should this provision be amended at all, the penal provision should be stricter and not more lenient.

†That brings me now to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo. I can only subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in this regard. The hon. member submits that there should be no price tag attached to loyalty or respect towards our national symbols. I do agree with the hon. member. The hon. member will, however, also appreciate that the severity of the sentence should not only be determined by the seriousness of the offence but also by the circumstances surrounding the offence. Furthermore, the punishment must also be related to the offender. Therefore this particular clause contains the principle that although Parliament expresses its opinion pertaining to the offence itself, it also accepts that the presiding officers of the courts of law shall have a discretion in respect of the punishment of an offender. This means that presiding officers in courts of law should be enabled to use their discretion in respect of the severity of the punishment to be meted out in each and every such offence.

Therefore, once we have decided what attitude to adopt and through that attitude have given an indication of what we think courts of law should do in cases of this nature, I do not believe we should delete that part of the clause which provides for a fine to be imposed on offenders in this regard. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister suggested that the penalty attached to the desecration of a flag should be an indication and was to be related to the premium that we, the Whites place on the value of a State symbol. Therefore the more one values and respects State symbols, the higher the penalty should be on anyone who desecrates or violates those symbols. That cannot possibly be a justifiable reason for imposing such a high penalty. The hon. the Minister cannot possibly suggest that we place a higher premium or value on our State symbols, more so than for example America, because we impose a higher penalty. That is not and should not be a criterion when the penalty is determined. What should be a criterion is the specific case of the individual who contravenes this particular section. In this regard one has to look at the blameworthiness that could be attached to separate individuals. If it is a White individual who out of radical protest and with the obvious intention of showing his disgust with the State desecrates the flag, that would be a different situation compared with for example a Black community where the people did not have a say in the design of the flag and where people perhaps under certain circumstances, such as for example the riots which we occasionally experience, desecrate the flag. Under such circumstances the penalty should be a different one. Therefore the premium that we place on State symbols should not be reflected in the penalties.

I now wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment relates to subsection (1)(c), which deals with the onus. I now wish to refer briefly to four points why in our view my amendment is a justifiable one. It relates to the onus that is placed on the shoulders of the accused when he is charged with removing a flag from a post where it hangs on official instructions.

Firstly, one is not dealing here with a small technical offence in respect of which one often finds that the onus is placed on the accused. If one looks at the penalties, and if the R10 000 penalty goes through, one is dealing with a very serious offence where one now wants the place the onus on the shoulders of the accused.

Secondly, I cannot understand the reason in this particularly case for placing the onus on the shoulders of the accused, because it should be no problem whatsoever for the State to produce the necessary evidence to show that the individual concerned could not have had the authority to remove that flag. Let us deal with a particular instance. If a flag was removed from the pole in front of a magistrate’s court, one could quite easily establish through evidence obtained from the State that no authority was in existence. The State has the machinery and it has the back-up to produce that evidence without any difficulty. Therefore I can see no reason why the onus should be placed on the accused.

Thirdly, and this follows on the second point, one could very often find that the accused in these circumstances is the ordinary simple accused, without legal representation, without any knowledge of the procedure and who is not aware of the fact that the onus is on him. Then, because of his inability and lack of knowledge, he is convicted for an offence which in the ordinary course of events the State would have had to prove and for which he might not have been convicted had this section not been there.

Fourthly, in principle it is bad and contrary to our criminal procedure to place the onus on the accused. I see no need for it in this particular case. It is a serious offence and the onus should remain on the shoulders of the State.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious from the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central that he has no conception whatsoever of what the considerations are when punishment is meted out to an offender. [Interjections.]

He is only at the Durban Bar; that is all.

I hope the hon. member does better outside than he does here.

We feel the same about you.

Order!

The point is that even the hon. member for Green Point disagrees with the hon. member for Durban Central in that he also accepts that the severity of the sentence is an indication of the attitude that the legislative has about a particular offence. In fact, his opening words confirmed that that was his opinion. Now the hon. member for Durban Central comes along and says that that cannot be so. He maintains that it is not the sentence that is to be meted out to an individual that should be determined, but that the sentence provided for in the legislation should be determined by a possible offender. This makes nonsense of legislation. The fact is that the presiding officer can exercise his discretion as to what would be an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of each case, bearing in mind that, firstly, there must be a measure of retribution for the offence committed.

*Secondly, the penalty should act as a deterrent to others, and thirdly, the personal circumstances of the offender should be taken into account. For this reason provision is made for a maximum penalty, specifically to afford the presiding legal officer the opportunity, having regard to all these considerations, of imposing a penalty which would comply with all the requirements of punishment, having regard also to the personal circumstances of the offender. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. The penalty must be an indication of the attitude towards the offence as an offence per se. Thereafter it is the responsibility of the legal officer who is implementing the legislation to impose a suitable penalty according to circumstances.

The hon. member’s amendment deals with the shifting of the onus. What is relevant here is that the onus is placed on such a person in respect of only one question, namely whether the person involved had the authority to remove the flag. Therefore it does not concern the onus with regard the act of removal, but with regard to the legality of the removal. Surely it cannot create any problems for any alleged offender to prove that he had a legal function or right to remove the flag. For this reason I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. All that the person involved in these circumstances must do is to prove on a balance of probabilities that he removed the flag legally.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, we are aware of the fact that this is not an onus that is being placed upon a person to disprove a presumption. We are aware that this is not a legal onus that places an immense burden on the accused in normal circumstances. However, the difficulty that we have is that there is such an enormous percentage of accused persons in South Africa appearing in a criminal court who are not represented. The hon. the Minister will know what difficulties are encountered. There are those people who, in spite of the availability of interpreters, do not understand the procedures, etc. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I have been present where people were not necessarily found guilty of a crime where they would otherwise have been discharged, but found guilty of a more serious crime simply because they did not understand that they were required to discharge an onus by giving evidence. In fact, it would merely have required that person going into the witness box and giving an explanation and there would not have been no further questions about it. However, where persons are found guilty in those circumstances, we are particularly sensitive about the situation, especially where an onus of this nature rests upon an accused. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to that amendment. In reacting to my two amendments, the hon. the Minister mentioned the question of an opinion poll. He mentioned the large percentage of people who felt that the desecration of the flag should be outlawed. We all accept that that is the case, but first of all I just want to put a couple of questions to the hon. the Minister in this regard. Is it the duty of hon. members in this House to react to situations that are of a purely emotional nature and, in fact, to react at the same level as the ordinary South African citizen? Surely it is our duty to tone things down and put things in perspective where this is found to be vitally necessary.

There is a second question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Is it sufficient to say that because an opinion poll indicates that people feel that it is necessary to take drastic action, we should quantify what “drastic” means? I think that is always a dangerous game. I think one should have regard to what has taken place in other countries and possibly make comparisons with other offences.

And where did the sample come from?

There is also a third question that I think is particularly interesting. The relevant opinion poll showed that 32% of PFP supporters were in favour of drastic action. Was that not, however, the same opinion poll that also indicated 58% support for the representation of Black people on the President’s Council?

No, it was not. You are fishing in a very dry pond.

Well, if it was not the same one, it was certainly a similar poll. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. the Minister could in due course give us an indication …

50% of the NP.

… of the extent to which his Government is prepared to react to the feelings expressed in such a poll.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is trying to fish in a very dry dam. However, let me answer his question. After all, the goal of this legislation was announced a long time ago and surely it was announced some time ago that it is the standpoint of the Government that there should be a drastic penal provision. However, this specific opinion poll was conducted after this had been announced. In other words, the Government did not react to the emotional outbursts of people. What did in fact happen, was that the Government …

No, the emotional outbursts of the Government.

… quite correctly anticipated what the standpoint of people would be with regard to national symbols. This is what happened. [Interjections.] The people who can be accused of having reacted to opinion polls, are members of the hon. member for Green Point’s party. What happened with this opinion poll, was merely a confirmation of what the Government had anticipated. Therefore, the people that reacted were not members of the Government, but were in fact members of the hon. member for Green Point’s party.

This brings me to the second point. That hon. member says the reason why he is supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, is not the reason why the hon. member moved it. His reason is in fact that there are people who are often ignorant of legal procedures and of their rights in our courts. However, I find it difficult to imagine that such ignorant people would really have the power to remove flags. Surely one would assume that anyone who has the power to remove a flag lawfully would understand what power accompanies it. In other words, there is really no substance to the hon. member’s argument, and that is why I cannot accept it.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. H. P. Gastrow negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. D. W. Watterson negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by Mr. S. S. van der Merwe put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising in order to indicate that we shall oppose clause 2. This clause increases the prescribed fine from R2 000 to R10 000. We do not think that this is necessary, partly due to the fact that the offence that was originally created in the section concerned, is hardly ever committed and therefore is not a problem in South Africa.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we support this clause in so far as it provides for administrative efficiency and administrative flexibility in the operation of government. I should just like to raise one query, however, in regard to subsection (2) of the proposed new section 20A. This subsection permits the Prime Minister to reallocate duties assigned to him, to certain Ministers. I should like to say that we should beware of too great a concentration of power in the hands of the department of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think we have already seen a trend in the direction of the concentration of power in the single department of the hon. the Prime Minister and I think it will be an unhealthy development if this goes too far. However, in so far as matters stand at the moment, we are in favour of the principle of flexibility and of being able to reallocate duties.

At this stage, Sir, I wish to move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I think it goes without saying that members of Parliament, the public and State departments need to be informed of any reassignment of duties. I think this is obvious. If there is going to be a reallocation of powers among Ministers, all the people involved in dealing with those Ministers must know that that has taken place. Obviously, if one did not give notification of this to all concerned, it would create a totally impossible situation. I do not think that I am in any sense proposing a new principle. I think it has in the past been the practice when there has been a reallocation of powers among Ministers to publish a notice in the Government Gazette. It certainly has been the general usage. Therefore, I am not proposing anything new. I am merely suggesting that we should enshrine in law what in most cases had been the practice.

When I first considered this amendment—which I think is a useful amendment—I also considered the possibility of introducing a time limit of, say, 21 days. However, it was pointed out to me that, if for any reason the time limit was not met, it could invalidate the reallocation. Obviously that is not the intention of this amendment. One does not wish to create a situation in which there will be a legal hiatus in a ministry. The amendment is, therefore couched in its present form which is simply that this reallocation of powers should be published as soon as possible. In effect all it is is an injunction to publish without undermining the validity of the reallocation of the duty, unless it can be shown in court that mala fides was involved. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that failure to publish as a result of mala fides would be something that one would wish to prevent. Therefore, this amendment should be satisfactory from all points of view.

Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to inform this Committee that the NRP does support the principle of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the provisions of section 15 of the Interpretation Act of 1957. It reads as follows—

In terms of this provision it had already been customary to publish such assignments in the Gazette. In other words, with regard to the need for announcing the reason inter alia to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, it has in fact become customary to do so. The proposal of the hon. member is therefore simply a formalization of a practice that is already taking place. The hon. member is aware of the fact that in the verdict in the case of Sutter v Scheepers of 1932, Chief Justice Wessels expressed his opinion as follows—

In other words, if we now accept what the hon. member says here then in terms of the decision and since there is no penal provision, it is merely directory and not compulsory. Therefore, this does not take us any further than section 15 of the Interpretation Act and therefore the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister cannot accept the amendment.

I want to raise one or two other matters regarding the question of the interpretation of the clause and how it will work in practice. In a sense it does start to impinge on the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility although the individual Cabinet Minister nevertheless has to accept responsibility for his particular department. As we understand it, as far as the Prime Minister’s department is concerned although he may assign power to one of the other Ministers, he will be responsible for his department and whatever that Minister does, will be done in the name of the Prime Minister.

I first of all want to ask, in respect of the Prime Minister’s assignments, whether they are going to be made public by way of a notice of some kind.

The assignment from him to somebody else?

Yes.

Those assignments are to be made public.

When responsibility is assigned to a Minister, it is not only assigned to the Minister but also to the officials working under that Minister because in turn the Minister can assign responsibility to various officials. In so far as the Prime Minister is concerned and in terms of subsection (2) we want to know whether there will be a formal assignment and whether this will be known to both the Executive and the Legislature.

I want to come back to subsection (1). If the State President takes away certain responsibilities from a Minister and gives it to another Minister in terms of the proposed section 20A(1), who will be responsible? Let me assume that it is a matter concerning the Department of Internal Affairs and that the State President has assigned certain functions which are normally assigned to the Minister of Internal Affairs to another Minister. Who will be deemed to be responsible to the Legislature for the performance of this function? The Prime Minister’s responsibility is clear; the Prime Minister is still responsible and he merely delegates, but in the case of the Ministers the position is not that easy, because part of the functions of one Minister has now been moved out of his department to that of another Minister and the question which now arises is who is going to be responsible. I raise this issue because we have had times in the past when there was some confusion or conflict. Let us take the whole Information scandal. There was a question of where the responsibility lay. More recently in regard to the question of the opening or not of sports clubs action was taken in terms of the Group Areas Act, but the Minister only had the right to issue permits. A statement was, however, issued by the Minister responsible for sport and recreation saying that a blanket permit had been given. Would such a matter now be assigned to the Minister of National Education since he is in charge of sport and recreation and thereafter will he be totally responsible, not as delegated authority to the main Minister, but for that area which has been assigned to him in the sense that he is responsible to this House for all his actions?

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out at once that in the first place the provisions of clause 3 are merely a transcription of what is stated in the Interpretation Act. Therefore, it is simply a case of the provisions of the proposed section 20A being removed from the Interpretation Act and included in the Constitution. Therefore, no new principle is being contained in the proposed section 20A. The reason why it is being removed, is merely because the appointment of Ministers is a matter that is dealt with in terms of the Constitution. That is why the powers of Ministers must be dealt with on the basis of the Constitution and not on the basis of the Interpretation Act. Therefore, no new principle is being created whatsoever.

But in practice?

The hon. member must read clause 3 together with clause 8. Perhaps for the sake of clarity I should repeat what I said about clause 3 when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill (Hansard 29 September, col. 5159)—

This is all that we are doing now with that specific one. There is a new section: The authority to transfer from one Minister to another is now being further extended, in the sense that whereas section 10(4) of the Interpretation Act simply provided for a power, a function or a duty entrusted to a Minister in terms of a Act, to be transferred by the State President from one Minister to another Minister, provision is now being made for a power or a duty or a function entrusted to the Prime Minister in terms of an Act, to be transferred by the Prime Minister to another Minister. This is where the important difference lies. Section 17 of the Constitution provides that there is an Executive Council consisting of 20 persons appointed in terms of section 20 by the State President. The Prime Minister is the Chairman of the Executive Council by convention, and other than in the case of other Ministers, who cannot transfer their functions, powers or duties in terms of an Act to other Ministers as they wish, the Prime Minister should in fact have the power to do so. In clause 8 of the Bill consequential amendments to the Interpretation Act are being moved due to the introduction of this new section 20A.

Therefore, what is the position? The functions that the Prime Minister can transfer here, are therefore functions that have been granted to him by law; he had the others in any event. In terms of the Physical Planning Act, for instance, if I remember correctly, certain functions are transferred to him. Now provision must be made for him to be able to transfer those functions to another Minister. In the nature of things, the concept of collective responsibility remains in force. Indeed, the hon. member for Constantia mentioned this argument. If I understood him correctly, he actually wanted to accept the principle that the Prime Minister should transfer some of his powers too, otherwise there would be too much power in his hands. I do not agree with him, but I just want to make the point that he used the argument. In other words, if the Prime Minister transfers powers, in the nature of things he retains the responsibility for them. The transfer of a power from the Prime Minister to a Minister, however, does not imply an automatic transfer of that power to an officer. Once again it is a power peculiar to the Minister concerned that is being transferred and he, then carries the responsibility for it. It does not detract from collective responsibility. The concept has already been debated several times here that in any event there is collective responsibility, even if there is no transfer of power.

My problem is not with the collective responsibility, but that it may possibly detract from the responsibility of an individual Minister.

No, it will not detract from it, because the person that decides, is the Minister himself. For instance, I decide myself whether I want to transfer a specific power to a colleague. In other words, it cannot detract from my responsibility, unless I myself am the instrument thereof, because my powers—except for the general powers—are laid down in the statutes that I have to administrate. Allow me to give an example. The powers of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, are laid down in his laws. Statutorily, he is the person who retains those powers exclusively, as long as (a) he remains in the Cabinet and (b) he has not transferred the power to anyone else. Therefore, it does not detract from that responsibility.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this clause, in the sense that without this clause it would still require that an individual member of the President’s Council would have to resign from the time he was elected to this House …

No, nominated.

Yes, originally such a person would have to resign in any case because he could not hold office here as well. Now he has to resign from the time of nomination. So, to that extent, this is an improvement on the status quo. But, Mr. Chairman, is this not an occasion for the Government to indicate what its attitude is towards members of the President’s Council being actively involved in party politics? Let us presume the nomination day will be 30 September. In order to get official nomination one will have to be actively involved in a party and perhaps have a party nomination contest. One will have to become an active member of a political party until that date and then resign. I should like the Government to indicate to us whether they think it is appropriate that members of the President’s Council should be actively involved in party politics or not. We raise this because there have been two instances of this nature, one in connection with Bezuidenhout constituency where for some time a member of the President’s Council was involved in writing articles of a party-political nature which were hostile to a particular party. I saw only yesterday in a Press report that a member of the President’s Council was actively involved in greeting voters outside a polling station in Piketberg. I do not want to get involved in what I think about this, but to the extent that Parliament, the Government, has created this body, we think it would be useful for the Government to formally state what their guidelines in respect of on-going party-political activity are to people who have accepted nomination by the State President to act on the President’s Council.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s interest in the President’s Council and its members is really amazing. [Interjections.] Perhaps this is a new trend that is being revealed, the fact that there is an increasing interest in the activities of the members of the President’s Council. If the hon. member is interested, he should come and discuss it with me. He may feel free to discuss it with me. Perhaps they can return to their old standpoint with regard to the President’s Council and not keep to their second standpoint. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

All that the provision says—and it represents the standpoint of the Government—is that when someone is nominated to the House of Assembly or a provincial council, he should withdraw from the President’s Council. There is an identically worded provision with regard to Public Servants and teachers. A teacher may remain a teacher until such time as he is nominated. Let us take an example, because in the nature of things one can give an indication of what one’s standpoint is with regard to a specific case. A topical case was that of Dr. McCrystal. He did not resign when he was nominated. He resigned when he entered the field, before he was nominated.

He said he did not intend resigning …

Give me a chance now. I am now talking about what actually happened. My standpoint is that people should allow their sound judgment to lead them in this regard and that I do not want to prescribe to them in this specific regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, we intend voting against clause 7 because it removes the protection which the provinces have had until now when it comes to the alteration of their boundaries. This particular provision has always had a special place in the various Acts pertaining to the South African constitution, and one knows why it has had this special place. It is, as has been mentioned in the Second Reading debate, because of provincial jealousies and the particular interests that provinces have in preserving their boundaries. If one looks at the wording of the section as the Act stands at the moment, it is quite clear that the provincial boundaries cannot be tampered with at all. If one looks at the Hansard of May, 1934, one sees what special significance the legislature attached to this particular provision. That was in 1934 when the predecessor of section 114, viz. section 149 of the South African Act of 1909, was discussed. On that occasion Mr. Oswald Pirow, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, said the following when dealing with this particular section (Hansard, 24 May 1934, col. 4145)—

He goes on to say—

He admitted that the juristic value was not great but emphasized that it had great moral value. That is the view which the provinces until now had in regard to the provisions of this section. What have the hon. the Minister and the Government done and what has his approach been when the national States were created? On the hon. the Minister’s own admission the Government just ignored the provisions of section 114 and proceeded to create those States without any petition from the provincial councils. It has taken upon itself the right to just ignore the provisions of an Act of Parliament presumably because it realized that there would be opposition in some quarters. The hon. the Minister has stated that in his view the fact that homelands and national States have been created without making use of this section, is in itself a justification for now amending it. He has stated that the act of ignoring these provisions has in itself amended this section. There are many authorities who would disagree with the hon. the Minister and who would argue that the wording of the Act is so clear that the State was obliged—even when creating the homelands—to do so only upon being petitioned by the provinces. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the views of a judge of the Supreme Court in the Northern Cape where, as obiter, the following was said in the judgment of Cowburn v Nasopie (Edms) Bpk en andere by the hon. Justice Van den Heever—

Mr. Chairman, what happened here is that the Government deliberately ignored the provisions of section 114 and decided to proceed on an administrative basis. It now comes to this House to amend this section retrospectively in order to create the impression that it has always acted in accordance with the law and in accordance with the constitution. It is therefore not only a question of administrative bungling in the sense that the Acts were completely being pushed aside but the spirit of section 114 upon which the provinces relied has also been thrown overboard and the Government now can do with the provincial boundaries whatever it wants to. Provincial boundaries between the various provinces are obviously still protected, but the major problem which a province, such as Natal, could face is being carved up into a number of small sections in order to create national States and such a province loses every say it could possibly have had in terms of the existing section. The hon. the Minister must realize that there could be opposition from Natal in connection with the demarcation of a national State, and this is a convenient and authoritarian way to amend this section which, in the words of a former Minister of Justice, Mr. Oswald Pirow, should remain in honour. This is now being done away with in the same fashion as has been done in many other similar enactments during this session and in the last few years. We accordingly oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Constantia took me to task, as an ex-MEC for the Province of Natal, for being—as he expressed it—soft on the provisions of this particular clause. Now again although the hon. member for Durban Central has not attacked me personally on this issue, he has nevertheless indicated that he feels that we should strenuously oppose this clause. I think it would help if I were to indicate the procedures that were followed earlier in respect of this particular clause, because when it was initiated it was not in this form. A draft was sent to all the provinces to inform them that for all practical intents and purposes subsection (a) of section 114 of the principal Act was going to be deleted. It was not put quite in those words, but that would have been the effect. Not only Natal, but all the other provinces as well …

Who sent out that draft?

A draft was sent out in which it was indicated that the effect of it would be that the provinces would not have this control.

But who sent out that draft?

We simply received a first draft in the Natal Provincial Council.

Do not act surprised like that, Chris.

Be that as it may, as a result of extensive discussions that took place at that time, not only in Natal but in the other provinces as well, the matter was referred back, and eventually the present clause was formulated, which seems to be a compromise between what had originally been wanted and what was in fact needed.

In Natal we were, in spite of that, very unhappy about any interference with this particular clause because, as had so rightly been said, the provinces had always been very jealous of our rights in respect of the possibility of additions and subtractions and alterations to the boundaries of the provinces. When it was made clear, however, and we appreciated the fact that we were faced with a fait accompli, we were left with no alternative. The position quite simply is that way back in the late 1960s, by action of this very Parliament, kwaZulu came into being, and effectively the Provincial Administration of Natal has had no control over kwaZulu ever since. Subsequently Transkei was excised and given total independence. This had nothing to do with Natal but it was a question of the Cape Province. Since then, by actions of this Parliament, various other States have been set up, so that when the provinces were faced with this possible amendment it was a question of fighting it, which, if we fought it through the courts and won, would have invalidated the self-governing status of the homeland States, including kwaZulu. That would have made them extremely unhappy. There is no question about that because, although they do not want independence, they are not totally dissatisfied with their self-governing status.

As far as Transkei is concerned, it would have put its validity as a State in doubt. So under those circumstances it was felt that having been presented with a fait accompli, we had very little alternative but to accept the situation as some sort of a compromise. I appreciate the attitude of the PFP in that they feel that they are now going to be the defenders of the boundaries of Natal. They would dearly love to make a real impact on provincial government in Natal but they have not yet succeeded in making any serious impact. They have got somebody in there but it has taken them 22 years to do it.

Look at what has happened to you after 15 years.

Be that as it may. As a matter of fact we are a very well-spread party. We are in all parties in this House at the moment.

You are in all parties; you are right. There will not be one of you left next time.

You said that last time.

The PFP policy has always been somewhat unrealistic in that it is the policy of fanatics who want all or nothing. In so far as this particular clause is concerned, we like to think that we are more realistic in that although we are as jealous and possibly more so than the PFP having had some responsibility for government for a lengthy period, and we realize that if we were to do what they would want us to do, it may well place the people whom they allege to talk for, the Black people in South Africa, in the somewhat invidious position of having illegal self-government. What would the result be ultimately? After all, Parliament is paramount. It would possibly delay things and would cause something of a hiatus but ultimately Parliament would pass this Bill in any case. So what is the point when one has already created a situation where a fait accompli, as I say, has been presented? What is the point of being unrealistic? We have looked into the question as to whether there were practical possibilities of doing anything other than building up the homeland states. I cannot think of any other alternative that the Government could have to infringe upon the territorial rights of the provinces. As the provision already exists, we have decided that we shall accept it. However, as an ex-member of the Natal executive I can assure hon. members that we in Natal dealt with this matter long before the members of the PFP knew it was even in existence.

Mr. Chairman, something new has been added to the debate on this particular clause because, judging from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, we had not realized that there had been some negotiations behind the scenes between the Government and the Natal Provincial Executive. As a matter of fact, their MP’s now find themselves in a position, they say, where they cannot oppose it because they were presented with a fait accompli.

That was not what he said.

That was exactly what he said. He said he could not oppose it now because he had been presented with a fait accompli.

He was referring to the Act relating to kwaZulu.

No. It was as if this particular Act in draft form had been conveyed to the Natal Provincial Executive and that they had decided that in the circumstances they had been presented with a fait accompli. We can look at the hon. member’s Hansard on this. I believe that whatever may have happened in regard to the Natal Provincial Executive, this House can never assume that it is faced with a fait accompli. Whatever negotiations took place between the Government and the Natal Provincial Executive should not bind the Opposition parties to looking at the Bill as it is.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I believe there are circumstances where he can or will argue on the basis of logic. As the clause stands now without the amendment, one may not alter the boundaries of a province or divide a province save on a petition by the province concerned or the provinces concerned, and that principle is being continued. Therefore if one wants to excise somebody from one province and put them in another, this clause still stands. That I can understand, but the hon. the Minister must explain to us where the logic is in saying that if one wants to excise people from one province in order to give them to an independent state, there is no need to get the authority or the consent of the province concerned. We can understand the hon. the Minister scrapping the clause altogether because in practice he has ignored it. What is the case for saying that if one wants to excise people or a territory from one province in order to transfer them or it to another, one has to get the authority of the province to do so whereas if one wants to excise a piece of territory from a province in order to hand it to an independent State, there is no need to get the consent of the province concerned? All I am asking the hon. the Minister, from the point of view of logic, is why he is retaining the one, as perhaps he should do, while at the same time removing the right of a province to give its authority. Presuming that, in fact, Parliament is bound by the law and that it is not sovereign in this matter, why must one go back to the province if one wants to excise land to transfer to another province, but that when one wants to excise land in order to transfer that territory to an independent State, one need not go back to the province concerned? I should like an answer from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made clear that when I was referring to being presented with a fait accompli I was referring to the homeland States. They were already in existence. This Parliament and its agencies had created those homeland States. We were, therefore, being realistic, not in so far as agreeing that this was a good thing but in accepting the fact that in the event of our opposing it, we could be querying the legality and the validity of the homeland States.

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, I raised these points during the debate on the Second Reading. I clearly indicated that we had hoped that the Government would have brought this question of the petitions of the provinces into being before the creation of the homeland States. I even made the point that they would have had no difficulty whatsoever…

It was there. It has always been there.

I know it has been there but the provinces should have made application by petitioning at the time. However, as far as the provinces themselves were concerned in the initial stages of the creation of the Black States, I do not think that they themselves were completely aware of the implications. I freely admit that we did not realize that the creation of these homeland States was, in effect, an excision from the provinces. We slipped up and, as far as I am concerned, I believe that that was an error on our part. Nonetheless, it was done, the homeland States were created, and in the Second Reading I made the point that if the legality was such that they should have been created as a consequence of petition from the provinces, then this should have been done before the creation of the homeland States. Indeed, it could have been done, because I do not believe that the Natal Provincial Administration would have withheld consent if that was what the people of kwaZulu had wanted. In so far as the other provinces are concerned, I think they would obviously have gone along with the Government because they are of the same political persuasion. If the hon. members of the PFP tell me that if they had been in the position in which we were they would not have conceded that kwaZulu could be self-governing, then I do not think that they are looking after the interests of the Black people too well because that in effect was what they wanted as an interim measure.

What did Frank Martin say about this a few months ago?

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Umbilo spoke a second time I thought that he would explain to us this mysterious circular that he claims he saw while being a member of the Executive Committee in Natal. This was a private little negotiation that went on behind the scenes.

It was not a private little negotiation.

I think this is of a great interest to the public, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Umbilo did not enlarge upon it. He said nothing further about that. It sounds as if he would have preferred not to have said anything about it at all, but it is now on record and we would like to know what it was that went on between the Government and the Natal Executive Committee in connection with this matter some time ago. Is it correct, as the hon. member for Sea Point has alleged, that the hon. members of the NRP arrived in this House for this debate already compromised, already having conceded the point?

Yours is a very frustrated party.

To illustrate where we stand on this particular clause …

On your head, as usual.

… let me state that people who know about these things say that there are two views on the subject of rape. There are those who will fight all the way down the line and preserve their honour and there are those who say that when rape is inevitable, one should submit. We say that when a thing is wrong it is wrong and we will fight it right through to the end.

Are you unable to use a better example? The one you have used is in very bad taste.

The NRP appears to take the point of view that it is realistic to accept that since they cannot win the point, they must simply lie down and accept the inevitable.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he and his party recognize the validity and legitimacy of the self-governing status of kwaZulu?

Long before the hon. member for Durban North.

Do you recognize it?

We have also had good relations with the leader of the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly. [Interjections.] I do not want to prolong this debate and so it remains for me to say that this side of the House will be opposing this clause. The NRP has still not said whether it is going to oppose this clause or support it, except for a long meandering discussion that still leaves us in the dark.

You will always be in the dark, pal!

We regard this as a serious matter. We regard it as a serious threat to the position of Natal and we will therefore certainly be asking for a division on this clause.

You are always in the dark because you always think through black glasses.

Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that it is strange that an announcement by the official Opposition always comes from a man at the back of the queue.

What about the question, Chris?

I am coming to it. I shall reply to the question. [Interjections.] The hon. member need not be afraid that I shall not reply to the question.

One hears many things in this House, but the arguments of the hon. official Opposition are really difficult to understand. Let us take the hon. member for Durban Central as an example.

†What did he say? He said that this clause is removing section 114. That is not, however, factually true. [Interjections.] He makes that as a general statement. I have been informed that he practises law.

Yes, and very well!

I have been led to believe that when lawyers say a thing I can at least accept that their statements are factually true.

You are in for a rude shock, my friend.

How is this clause removing section 114? That is absolute nonsense.

Is it not removing anything?

It is amending the section, but I shall come to that. I think that lawyer knows too much already to start something.

What does that mean?

I shall explain what it means.

Well, you will have to come back on Monday at this rate.

That hon. member should tell his party members that. That hon. member must tell me whether he wants me to reply to what his party members have said.

Yes, but do not talk nonsense about the hon. member for Pinetown’s knowledge of the law.

Use little short words, Chris.

Those hon. members opposite may of course say what they like, but no one may reply to it. The fact of the matter is that on 11 June I issued a statement in which I announced the Government’s intention to amend section 114 and in which I also furnished the reason for this. On 16 June the Executive Committee of Natal reacted to that statement, but they apparently reacted to it on the basis of a misunderstanding. According to them the statement implied that …

You are one big misunderstanding (“misverstand”).

You are a groot “mis”, but I do not know so much about the “verstand”. [Interjections.]

As I said, the Executive Committee of Natal reacted to it by saying that they would oppose the abolition of section 114, although no one had advocated the abolition of section 114. What is the background to this matter? The hon. member for Sea Point asked what logic there was in amending the section. He said he could understand it if we wanted to delete it. The Union Act was after all the result of an agreement within a specific historic perspective. That historic perspective was that the contracting parties, the former four provinces, wanted the assurance that no changes in the borders between the provinces would take place.

It did not say that.

With all due respect, I did say that there was an historic perspective against the background of which the situation must be seen. Now hon. members of the official Opposition want to deny this. Various pieces of legislation have been before this House, inter alia, the legislation in regard to the self-government of kwaZulu. According to my information or knowledge not a single hon. member used the provisions of section 114 as an argument in respect of that legislation or in respect of the legislation on the independence of Bophuthatswana, the Transkei or Venda.

Every single time.

We even took points of order.

Very well, I accept that. [Interjections.] Surely I said that according to my information this was not the case, but if hon. members say they did so, they can show me where later on. [Interjections.] All right, if that is the case, hon. members can show it to me.

Surely it is a fact, in view of that historic perspective, that the parties were never confronted with a constitutional development which implied that parts of the country would receive self-government. In other words and once again in view of the historical perspective, the constitutional development followed another course in respect of Black States. There is not a single hon. member opposite—and I mean of both Opposition parties—that does not accommodate the existence of those States in his political model. I concede they do so in different ways, but they accommodate them nevertheless. In other words, all the hon. members opposite have accepted the inception and existence of those States as an historic fact, and have within the standpoints of their respective parties, made provision for it. Consequently we are dealing with a different series of facts and a different era.

I now come specifically to section 114. No one interprets section 114(a) and (b) to be entrenched provisions. They are not entrenched. Judgments have confirmed that no specific procedure is required for the repeal or amendment of the provisions of this section. In accordance with the decision of Mr. Justice Van den Heever, the section incorporates a specific undertaking, and to honour that specific undertaking the Government followed the procedure prescribed in section 114 in the case of Griqualand East, which was separated from the Cape as the result of the independence of the Transkei. For that reason it is surely clear that no one ever intended, and that it would not be a legal consequence of section 114, that the independence of the other States is a contravention of section 114. All that the amendment is now doing, is to re-affirm what took place in consequence of the historic perspective, i.e. that when we are faced with a change in borders between provinces, we still wish to comply with the undertaking contained in section 114. That is all that is stated there.

The hon. member for Sea Point suggested that there had been secret negotiations between the Government and the provincial administration of Natal. We must bear in mind that there is a second tier of Government in Natal. They were elected at the ballot box. I, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the constitution, and for the provinces, negotiate with the provinces and their Executive Committees all the time, and I make no apology to anyone for this. In this specific case the legislation was not circulated and only the statement of 11 June was issued.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that we shall oppose this clause most strenuously. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments we have used in this regard previously, except to say that we believe that this is a typical instance of an over-reaction to the situation. To make the Offence referred to in this clause a deportable one, is not correct. We feel there is a complete lack of perspective in this regard and we shall vote against this clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, at this Third Reading stage I wish to reply to a number of points that were raised, particularly by the hon. the Minister, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.

I wish to state at the outset that the hon. the Minister’s contribution to the Second Reading debate, particularly his reply to the debate, was without doubt the most unpleasant and provocative contribution to the discussion of this Bill. I say this, Sir, at the risk of stating the obvious. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that we have really taken exception to some of the things he said during the Second Reading debate. Secondly, I also want to say that some of the things the hon. the Minister said certainly did not help to generate respect for the flag and other symbols of State in South Africa. Then, however, Sir, we have come to know the hon. the Minister as a person who does not miss an opportunity to make political capital out of a situation, even a situation as sensitive as this one is. As I say, I should like to refer to a number of things that the hon. the Minister said.

*Inter alia, the hon. the Minister, in line with what he had previously said in this House, again accused the official Opposition of arguing apologetically for people who attack the symbols of the country. He thereupon used the following words—

This is obviously not true, because the hon. members on this side of the House approved the creation of an offence. I am of course referring to the creation of the offence of desecration of the flag. Although we adopted a very strong standpoint on the penalties which were being laid down, we were definitely in favour of making such an act an infringement of the law.

On another occasion the hon. the Minister in reaction to my standpoint that we have division in South Africa and that it is a problem in our country, said—

We know this and we also know the hon. the Minister’s standpoint in this regard, but I want to tell him that the institutions and the methods which are available at this stage for the people who are really voiceless in South Africa and are second-class citizens in this country, are hopelessly inadequate and there is no doubt that this in effect and in reality is a reflection on those people’s capacity to display loyalty and dedication to the symbols of the State.

We need not adopt a standpoint on whether this is good or bad; it is a fact we have to live with. I do not believe it is of any avail for us to deny these facts in the discussion of this matter. It is something we have to live with no matter how unsavoury and how unpleasant a reality it may be.

†The hon. the Minister interjected when I mentioned the position of Black people in this country whose citizenship is taken away from them and stated that this would create awkwardness for them and would make it difficult for them to recognize the State and its authority, and in consequence the symbols of the State. I said that we should recognize this difficulty. When I said this, the hon. the Minister had the gall to say—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House take the strongest possible exception to this allegation that he made by way of interjection, because this is devoid of all truth. I want to challenge the hon. the Minister, if he can prove any connection between the people who committed those acts and this party, to mention it in this House at a future occasion. In fact, we know that at least one of the individuals who provoked these acts is an active worker for the NP who participated in the campaign of the NP in Bryanstown during the last election. That gentleman took the South African flag and provoked people. He said to the people, “Now you destroy it.” This was what that gentleman did and the hon. the Minister conceded that this kind of action would in fact be illegal and punishable in terms of the legislation. I wish to point out that the hon. the Minister should look towards his party’s supporters and people who are associated with himself and that party before he takes that sort of line and before he makes such completely unfounded and completely untrue statements as the one which he made by way of interjection.

*Mr. Speaker, in a different vein, now, I should like to voice my satisfaction for the fact that the hon. the Minister has made the standpoint of the Government on the present flag clear. I mentioned the matter during the Second Reading and said I felt that it irritated many South Africans that proposals for and ideas on a new flag were constantly being put forward. I appreciated the hon. member for Helderkruin supporting my standpoint in this connection, and it is also gratifying that the hon. the Minister supported it. Now, for the first time, this creates a reasonable degree of certainty and clarity on a matter on which there has been no certainty at all for a long time. It is interesting, when one goes through the newspaper cuttings, to see what was being said about the matter in the not very distant past. We know that earlier this year there was talk of people who wanted a change of flag but it was only the chairman of the Broederbond who spoke along those fines. He is a strong man in South Africa, but we hope that his standpoint is not a very representative standpoint. In 1968 however the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, made an announcement at a public meeting, in which he said that the Republic would be getting a new flag. His statement at that public meeting was reported in Die Burger of 12 September, 1968. I quote—

Further on in the report we read that Mr. Vorster said—

The report goes on to say that the crowd gave him a standing ovation. This is a relatively recent incident, and then we read that the Federal Council of the NP, congresses and party meeting said that they wanted a new flag. The former Prime Minister was very critical of people who did not like this. The leader of the then Progressive Party, Dr. Jan Steytler, expressed criticism of the former Prime Minister’s attitude, and then Mr. Vorster said, according to a report of 13 September, 1968—

That was the attitude of the Prime Minister, merely because Dr. Steytler said at the time that he did not believe that a new flag was necessary, and that it would be wrong to have a new flag. And, Mr. Speaker, as is to be expected, Die Burger of course, that likes this kind of thing—it is an emotional matter, and if one can manage to squeeze a little blood from it, then one does so—had the following to say in a leading article on 13 September 1968—

Wrong again!

The article went on to say—

So much for the promises. They went on to say—

I am extremely glad that hon. members on that side of the House have now come to their senses on this matter, and that they have another standpoint on the matter. The hon. member who dealt with this Bill, made it very clear. He said—

Hear, hear!

Yes, I do not like to say “hear, hear” to the hon. the Minister, but I suppose we must. He went on to say—

That is true. I should like to say “hear, hear”, no matter how much it hurts me to do so.

I would prefer you not to.

He went on to say—

I just want to say that we are in complete agreement with this standpoint. We believe, particularly since legislation is now being passed to make it an offence if people desecrate the flag, that an end must finally be put to this sort of agitation and the emotions which are aroused in this way. I am saying this carefully, but I believe that the use of the flag to arouse emotions for political purposes will now be a thing of the past.

As regards the other sections of the legislation, we agreed with most of it. We expressed our standpoints on the fact that the penalties are excessively high and the fact that it should be made an offence, represents an overreaction on the side of the Government that we cannot agree with. As regards clause 7, I still believe that it was right for hon. members of the official Opposition to adopt the standpoint they did in fact adopt, for as long as there is still some form of authority at provincial level, no matter how watered-down it is, in so far as there is still a safety measure to call the Government to account in the implementation of its policy and the way in which it governs from day to day, it must be used, especially when it comes to a matter as serious as the excision of parts of one’s territory to be used for other purposes, in this case for the creation of independent homelands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to place very clearly on record the attitude of the NRP in regard to the three issues on which the Committee divided during the course of the discussion of the various clauses of this Bill.

On clause 1 the attitude of this party was that one could not place a monetary value on respect for national symbols. We moved an amendment to bring about our objective. That was our attitude. As regards the reduction of the proposed penalty, we opposed that because we did not want to indicate that we regarded this as a minor offence in respect of which only a small fine and a short period of imprisonment should be imposed. Therefore, we opposed the reduction which the official Opposition proposed.

Five years is a short period.

The difference is that the official Opposition wanted to reduce the offence in the eyes of the public whereas we regarded it as a serious offence and therefore we supported the proposal.

So do we, but it is not a capital offence.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston need not be ashamed. It was their view that this was not as serious an offence as the Bill provided. It was their right to believe that. All I am doing is saying what the difference was. They believed that it was not such a serious offence whereas we saw it as a serious offence. In fact, we did not want a fine at all.

They in fact want a new flag, a black flag.

A white flag.

A white flag first.

In regard to clause 7, the attitude which this party adopted was that in terms of the self-government legislation the provinces had already lost their power and their control over those portions of South Africa which are autonomous, self-governing areas. To have voted against clause 7 would have been voting to take away the power in Natal of kwaZulu to run kwaZulu’s affairs. To have voted against clause 7 would have been to vote in the Cape at this stage for Ciskei not to be an autonomous, self-governing area. It is not yet independent. In terms of the 1971 legislation when powers were given to those self-governing States, those powers were no longer exercised by the province. The province no longer had power over schools, roads and other things within self-governing States. To say now that that was an illegal act is to say that it should be undone. We were not prepared to do that. We say it was done; it was something which happened in 1971 and which was taken further in the status Acts of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. It is an established fact and to go against it at this stage is to try to reverse history. However, we stand firmly by the fact that no province shall have part of its territory transferred to another except on its own petition. No province shall lose its authority over what it actually controls. It seems illogical to us to oppose the loss of a power which one does not have. If the provinces had power over those areas, if they had power over kwaZulu and it was being taken away, I would say that we would oppose it. However, it is a power that the provinces do not have and we see no point in fighting for something that one does not have.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, we do not believe that South Africa should act as host to immigrants who come here for the purpose of study or any other reason and then deliberately and maliciously destroy or spoil the national flag. We do not believe that they should thereafter continue to be welcome as guests in South Africa. The official Opposition believes that people who maliciously and deliberately dishonour the South African flag should not be liable to deportation. They believe that such people should be permitted to stay here. It is a difference of opinion and they are entitled to their view whilst we are entitled to ours. However, we do not welcome people who come to this country to enjoy its hospitality for the purpose of study or for whatever other reason and then act against the symbols of South Africa. That party believes that these people should be immune from any action in that regard.

No, only from deportation.

From deportation. Sorry, that is correct. They believe that these persons should not be subject to deportation for that offence. We believe that if that is the feeling of such people towards South Africa we do not care to have them here and we do not want them. If that party thinks this should not be a deportable offence, that is their affair but we say that we are quite happy to have them deported because their actions are an indication of their attitude towards our country. That is why we voted differently from the official Opposition on those three issues which were controversial.

Mr. Speaker, because I am bound by an agreement, I want to give my reply to this debate very quickly. It is very strange to me to hear the hon. member for Green Point accusing me of trying to use this debate for political gain. What did that hon. member himself do? In the first place he said there were dividing factors in our society.

That is merely a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that hon. member would keep quiet because he is not making any contribution at all. The hon. member for Green Point said that there were dividing factors in our community—and I quote the words he used—“which impede unity and collective loyalty”. However, he went on to say that the Government was in fact the greatest dividing factor today. I ask in all fairness and reasonableness: Who dragged politics into the debate? Did I do so with my introductory speech during the Second Reading, or was it that hon. member who is now piously protesting that other people dragged politics into the debate? [Interjections.] The hon. member says I accused him of acting apologetically in regard to other people who attacked the symbols of the State. But what did he himself do? I quote what he said—

Absolutely correct.

I am not arguing about the correctness of the statement. I am arguing about the hon. member’s allegation that I was the one who dragged politics into the debate.

But you did.

I want to allege that the people who dragged politics into this debate, were the same hon. members who are now making this allegation against me. Instead of the hon. member for Green Point, like the hon. members of the other parties in this House, expressing a general and unqualified condemnation of everyone who desecrated the flag or other symbols of the State, he did so reluctantly, as he did again today. [Interjections.]

I want to put one question to the hon. member. When the Flag Act first came into operation …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. ex-Broeder should keep quiet now. What rights did large sections of the population have in those days? Now the hon. member for Green Point has accused the Government of there being reasons why certain people are disloyal, or need not be entirely loyal to the flag. He said this was as a result of the Government’s actions.

The hon. member also said that he agreed with the standpoint that the flag should be protected. However, consider the arguments advanced by that hon. member and other hon. members of his party on the extent of the punishment. When one listens to their arguments, it becomes clear that they do not view an attack on the flag or on the symbols of the State in the same serious light as other hon. members on this side of the House.

But that is relative.

To the hon. member for Green Point everything is relative.

How many people are there on your side of the House who want to hang those offenders? [Interjections.]

That hon. member cannot escape the fact that he, in his own reasoning and in his view of what the punishment should be, does not have the same serious view of the symbolism which the flag represents. [Interjections.] When I then react to his standpoints, why does he accuse me in such a petty manner? Hon. members can read my Second Reading speech again. I challenge any hon. member to point out the slightest hint of party-politics in my Second Reading speech. [Interjections.]

It was pure politics.

No.

What about your reply to the Second Reading debate?

In my reply I had to react to the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point. I had every right to do so. Does the hon. member think that I am running away from him? [Interjections.]

But the hon. member went even further. He said that the institutions we have created for reforming our society are inadequate. However, he has not created anything. So far he has created nothing. His party has not created anything either. Do hon. members realize that the method of so-called reform which his party is presenting to everyone, has been rejected by the same leader of kwaZulu to whom the hon. member referred earlier. [Interjections.] Not only is that method rejected by the White voters, but by the Black leaders in the country as well. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not object and be sensitive when people interpret his words to mean precisely what they imply and also interpret precisely what his party’s attitude to these matters is.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban Point and I just want to tell him that there is one thing on which there should be no doubt, viz. that people who enjoy the hospitality of the country have absolutely no right to attack the symbols of the country. It surprises me that the hon. member for Green Point announced in this House that we should keep people who want to attack the symbols of the State in this country. Is that not in agreement with the general attitude prevalent here?

Yes.

Before I resume my seat I want to tell that hon. member that if the policy of the PFP were ever to apply in this country we would not have a flag to protect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, we supported the principle of this clause at the Second Reading and we are obviously going to support the clause basically. However, there is one aspect about which we are not at all happy and that is that the clause will permit the changing of the status of a school by virtue of its admitting a Black, a Coloured or an Indian. We believe that this is quite unreasonable. In fact, we would rather have a situation where the private schools themselves could choose what student enrolment they would want to have. However, this point was discussed at the Second Reading and the hon. the Minister made it quite clear that, at this stage at any rate, they were not prepared to accept the situation. So, rather than oppose a clause that we accept in broad principle, a clause that permits the provinces to make contributions to private schools in respect of Black, Coloured and Indian pupils, I wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment has a pluralizing effect on the basis that we believe, as I say, that if a private school takes in an excessive number of one or the other group of pupils the hon. the Minister of National Education will have the necessary authority. As I say, we are merely pluralizing it. However, whilst I am on my feet, I should like to take this opportunity of indicating the fanaticism of the PFP which I referred to a little while ago. While they accept the principle, they have opposed this legislation because they could not have it all their own way. We as a party believe that we would like to have our own way; indeed, we will fight as hard as possible to get our own way; but rather than lose everything or remove from the provinces the right to make contributions to private schools, we are prepared to go half way and hope that in a little while we will be able to go the other half. That is the difference between logic and fanaticism.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to indicate that I accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill I referred to the words contained in this particular clause in regard to a single Black, Indian or Coloured. The hon. member for Umbilo raised the same point and the hon. the Minister by way of interjection indicated that he would consider such an amendment. We will support this amendment.

Oh, “toenadering”.

No, not with the NRP. However, let me make it very clear that we support the amendment for very different reasons. We support it with qualifications but we will also be voting against this clause.

That is logic—they support the amendment and vote against the clause.

That is right, because there are several other clauses, you muggins!

If one changes this to the plural, it does not really make a great deal of difference. However, it is an improvement and that is why we will support it. If one says “Blacks” it could be two. If one says “Indians” it could be four, and “Coloureds” could denote three.

The hon. member for Green Point says all things are relative.

Yes, it is very relative. It is not that one can go mad about this amendment as though it is going to bring about a substantial change in the whole tenor of this clause. Not at all, and the hon. the Minister knows that as well as I do, although I am afraid the hon. member for Umbilo does not know it.

I have a number of amendments that I have given to the hon. the Minister, Sir, and also to the NRP, and I accordingly move the first of those—

The hon. member must motivate it.

Yes, I will. When I have motivated it, I am quite sure that, whilst I may have some difficulty in convincing the hon. the Minister, I will have no difficulty in convincing the NRP to support it, and mainly because it covers the whole spectrum of local option.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

The words “and regulating”?

Yes, that is the essence of the principle.

I withdraw that amendment, Sir.

The reason why we have problems with the wording here is that it may well be possible for a province to issue regulations which could be in direct contradiction with what the private school concerned would like to do.

Only a Prog provincial council could do that.

I am talking about all provincial councils, not only of one. This law covers the whole of South Africa not only Natal. For example, in the first instance we think that in principle to regulate is right. We appreciate that the private schools are now being authorized—we accept that—to allow the admission of Black pupils to their schools. This is what they want and now they are being given the authority. However, one could quite easily issue a regulation that could stipulate the number of Black pupils to be admitted or it could be confined to day scholars, or it could determine that these pupils can attend the school but that they may not participate in the games. All kinds of things could therefore be done. I raise this matter because I have good reason to believe that this may well happen in certain provinces.

That is right.

And because I am aware of that it is my right and duty to warn this House that it is not, in the first place, necessary at all. If a private school wishes to accept Black pupils, why on earth should there have to be regulations governing that? You have, however, ruled that that amendment is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, and I have accordingly withdrawn it.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore wish to move as an amendment—

This brings me now to the heart of our opposition to this particular clause. During the Second Reading debate of this Bill I specifically raised the problem that could face a number of private schools if this measure became law. In the event of a private school—which at the moment is designated a White private school, falls under the Department of National Education and operates in a so-called White area—were to be designated a Black school, a Coloured school or an Indian school, that school would then be in contravention of certain other Acts on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Umbilo states that the relevant schools could apply for a permit. We are, of course, against the whole approach of applying for permits. That is the first point. Those hon. members may well be in favour of it, but we are against it. Secondly it does not follow that the Government would automatically grant a permit, not at all! The very fact that the Government changes the name, the designation and the character of a school suggests that the Government does not like what is happening in that school. That would be why the Government was taking action. Why should the Government consequently condone it? I put it to the hon. the Minister that he did not reply to this during his reply to the Second Reading debate. I therefore again raise this question of the problem that could face private schools if this measure were to become law. If only one private school were to be affected, I would regard this as bad. I believe that it is highly possible—indeed probable—that there are a number of private schools that could be directly affected if and when this became law, because the percentage of Black children attending those schools is very high. They do not all conform to the pattern of the schools the hon. member for Umbilo is familiar with. I am familiar with those schools. I served on some of the councils and know those schools well. Even today I still serve on some private school councils. I know their problems. I know, for example, about the problems being experienced by the Catholic Church, in particular, and I also know about the whole problem of “verdringing” that the NP is facing. I know that there may well be complaints from people coming into an area.

I therefore also want to move the following amendments—

1. (3) On page 2, in lines 29 to 33, and on page 4, in lines 1 to 34, to omit subsections (3) and (4);
2. (4) on page 4, in lines 35 to 39, to omit subsection (5).

Having moved my amendments, I just want to say that I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about them, and I should obviously like to react to his arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo is acceptable. Apparently it is also acceptable to the hon. member for Pinelands.

If we look at the wording, we see that the purpose of clause 2 is specifically to give provinces a power they do not at present have. I quote—

†In other words, the issue involved is to legislate for the authorization and regulation of the admission of children to schools.

*At the moment private schools are admitting children, but there is a statutory prohibition on the provinces as regards any financial aid in respect of those schools. The hon. member’s proposal that subsections (3) and (4) be deleted simply implies that he does not want the Minister of National Education to be able to declare a specific school to be a school for Coloured or Black pupils. That is his argument.

Yes, quite right.

His argument is connected with his philosophy in respect of the education of children. I think he would be the first to acknowledge this. I want to state my argument briefly: The philosophy of the hon. member and his party in respect of education and training is not in harmony with the philosophy of those of us on this side of the House. We must therefore agree to differ on this. I have made the Government’s standpoint and policy in that connection very clear. It is a fundamental and inalienable principle in which we believe, i.e. that each population group in the Republic is entitled to its own schools and its own community life. We are structuring education accordingly. The hon. member has every right to differ on this.

I cannot take my argument in this connection any further, except to say that this standpoint was affirmed by the hon. the Minister of National Education during the discussion of his Vote, and it will be reaffirmed. In our opinion it is an educational philosophy which must be and indeed is for the good of education. Therefore I cannot acquiesce to the amendment; it represents a standpoint in which I do not believe.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond briefly to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister still has not responded to the argument I advanced concerning the Group Areas Act which will come into effect …

It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact.

Yes, it is a statement of fact. Therefore the hon. the Minister agrees with the logic of my argument. Thank you, that is fine, and I hope the hon. members of the NRP are listening to that. I also asked the hon. the Minister a question during the Second Reading debate about consultation between the private schools. The hon. the Minister made it clear by way of a response across the floor of the House that there was consultation in terms of the authorization. I have no quarrel with that, and I am glad that there was consultation. I then asked: “Was there any consultation about subclauses (3) and (4)?”

And I said “No”.

That is right. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members that it only makes good sense for consultation to take place on this very sensitive issue. It is my submission to the hon. the Minister that private schools would actually take the strongest exception to this, and certainly those schools where I have taught and those which have contacted me. They do not want to do so. Let us understand one another. In the first place, they do not want to be declared Black schools, Coloured schools or Indian schools, because of the implications that will have for them. There is no question here of numbers. It does not say anything about 50% or 51%. It is now in the plural, true; but it could mean two, four, 10, 20 or 30. I think it will largely depend on the kind of response from the community in which the particular school finds itself. It may well be fine for a school which is out in the sticks somewhere and which has lots of ground, but there are a lot of private schools in densely populated areas, for instance in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. Such schools would be threatened by this legislation and they have said that if this becomes law they may well have to close. That is how serious it is and that is why I am moving these amendments.

The hon. the Minister is being very frank and honest here and I appreciate his attitude. He made it very clear that that side of the House has a particular view about education. That is what it is all about. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question, one I have already asked the hon. the Minister of National Education. In the last year we have had a most important commission appointed, the so-called De Lange Commission. I gather that that commission will at the end of this week make available volumes on educational matters and approaches, including recommendations. It seems to me passing strange, to use the phrase, that we continue to make laws in the House which may directly contradict some of the recommendations flowing from that commission. [Interjections.] It seems very strange to me, because it was the hon. the Prime Minister who appointed the commission. We are told that he appointed the best possible people in education in South Africa. [Interjections.] Yet, firstly the hon. members opposite are not prepared to wait and, secondly, they say that they may of course not accept the recommendations, but reject them. Does the hon. member for Virginia, who has been interjecting, want to tell me that they have already rejected the key recommendations?

We never said that.

They have already decided.

It sounds to me as if they have already decided, and that is very bad. I want to prophesy that, if that is true, it will be one of the saddest and worst things the Government will ever have done.

I want to make our position very clear. We believe that private schools have the right to make decisions about who should go to the schools and be taught there and who should do the teaching. We do not share the view of the hon. member for Umbilo who says that, if above a certain number of Black pupils are accepted into a private school, it will destroy that school. Those are the very words he used in his Second Reading speech. I looked up his Hansard to check it, because I could hardly believe my ears. He has the idea that one can have a few such people in a private school, but who is he to make that decision? It is the private schools who should make that decision. We do not believe that the Government should make those decisions for the schools and then penalize them in the event of the schools going against it.

The fact of the matter is that there are at present certain private schools in South Africa which will be directly penalized as a result of this legislation. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to think again before he goes ahead. South Africa is a country which is shared—it must be shared and it will be shared—by Black, White, Coloured and Indian. We believe that where private schools have had the courage and good sense to show the direction in which we need to go in South Africa, they should not be victimized. They should be assisted and encouraged and not held back in this way. I consequently stand by my amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands has put his party’s case. What he has told us in essence is, of course, that they stand for multiracial schools. I think it is also clearly on record that we in this party believe that, at the primary and secondary educational levels, the schools should be community-orientated. That certainly applies to public schools which are totally or predominantly financed by the State. When it comes to private schools, we of course believe that it should be the prerogative of the councils or the administrators of the private schools to decide for themselves who they should like to admit as pupils. Whether they are of Indian origin, Black origin, Coloured or White makes no difference at all. The difficulty one has when one moves away from or tends to go further than the amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, that has been accepted is that if we are going to try to put numbers to this thing we are going to find ourselves in difficulty. In this regard I want to pose this question: When does the character of a school change? One cannot determine this because it is impossible to determine the numbers that will bring this about.

Let the school decide.

When does the character of a school change? We also have to accept the fact that this party is in favour of private schools to serve the Black community or the Indian community or the Coloured community. That is their right. If they wish to run a private school themselves, it is their right to do so. However, we also believe that, if they so wish, they may admit pupils of other races to those schools as well. There is no problem about that at all. However, the school must have a particular character and that character is related to the culture of which that school is an inherent part.

But that is also their decision.

In fact, Sir, what the hon. member is saying here—and this, as I said earlier on, is part of their philosophy—is that they do not recognize cultural and group identities. [Interjections.] It is as simple as that. The only objective for which the hon. member is striving on behalf of his party is to allow a situation to develop where we have multiracial education throughout all communities. That is the basis and the thrust of their argument.

In this Bill we are talking about private schools.

There are certain aspects in relation to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands which rather surprise me because I think the hon. member will recognize the value of supporting a Bill like this despite the fact that the hon. member feels particularly strongly about this specific aspect which he seeks to amend. However, I think the benefits of this Bill outweigh its disadvantages.

One school has already closed down.

Well, Sir, let us put the matter right on the line. I want to put this question pertinently to the hon. member: What is the probability of that sort of thing happening?

Very real.

I think the hon. member is kicking up a tremendous amount of dust about the possibility or the probability that this could happen to one or two schools.

The private schools have contracted me to express their concern.

These schools are already serving predominantly a different community to the White community.

No.

The hon. member for Pinelands accepts the fact that it is the right of private schools to serve whatever community they wish to serve, and if the character of a private school is predominantly of that community, then why should it not remain part of that community? Why should we now try to approach it from the other direction and say that there cannot be a group or community identity in private schools? That is what the hon. member is saying.

That is not what we are saying.

That is the effect of what the hon. member for Pinelands is saying.

No, it is not. You want to force a school to accept a certain identity.

Well, as I said to the hon. member for Pinelands, what is the probability that that will happen? Our experience in Natal was clearly illustrated by the hon. member for Umbilo. It is that even the private schools do not wish to change the predominant character of their schools in relation to the culture of the particular group that they are serving.

That is their right. Why do you want to force them to do otherwise?

I think the hon. member is making a mountain out of a molehill here. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are standing on their dignity and principles merely in order to be able to stand on their dignity and principles. We do not believe the probability is very great that more than one or two schools which are already community oriented are going to be affected by these provisions. Unfortunately, therefore, we cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. It is the standpoint of the Government that communities must have their own educational and school institutions. That is our point of departure.

It doesn’t matter what they want.

The hon. member for Pinelands may differ with us, but that is our point of departure. However, we concede that there may be specific circumstances in which there is a need for private schools to admit children of a group other than the group for which the school was originally established. There may be human considerations and there may also be other considerations. There may also be religious considerations. The fundamental point of departure, however, is that the school has a specific character in respect of the community it has to serve. That is why my hon. colleague made it very clear that in this connection the provinces should be empowered to use their funds, in exceptional circumstances, for education in private schools in respect of children of population groups other than the group for which the province is responsible. For this reason the hon. member will understand that it is not possible to say at this stage what number of children change the character of a school, for that is determined by specific circumstances in specific environments.

Let the school have the say.

No, this is the policy of the Government and surely the Government’s policy must apply in this country.

But surely you believe in building a nation and in the sovereignty of nations.

If the hon. members opposite want an amorphous community, they have every right to want it, but the Government’s standpoint stands opposed to the standpoint of the hon. member for Pinelands and even if we argue until we are blue in the face we shall never agree with each other.

Of course the consequence is that if the Minister of National Education declares a specific group to be a school for another group, the school may exercise certain options. The school may decide to close down; the school may refuse to admit children from another group to the school and the school may apply for the children from a specific group to remain there. However, that does not detract from the fundamental difference of opinion which we have with the hon. members opposite and that is that we say there is a cultural context in education, which must also become an integral part of the education of children. That is why the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and the hon. members of the NRP have tried to suggest that this Bill constitutes a new dawn, a wonderful ”new beginning, a new era that is being ushered in. The hon. member for Durban North said that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. One should look at what has been happening in the Cape and I think to some extent also in Natal over the past four years. We have the position here in the Cape that nearly 1 000 pupils in formerly White private schools are not from the White racial group. We also find that the Cape has in recent years subsidized these schools to the extent of more than R2 million. I congratulate the provincial authorities on their sensible and tolerant approach to this matter. Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that what they have been doing up until now is unauthorized or illegal and that the approval they have been given for the admission of such pupils is an illegal act on the part of the Administrator of the Cape Province? Is that what he is suggesting? This is therefore not something great and new.

There appears to be a measure of confusion in so far as subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed section 15A contain provisions for the financing of pupils who are not White. In this regard I should like to draw attention to subsection (2) which provides that when a school has admitted a pupil or pupils of a certain race other than White, nevertheless the education in that school—

Once one has those provisions one does not need the regulating provision contained in subsection (1) for financing to take place.

A point which came through from both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North concerns the character of schools. They said that a school has the character of a community.

Correct.

I was not surprised to hear the hon. the Minister expanding on that, but I was amazed when the hon. member for Durban North talked about the racial character and identity of schools.

“Cultural” and not “racial”.

I do not deny that a cultural or racial character can exist, but what the hon. member seemed to ignore, because he did not comment on it at all, is that the educational character of a school does not have to be racial. The racial character of a school is not the only criterion, but that is all he talked about.

“Cultural” and not “racial”, I repeat. The hon. member has “racial” on his brain.

Well, cultural or racial. The hon. member says I have “racial” on the brain, but the fact of the matter is that the only example of “cultural” identity or character of a school that he talked about was the “racial/cultural” identity. I suggest that there are other things such as the religious character or identity of a school or its language identity or character. Those aspects play an important role in the character and identity of a school. Those things in terms of education are far more important than racial characteristics. Even outside that context you find schools that for example want to use particular methods of teaching, such as Waldorf schools, Rudolph Steiner schools, and so on. That has nothing to do with race, religion or language, for that matter. Those schools can have identities that they want to maintain. Therefore, to suggest that the overriding character of, for example, a Catholic school, is the composition of the races at that school, as opposed to the religion of the children at the school, the teachers or the governing body, is to me absolute nonsense.

I maintain that clause 2, particularly subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new section 15A is, as I said during the Second Reading, an intimidation of private schools to try to get them to toe the line and not cause problems. The intimidation applies not only, as the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed out, to the problems that will arise in terms of the Group Areas Act, if a school were deemed to be a Black school or a Coloured school, but also in other areas. When I made this point at Second Reading, the hon. the Minister reacted by saying: Why should private schools be concerned about being declared Black schools and falling under the Department of Education and Training, or of being declared Coloured schools and falling under his department. He then tried to suggest that the education, other than physical facilities, in respect of which he conceded a backlog, between the various groups in South Africa, was to all intents and purposes the same. I do not accept that. I do not believe that that is true. First of all, the Minister himself let his own argument down when he made a Freudian slip by trying to be rude to the hon. member for Greytown and saying: “They would not even take you at a Black school.” Now, why did he say that, Sir, if a Black school is just as good as a White school?

Because those people have greater powers of discrimination.

If a Black school is just as good as a White school, why should it upset somebody to say that they will not even be accepted at a Black school? Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that education is not equal in this country, even over and above the question of physical facilities. [Interjections.] That Freudian slip on the part of the Minister has a direct implication of admission of the inferiority of those schools. That is one of the reasons why private schools fear this legislation. If the hon. the Minister thinks that, apart from physical facilities, there is no difference and that the standards are the same, then maybe he should tell us why we are wasting money by spending eight to ten times as much on the education of White pupils if you can get the same quality of education that Black and Coloured children are getting for an eighth or a tenth of the price. This would save us an enormous amount of money.

We are talking about private schools.

We are talking about the fear of falling under the Department of Education and Training. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the hon. member for Durban North, who is in a dwindling party, is concerned, but I can also see why it is dwindling.

Mr. Chairman, the other point I mentioned was that this intimidation amounted to cultural imperialism on the part of the National Party. The hon. the Minister delved into history and referred to the discrimination against Afrikaners in the earlier part of this century. I know that that took place, and I think it is indefensible. I was not even alive in that era and I certainly do not share personal blame for it, but I also do not believe that because that took place—which was indefensible—this now justifies the National Party in imprinting its own brand of cultural imperialism in this era, because of sins committed in the past. In other words, what the hon. the Minister is saying, in terms of the argument of cultural imperialism, is that he and his political party are entitled to attempt to take revenge because other people have misbehaved in the past.

I think it is most disappointing that the amendments of the hon. member for Pinelands have not been considered more seriously, or accepted. I support those amendments.

Amendment (2) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, my comments during this Third Reading stage are going to be very brief. This is a very short Bill. We have only just completed the Committee Stage. We have agreed to take the Third Reading stage immediately. Although we feel strongly about this matter we are trying to assist the House.

The effect of this Bill becoming law will be that authorization will be given for private schools to admit certain Black or Coloured or Indian children as pupils. That is something we do welcome. I agree that this is a move in the right direction. Secondly, it will mean that the provinces can issue ordinances which will regulate the admission of children. We have already expressed our reservations about this. We are not sure what those regulations will be, and they may well vary from province to province. Some of them may be a limiting factor rather than an encouraging one. When we look at clause 2(3) and (4) we have to state that this is where we have our gravest reservations. I have suggested during the Committee Stage, as well during Second Reading—and I say that again now—that this is why we will not be supporting this Bill at Third Reading. If this Bill becomes law it will be a threat to the very existence of some private schools in their present form.

The hon. the Minister has been very frank with this side of the House. He has agreed with the logic of my argument in terms of the action which will follow in a society which is determined by the present Government and by the laws which are on the Statute Book. We have agreed to differ on this score. We disagree most strongly because we believe that private schools should have the right to make their own decisions about who should be in their schools and who should not be there. I think we must make it very clear that if the hon. the Minister of National Education should decide to change a White private school into a Black private school, it will have implications which will be very far-reaching. The hon. the Minister and I agreed in that respect. Let me state once more that if a private school serves a wider community—for instance, in a suburb of Cape Town or Port Elizabeth or Johannesburg—a wider community than the immediate community because, as the hon. the Minister quite rightly said, it has for instance a religious character—if it happens to be a church school—it draws its pupils not only from the immediately surroundings, as does a normal Government school, but from far and near. Pupils may even come from various provinces. They may come from different areas or townships even. When they come into an area which we now describe as being part of a White area and the hon. the Minister of National Education should, for any reason whatever, decide that a stage has been reached for such a school to be declared a Black school or a Coloured school or an Indian school, it is as sure as night follows the day that such a private school can then do a number of things. The hon. the Minister, if he wants to be logical, cannot argue against this. That private school can do a number of things. It can, for instance, decide that it will no longer allow those Black pupils to attend. Most church schools will not take such a decision. Another decision such a school can take is to close down voluntarily and to move somewhere else. This, of course, is not always very practical, bearing in mind the cost factor and other present day circumstances. A third option will be for that school to adopt an unyielding attitude, to say that pupils who have applied and who have been accepted, who are all part of that school’s particular denomination and of the particular character of the school, will not be prejudiced because of their particular race or colour. This attitude of ours, of course, is very different from that of the hon. member for Durban North. If such a school should stand by that principle but is nevertheless declared a Black school in terms of the Group Areas Act, the school can simply make an application for a permit, which can be accepted or rejected.

In the event of such permit being rejected, we then, by passing this legislation, are sealing the fate of some private schools. I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with that. I believe hon. members of the NRP do not agree with that.

I go further and here I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether it is true. If for example a private school is declared a Black school, it no longer falls under the provincial council. Therefore the assistance given by the province falls away. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has described this as being intimidation—I call it a threat—of certain private schools. This is now a further financial intimidation because no school can then continue because one is cutting off their water, as it were.

And their lights.

That is right, and the lights. Nevertheless the NRP are saying that we must go ahead because they are going to support it.

Would you rather have it that they did not get the money?

I can argue with somebody who is clear and makes a stand. I can argue against him and say that I am sorry but that I do not agree with you. But what I find so difficult is to argue against a marshmallow because one never knows where it really stands.

We shall oppose the Third Reading because we have a different approach to education in South Africa and we believe that the private schools should have the right to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Pinelands knows what our policy is and therefore we too will have to agree to disagree as regards the thrust of his argument.

I should just like to point out for the record that we believe that there are two very important provisions in this Bill. Firstly, the devolution of power is now from the central Government to the provinces. This is something that the hon. member for Pinelands, the previous hon. member for Albany, Mr. Olckers, and myself were very involved in. The hon. member knows that was part of an informal contact group with the Private Schools Association and that this was one of the main things that was being fought for ever since I have been here in 1978. Secondly, it is now a question of allowing the provinces to pay a subsidy to pupils in private schools irrespective of their race, whether they be Black, Coloured or White. If they are in a school which is predominantly a White private school they then fall under the province, and at the moment they are prohibited from paying a subsidy on all pupils. They may only pay a subsidy on White pupils. Now, because of the proposals contained in this amending Bill, they will be able to pay a subsidy on all pupils, irrespective of race, creed or colour. That is also something which the hon. member for Pinelands, the previous hon. member for Albany and myself have been working on for years. We believe that this is also a major breakthrough in saving and financing private schools. I should like to tell hon. members on that side of the House that in 1978 I undertook a survey amongst all the private schools in South Africa and I found that in the Cape Province alone four out of ten of those private schools that were surveyed would not have existed today if it were not for the subsidy from the province. Furthermore, they are going to be better off now because the subsidy can be paid in respect of all pupils in private schools.

Not if it is taken away in time.

I shall come to that in a moment. There is a third point with which the hon. member disagrees and I say it is a possibility and not a probability. The over-reaction on the part of the PFP will probably negate to a very large extent the benefits of the first two points that I have made. I hope that the PFP will see their way clear to supporting the Third Reading without any difficulty.

I have already said that we are not.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands and his party that what he is saying in effect is that they want to drive a wedge into the communities in furtherance of their policy and not on account of what is in the interests of the private schools. They are trying to get the thin edge of the wedge into a community where they can see their policy instead of that of the community being implemented. As I have said in the Committee Stage, the official Opposition is making a mountain out of a molehill. If the hon. member can say to me that it is going to affect a large number of schools and that the Minister by decree or after consultation is going to declare that they are now schools that fall under another department, and if he can substantiate that, then we may, of course, take a different view.

But that is what the Bill says.

However, I think it is only a possibility and not a probability. One has to be realistic about it as well.

What is even worse about the attitude of the PFP is that they are now saying that they will not support private Black or private Indian schools.

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

They are denying a community the right to have a private school.

No, we are not saying that.

That is exactly what they are saying, because what is applied to one side must be applied to the other as well. I should like to show the hon. member where his party and my party differ. If for instance a private school is built in Durban North and one White pupil is admitted while 99% of the pupils are Indians, it is an invasion of the prerogative of that local community in Durban North to decide for them what the character of that school should be.

Is that a probability?

That is a possibility. It is a purely hypothetical example. However, in principle that is what the hon. member has been asking for.

Rather talk to me; it is no use talking to them.

Nevertheless, I hope they are listening.

They cannot understand, because they are completely obtuse.

Because that is in essence what the stand of the PFP is all about, namely that one must deny every community the prerogative to decide for itself what the character of the school in its neighbourhood will be. There is also a community responsibility, not only an individual institutional prerogative. However, it is obvious that we will not get far in trying to convince that hon. member. I am afraid that it is one of these things on which there is a policy difference and we will just have to agree to differ on it.

I should like to re-emphasize that we welcome the provisions of the Bill. It is going to be of tremendous importance to a large number of private schools, and history will tell us in the future whether it is a possibility or a probability that the majority of schools will be affected by clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the negotiations with the authoritative bodies of private schools were conducted in a very reasonable spirit.

†I want to refer the hon. member for Pinelands to clause 2(4), which clearly indicates that the declaration of a school as a school for another group is not going to be done by dictatorial action. In fact, clause 4 makes provision for a process of negotiation and consultation, firstly by the Minister of Education and Training with the school authorities individually, with the Administrator of the relevant province and with his colleague in the Cabinet, depending on which group the school is intended for. In other words, the spirit that evolves from clause 2(4) is one of consultation and reasonableness. Although we have completely different points of departure in terms of our educational philosophy, I want to point out to the hon. member that this Bill must stand people in good stead. On that basis and in view of the spirit that I maintain is exuded in subsection (4), I would ask the hon. member not to vote against the Third Reading.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

We stated clearly during the Second Reading why the hon. members on this side of the House are not amenable to the President’s Council being elevated to the status of the sovereign Parliament or even to the status of the provincial council in terms of its position in the administration of the country. We also said we believe that this was being done by means of the granting of the powers and privileges for which provision is being made in this legislation.

With regard to clause 2 that is now before the Committee, this clause does in fact contain the most unacceptable aspect of this new status that is to be granted to the President’s Council, viz. that there should be freedom of speech and debate in or before the President’s Council or a committee thereof. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister did not react at all to this argument of ours—and this also applies to other hon. members who participated in this discussion. The hon. the Minister merely said that these are measures that are necessary to assist the President’s Council in its work. Without casting any reflection upon the abilities and status of the President’s Council and on its chances of achieving success in any sphere, we adhere to our standpoint that the President’s Council is a form of commission that has been appointed to investigate specific matters and for that reason should enjoy the status that is granted to such a commission and not the status that has been enjoyed thus far by this House and the provincial councils only. Only this House and the provincial councils enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech and exemption from the consequences of statements that may possibly be slanderous. Therefore we shall oppose clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, I take note of the hon. member for Green Point’s standpoint in this regard. In reply to this I just want to say that in terms of its functions and powers as defined in section 106, the President’s Council actually has an urgent task to accomplish by means of investigations, consultations and even joint negotiations in order ultimately to come up with advice. The hon. member will understand that this is essential and that, if the President’s Council is to exercize its powers effectively, it must be protected and should have the protection of freedom of speech.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that this party stated its views clearly in the Second Reading debate. We shall support the measure and we shall not speak to every clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react to what the hon. the Minister has said. I did already make the point during the Second Reading debate that this is a privilege that must be used extremely sparingly. If we do not use it sparingly, I feel that we would be moving on to dangerous ground. All commissions that enjoy a great deal of status, can lay claim to this type of privilege. I think it is definitely not creating a favourable situation in South Africa.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether he can tell the House whether any specific situation has arisen thus far which makes it absolutely unavoidable for the privilege of the freedom of speech to be granted to the President’s Council. This would help us in our discussion of this matter. I am afraid that the general statement that this protection may be necessary, does not satisfy us at all. We should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has any tangible examples as to why these privileges are deemed necessary and which have given rise to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has indicated our overall objections to the clause, but I want to focus the attention on one or two matters of detail. This clause will lead to another body enjoying freedom of speech in the same sense in which Parliament enjoys it, but the rules relating to its freedom of speech will not be identical to the rules applying to Parliament. There is therefore a similarity in that both will enjoy freedom of speech, but in fact the rules relating to that will be different.

They differ in two very important areas. The rule applying to Parliament is quite explicit, it is unambiguous. Section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act provides—

That is quite definite. Freedom of speech is laid down in that Act. However, clause 2 of this Bill provides—

We do not know what the rules and orders of the President’s Council are. There is no prescription of what its rules and orders should be. This Bill is giving to the President’s Council the right to describe and define for itself the extent of its freedom of speech. Therefore, whereas ours is definite, crisp and absolute, we in Parliament as the sovereign body in South Africa are giving the President’s Council freedom of speech subject to rules of which we are not aware. What is more, those rules will not be varied with the approval of the House, but can be varied by the President’s Council itself.

If we accept your amendment, will you serve on the President’s Council?

I am trying to deal with the situation before us. We are giving the President’s Council freedom of speech on terms of which we are not aware because they can set their own rules. I believe it is wrong procedure for the sovereign Parliament to give any creature of Parliament freedom of speech subject to rules over which we have no control and of which we are unaware. I am not arguing the merits of the case, but I am saying that I believe that that is wrong procedure. There is the fundamental difference in that, while the freedom of speech of Parliament is defined, the freedom of speech in the case of the President’s Council is left to the discretion of the President’s Council itself in drawing up its own rules of procedure. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister why that provision is there.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the suspension of business I was drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that we are giving freedom of speech to the President’s Council subject to the rules and orders of the President’s Council of which we are not aware and which can be changed. Therefore we are conferring what is a very important right in terms of which we have no detail or knowledge. Is this the correct procedure for this House with its authority?

No.

The second difference between the freedom of speech which we as a sovereign Parliament enjoy and which the hon. the Minister wants to give to the nominated President’s Council is that freedom of speech applies only to members of this House whereas freedom of speech in respect of the President’s Council will apply to the nominated members of the President’s Council plus any such person giving evidence and who is a member of a consultative committee of the President’s Council. We have no knowledge of whom these people may be. These people are not even nominees of the State President. The President’s councillors are defined in that they are nominees of the State President, but members of a consultative committee are people invited by the President’s Council to become members of such a consultative committee. Therefore they are not there under the authority of the Executive, but they fall under the authority of the President’s Council.

While freedom of speech in Parliament is correctly limited to members of the House elected directly or indirectly or nominated, when this clause is implemented it will mean that the members of the President’s Council and any person whom the President’s Council invites to become a member of a consultative committee will enjoy freedom of speech. Once again, is it correct that we should give authority to exercise freedom of speech not to people whom we know or who are designated by the Executive to be members, but who are invited by the President’s Council to be members?

Freedom of speech or privileged speech? I should say not freedom of speech but privileged speech.

The clause provides—

The clause does not provide that there shall be privileged speech. I am raising this because it cannot be tested in a court of law and that is the critical factor.

The third aspect is that freedom of speech shall not be granted to people who are required to give evidence before the President’s Council. Is it correct that freedom of speech is not applied to people who may be subpoenaed by a Select Committee of this House—but that is not the normal procedure. This House operates on the basis of free debates amongst elected members of this forum. There are occasions when we do go into a Select Committee and that Select Committee has the right to subpoena.

The evidence is already that the President’s Council by its very nature operates on a different basis. Most of the reporting of the President’s Council has not been what the members have said; most of what has appeared in the media has been the evidence that has been given to the President’s Council. In other words, the question of the evidence given to the President’s Council becomes a very material factor in the functioning of that council. Therefore members of the President’s Council will have immunity in the sense that what they say cannot be part of a court action. Members of a consultative committee who have been invited by the President’s Council to become members of a consultative committee will also have freedom of speech. But people can be subpoenaed by the President’s Council, they can be forced to give evidence and they can be required to give certain evidence and certain documents, but the evidence and the documents which they have to produce under a subpoena and under oath can in fact be used to their disadvantage as they will not enjoy freedom of speech.

I raise these points because there are three different categories. There are the members of the President’s Council, there are the members of a consultative committee and there are the persons who are giving evidence. I raise this because we are embarking on a new constitutional venture and I happen to believe that we in South Africa should be very jealous of the very peculiar rights which we in this Parliament, in a sovereign legislature have and we should be very careful how we extend those rights to other people. We should be very careful that in extending those rights to other people, we do not give privileges to people over whom we have no control and we do not deny privileges to people who are forced to give evidence under oath and in the process of giving evidence under oath may in fact render themselves liable to some prosecution or some action in our courts.

I raise this because this is a new departure and I believe it is something of which this House should take note and to which it should give careful consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Sea Point. The point that he raised, is that witnesses who are summoned …

Any witness.

Yes, any witness. He said that such a witness should be protected. I would have accepted the validity of his argument if he had moved an amendment to that effect, but the hon. member does not want to do so.

But it is a fundamental right.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must give me a chance now. After all, I listened to him. If the hon. member feels so strongly about it that the protection should be extended upon, particularly with regard to people who give evidence in terms of a subpoena, why did he not move an appropriate amendment to the legislation? Surely this would have been the correct procedure. But, Sir, I must question the seriousness of the hon. member’s argument, because he does not really want it. He wants to use this argument to deprive the council of the power. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is not how these things work. The only argument that the hon. member for Sea Point has, is that we now want to extend the powers of a sovereign Parliament and of provincial councils to another council that does not play the same role in our political set-up. I have pointed out to him before that if the President’s Council is to fulfil its role, it must be able to do so without restriction. There is something in this regard that really amazes me. Hon. members of the official Opposition are the apologists for freedom, including the freedom of institutions that have nothing to do with Parliament or its authority. I am thinking here for instance of the freedom of the media.

Yes, but they have no greater freedom than the individual.

Just a moment, please; I do not want to quarrel with you. I want to reply to the argument in a practical way. They want to make an absolute of that freedom. [Interjections.] Yes, that is true. The standpoint of those hon. members is that we should not grant freedom to the institutions that have been created for orderly change. Let us take the hon. member for Sea Point’s argument.

†He is one of the members who prefers to argue on specifics.

Try to argue the details of the clause.

I am replying to the details of the clause.

With generalizations.

Mr. Chairman, either the hon. members want a reply to their questions and the issues they have raised, or they do not. They can make the choice.

*The hon. member for Sea Point is now quoting the relevant article from the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act.

This is a trap for you; be careful.

No, it is not a trap; I do not play with juveniles.

*By means of what he is quoting, he is trying to say that not only are we extending freedom of speech to the President’s Council, but also that in this respect we are making the President’s Council a little more free than the House of Assembly, because he says the freedom of speech that the House of Assembly has, is defined in a statute whereas clause 2, with which we are dealing here now, contains no such restriction.

No.

But then what did the hon. member say?

They can make their own rules and regulations.

I am coming to that.

*Let us just read section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act which has a bearing on the status of the House of Assembly in this regard. Section 2(1) reads as follows—

In other words, this freedom or privilege if you will, is absolute. Let us now look at the clause that we are dealing with here. Clause 2(1) reads as follows—

Now I ask whether the freedom of the House of Assembly in terms of section 2 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act is more extensive or is being restricted to a greater extent than the freedom that is being granted to the President’s Council in clause 2 of this Bill. Surely this clause is restrictive by nature of its provisions?

Just read the whole clause.

I have read the whole clause.

You did not read the phrase “and the rules and orders of the President’s Council”.

But I have just read it now. I read the following words—

*The rules and orders of the President’s Council can simply restrict that freedom and not expand it. Cannot the hon. member understand this? In other words, the rules and orders of the President’s Council may have a restrictive effect on its freedom only, and cannot extend it. Now the hon. member is angry with me because there is a restriction. He says he wants to argue with me on the details.

What about the consultative committee?

Just give me a chance. I shall come to that in a moment, unless the hon. member grants me that this particular argument has now been settled. If the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition tells me that this argument has been settled, I shall now go on to deal with the consultative committee.

I do not agree with you.

That is fine, but why then say that I must come to the consultative committee?

“After all, the hon. the Chief Whip cannot be right on both counts. Surely he is aware of this. After all, we know one another well enough. What are we dealing with now? We are really conducting a debate not on the essence of the legislation before us, but a debate on the question of whether the President’s Council, an institution of which hon. members are not in favour, should be put in a position to fulfil its function. The hon. members must not become angry with me about it now, but this is the impression that I received throughout.

Let us now come to the consultative committee to which the hon. the Chief Whip of the official Opposition wants me to react. The hon. the Chief Whip knows that apart from statutory protection, there are privileged occasions where an inherent, derivable privilege exists in any event. Now I want to put a question to the hon. members once again. Really, I do not want to score points, because the legislation before this committee is about something else. Let me concede at once that arguments can be put forward with regard to the efficiency of the instruments. I concede this and I have conceded it before as well. Now, however, I say that if we then say this instrument is not as efficient as we would like it to be, let us then at least make it as efficient as we can within the existing limitations. All I can tell the hon. members, is that the President’s Council does in fact exist. It is often going to happen that that council is going to debate matters that could implicate people. If one looks at section 106 of the Constitution, it is clear that except for the specific terms of reference referred to the council by the State President, that the President’s Council can discuss any subject. The council can discuss a subject that may affect the security of the State.

It is then usurping the functions of Parliament.

No, it is not because Parliament approved its functions and responsibilities. The hon. member may not like what Parliament approved of, but the fact remains that Parliament has approved it.

This means that nominated people are usurping certain functions of Parliament.

As the hon. member knows, he and I have agreed that there should be a time limit to the debate, but I should like to react to what he is saying. There are hon. members who have been nominated to this House too and that hon. member’s party has participated in this regulation. Should such an hon. member have fewer rights on the basis of the fact that he has not been elected? I really do not want to argue with the hon. member tonight. All I am asking is that the President’s Council has to prove itself or not. All that I am asking in clause 2 of the legislation is that that council be afforded the opportunity to do so. We shall not be able to judge, but our country will be able to judge. All I am asking is that the council should be afforded an opportunity. This is what my standpoint is with regard to clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister knows that—to put it mildly—we are not excited about the President’s Council because of its composition, but we nevertheless accept that it is there. We are asking the hon. the Minister that when he draws up rules under which the council should operate, we as a sovereign Parliament should have some jurisdiction and be allowed to conduct a critical examination of these rules. However, according to the hon. the Minister, because they wanted the President’s Council, whatever they dish up to us is correct. That is what he is saying. [Interjections.] That is what he is saying. If the hon. the Minister’s attitude is correct, why did he wait for a year before introducing this clause? I will tell hon. members why: It is because it was half-baked in the first instance, otherwise why did he not introduce these provisions at the time the President’s Council was introduced? We are doing it on the trot and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when it comes to permanent constitutional institutions which start to generate their own momentum it is important that we who are the originators of those institutions should know what we are doing. The hon. the Minister talks glibly about freedom and says that he believes in the freedom of the media. However, this is fundamentally different for whatever freedom the media and individuals possess, is exercised under the jurisdiction of the courts of law. This is placing the individuals of the President’s Council outside the jurisdiction of the courts of law. That is a very important distinction and when any individual is placed outside the jurisdiction of the courts of law this Parliament should be jealous as to how this is done.

The hon. the Minister has not explained to us why he needs this particular clause which provides the following: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and orders of the President’s Council …”. He has not explained this but he says that it can only be restrictive. However, I do not accept that it can only be restrictive because the corresponding provision in our Standing Orders provides: “cannot be questioned in any court or any place outside Parliament”. I presume that the President’s Council will have its rules extended to include any place outside Parliament.

No, it cannot. It is not in the Bill.

It does not prohibit it. The hon. the Minister is quite wrong. It is not a negative in junction to the President’s Council. The question that we ask is: Should a sovereign Parliament grant immunity to people to stand outside the normal legal process without knowing the terms and conditions under which that freedom is going to be exercised? The hon. the Minister thinks it is a good principle, but we happen to think that it is a bad principle. When, in a certain sense, people are being put above the law, the exact conditions under which they are being placed above the law should be known. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister did not deal with the second category of people. We are extending this freedom of speech—not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts—not only to nominated members of the President’s Council, people who are gazetted and whom we know, but also to anyone whom the President’s Council invites to become a member of a subcommittee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that that is an appropriate provision, that the President’s Council can, on its own, without reference to either Parliament or the executive, extend this right of freedom of speech beyond the reach of the law to people who are going to be members of subcommittees. That is the second point with which the hon. the Minister has not yet dealt.

The third point is that seeing that by its very nature the President’s Council is a fact-finding body, and all the evidence during the initial months of its operation primarily consists of inviting people to give evidence, is it then appropriate to grant freedom of speech to individuals whom the President’s Council invites to form subcommittees, while not giving that same privilege to people under subpoena or otherwise who have to give evidence before the President’s Council? I ask the hon. the Minister this. He is the originator of this whole concept. Does he believe that these three categories of freedom of speech beyond the reach of the law are appropriate as a starting point for the operations of the President’s Council?

Why do you talk so much about a body which you boycott? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to react very briefly to the arguments of the hon. member for Sea Point.

It is not in terms of the rules of the President’s Council that freedom of speech is being granted to a consultative committee. It is Parliament itself that is granting that freedom, and it is doing so in terms of clause 2 of the Bill under discussion. However, the hon. member is not reading the clauses of the Bill. It is explicitly stated in this clause that the freedom of speech that will apply to both the President’s Council and the consultative committees, is being authorized by the legislation and not by the rules.

But who chooses the members of the President’s Council in the first place?

But that is not the point under discussion at all. It is not at issue at all. All I want to say, is that the power is being granted by Parliament.

But we are Parliament.

Oh, please! Of course it is Parliament that is granting that authorization. In terms of clause 2 it is provided that freedom of speech will apply to members of the President’s Council. Therefore, the authoritative body that is granting the freedom, is Parliament itself. The clause provides further that that freedom will also apply in the case of consultative committees of the President’s Council. Parliament is the authoritative body from whence this authorization originates.

The only restriction on that freedom that is being granted in terms of the clause, are the rules of the President’s Council itself. Therefore, whereas the freedom of Parliament is absolute, this authorization is being qualified by the provisions of the clause itself, as well as those of the rules of the President’s Council itself. If the hon. member for Sea Point does not understand this, I simply cannot take it any further.

Mr. Chairman, I should like a further explanation from the hon. the Minister. I want to know why people who are invited by the President’s Council to serve on subcommittees, should have this freedom of speech, whilst those who are summoned to give evidence, or who even give evidence voluntarily, do not enjoy the same privileges.

I have just explained that. I am not going to argue about it the whole night.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that we shall also oppose clause 3 because we believe that, as in the case of clause 2, it elevates the President’s Council to a position that it should not hold. This clause creates an exception from liabilities which we do not believe should apply to a body of that nature.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we shall oppose clause 4 basically for the same reasons.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, Clause 6 elevates the President’s Council to a status that in our opinion a council of that nature should not have. It creates a situation in which a member of the President’s Council cannot be summoned to appear before a court unless the court concerned holds its sitting in a place where the council is in session. In purely practical terms, a council like the President’s Council simply does not function in the same way as Parliament. Obviously it is undesirable for any member of the House of Assembly to be absent for any period of time or to be obliged to be absent during a session, because legislation is being dealt with, standpoints are being adopted and votes are being cast. The programme of work of the House of Assembly is also much heavier than that of the President’s Council. Therefore, for purely practical reasons there is no justification for the President’s Council to enjoy the same privilege that the House of Assembly enjoys.

In clause 6(2) it is provided—

Once again it is a great privilege that is being granted to the members of the President’s Council. Therefore, the Supreme Court of South Africa must arrange its programme in order to fit in with the activities of the President’s Council. Subsection (2) indicates the value and importance of the privilege that is being proposed here for members of the President’s Council as well. We feel that this is not justified. It is a privilege that should not be granted lightly, and therefore we shall oppose this clause too.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that if hon. members of this House had not had certain privileges, we may possibly have made more rapid progress. However, I am just mentioning this in passing. In the first place this provision has a bearing on civil proceedings only and this is an important point. It does not apply simply to any case.

There is a second important point, and this is that even the setting of a date for the hearing of a civil case is often laid down months if not years in advance. Therefore matters can be regulated in such a way that the programme of the court does not have to be affected. That is why I cannot appreciate the hon. member’s objection.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that although the proceedings of the court can easily be regulated beforehand, the programme of the President’s Council, if it could be compared with that of this House at all, is unpredictable, as the hon. the Minister knows. Therefore I am simply confirming once again that we shall oppose this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, we believe that given the standards applicable to Parliament, provincial councils and commissions, this is a fairly extraordinary type of clause. It provides that no member or officer of the President’s Council shall divulge information, except with the consent of the council or the chairman of the council if such information has been given to that particular member or officer on a confidential basis. There are several reasons why we object to this. First of all, we believe that if the President’s Council is to serve any purpose whatsoever in the constitutional field, its deliberations should be given a public airing to the maximum extent. The public should take notice of the debates taking place in that council to the maximum extent and also of the passage of information in and out of that council. From that point of view we fail to see the need for this clause.

The second objection we have—and the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is that unless the council or the chairman of the council intervenes to decide that certain information can be disclosed to people outside, the decision as to whether information should be confidential is at the sole discretion of the giver of that information. I do not believe that that is necessarily a good thing at all, because there may be all sorts of reasons, some of them totally unacceptable in an objective sense, why this information should be confidential. From that point of view also we feel that this clause is not acceptable. The hon. the Minister will know that further on in the Bill it is in fact to be made a criminal offence for members of the President’s Council or a staff member to divulge this information in spite of the existence of the provisions contained in this clause. We have been accused of casting a reflection on the members of the President’s Council, but I believe that, if ever a reflection was cast on them, making the contravention of clause 10 a criminal offence casts such a reflection particularly on the members of the President’s Council. For that reason as well we are not prepared to support this and will oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying my best to understand the points of departure of the hon. member for Green Point. Recently he did not want to afford the members protection, now he has said that he should like to afford them protection, for he did not believe that there were members of the Council who would disclose information. The one moment he is opposed to the calibre of the people and the next he is in favour. I really do not understand the hon. member’s arguments at all.

What is really at issue in this clause? It provides for the preservation of the secrecy of information which has been entrusted to a member or officer in confidence by stipulating that it may not be disclosed without permission. The hon. member will know that provision is made for similar circumstances in the case of commissions. In the case of the Constitutional Commission …

They were confidential discussions.

… provision was made for exactly the same circumstances. Consequently I cannot understand why, on the one hand, the hon. member did not have any objection to our dealing with it as an analogous case with Parliament and yet, on the other hand, he was opposed to our seeking to grant the President’s Council more or less the same protection as applies to commissions.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 11 is concerned, I have already said on the occasion of the Second Reading that the provisions of the clause can be compared to the provision that is made for subpoenas in the Commissions Act. Therefore, under normal circumstances these provisions would in fact be completely acceptable. As was previously indicated, however, there has already been a public reaction to the clause, because a prominent Coloured leader, the leader of the largest Coloured political party in the country, has indicated that they will not be prepared to respond to such a subpoena.

Do you agree with that?

The hon. member should rather listen. We are still in the process of making the Act; perhaps the hon. member has not realized that.

But do you agree with his attitude?

I can understand his attitude. The background to the development of the Schlebusch Commission and the Du Preez Commission, as well as the establishment of the President’s Council, has already been sketched. We have discussed it. In spite of the standpoints that were adopted on the subject, the Government forged ahead against the main stream of opinion in Coloured, Black and Indian politics and formed the President’s Council as we see it today. And, Sir, they actually repeated it. The hon. the Minister took it very much amiss of me because I had supposedly cast a reflection upon members of the President’s Council. What I said, is that the Government is making it increasingly difficult, almost impossible, for self-respecting Coloured leaders to have anything to do with the President’s Council. The hon. the Minister may look at my Hansard. I want to repeat those words, Sir; I stand by them. They are making it increasingly difficult for people representing Coloured opinion in this country, to participate in this council. The hon. the Minister knows very well why. If he were in their position, he would not have gone anywhere near that council himself. I am sure that the hon. the Minister would agree with this if he were to examine his conscience a little.

That is a disgraceful remark.

No, it is not disgraceful; it is absolutely correct. He knows very well what the standpoints of those people are. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may listen to me a little too. In spite of the definite standpoints that have been adopted in this regard, the hon. the Minister and his Government were determined—they have already indicated this with the composition of the President’s Council—that no proposals that did not fall within the apartheid ideology of the NP would be acceptable. There is no doubt about it. Under those circumstances, where there has already been a reaction, to go ahead and create powers in terms of which people are to be subpoenaed, rather than simply invited, to make submissions or to give evidence, is looking for trouble. It will create unnecessary and additional tension surrounding the President’s Council and its functions. I do not think it is necessary. I do not think it can make any contribution towards the activities of that council. In fact, I want to go further and say that I cannot imagine a more stupid step than to grant them these powers under those circumstances. It will create a very uncomfortable situation. I want to say that if the hon. the Minister wants co-operation from people of colour in this country and from political groups amongst the Coloureds or Indians or the other people in this country in creating a new constitutional dispensation, he will not achieve it by force. He will achieve that co-operation by inviting people. Given those facts, Sir, we do not believe it is necessary for these powers to be granted to the President’s Council. Due to the very atmosphere that the Government has once again created around the President’s Council, we think it is unwise to grant them the powers of subpoena. That is why we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has now become a champion of the President’s Council. He is now advocating that we should create a climate in the President’s Council so that it can fulfil its functions. The entire impact of his argument is: Please, let us create a climate in which the President’s Council can carry out its work and its investigations in a spirit of goodwill. Sir, surely this clashes with that hon. member’s party’s approach towards the President’s Council. They do not even want to recognize its existence. Indeed, they did everything in their power to destroy that council, in the eyes of all the population groups of the country. Now he is arguing tonight that we are spoiling the climate in which the President’s Council has to work.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point did not answer a question of mine. The question is whether he would encourage people to give evidence before the President’s Council.

No.

He says no. What is the hon. member actually saying here? He is actually saying that he is going to encourage people not to give evidence before the council.

That is a deliberate distortion of the truth.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that.

What must I withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

The words “a deliberate distortion”.

I thought it was quite accurate, but I shall withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point makes a snide remark about the intellectual abilities of people. I want to say at once that he has disproved Darwin’s theory. No growth at all takes place in his case.

So you would like to believe.

Surely the facts are there. Surely we have conducted a debate tonight and the fact is that hon. members opposite are opposed to the President’s Council as an institution as such. The hon. member for Sea Point is shaking his head and saying no he is not, he is in favour of it.

I am opposed to the composition thereof.

Now the hon. member says he is opposed to the composition of the President’s Council. He says he is in favour of the President’s Council, but is opposed to the composition thereof only. Let me assume that this is true, viz. that the hon. member is not opposed to the President’s Council in principle, but that he is simply opposed to the composition thereof. Since he is now in favour of it in principle, but is simply opposed to the composition thereof…

No, that is a distortion.

No, wait a minute. Surely the hon. member has now said …

Order! “Distortion” is an unparliamentary word…

I did not say “a deliberate distortion”.

No, the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member for Green Point goes on …

It is a suppression of the truth. [Interjections.]

When that hon. member opens his mouth, his intelligence closes up, and his mouth is usually open. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must proceed.

The power that is being vested in the President’s Council in this specific clause, is identical to the powers that are vested in commissions. There are also people who object to giving evidence before commissions. The hon. member knows this is true. Should we amend the relevant law on the basis of this?

It is not the same.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur has not yet participated in this debate, except by way of interjections.

I want to conclude by saying that the fact is that the hon. member for Green Point should not come along on the one hand and pose here as a person who wants the President’s Council to work and wants people to give evidence and think that they are being alienated by the principle of a subpoena, and then on the other hand say that he does not think that a person with any self-respect would serve on the President’s Council. He should take a look at which of his own members are serving on it.

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two points in the hon. the Minister’s reply which I believe I should deal with. The first is the question of who creates a climate of “welwillendheid” or not towards the President’s Council. The hon. the Minister is aware that he and I and a number of others sat on the Schlebusch Commission for a year and a half and that we advised the Minister, pleaded with the Minister and warned the Minister that if this Parliament passed a law which said that Black people by virtue of their blackness would be disqualified from membership, the Government would be creating a climate of hostility and tension around the President’s Council. It was not us who created this misshapen body. It was the hon. the Minister and his party who decided that this body should in fact exclude 70% of the people of South Africa. Having done that he now seeks to blame the people who have been excluded from the President’s Council by saying that they have created the wrong climate.

I did not say that. Where the devil did you get that from?

That hon. Minister is responsible for it. That side of the House was responsible for creating a body which is misshapen and which by law excludes 70% of the people. They were responsible for creating the present climate around the President’s Council. We must get that quite clear: That side of the House is responsible. Be that as it may, that body now exists and there is tension around it. Having excluded the Blacks by law from participating, against all advice including evidence given before the commission, the Government now nevertheless wants to give the President’s Council the right to subpoena to give evidence under oath before it; the very people whom they said were not worthy to sit on the council. Does the hon. the Minister realize what he is doing? He is saying to Chief Gatsha Buthelezi: You may not serve on this body by law but we are going to give this body the right to subpoena you. You may be the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, you may not be fit enough to serve on the President’s Council but you will be brought there under subpoena and you will give evidence to the satisfaction of the White, Coloured and Asian members of that council.

That is tyranny.

The Government by adopting this procedure, which is, I believe, an insensitive approach towards the situation that has developed, is compounding the infamy of originally excluding the Blacks.

Mr. Chairman, can you imagine what it is like to be a Black South African? By law you are not good enough to serve on the council, but under the law you are now going to be subpoenaed to give evidence. Originally, when the Schlebusch Commission was discussing a constitutional council, there was unanimity that that council should form an area of reconciliation. It should be machinery for creating an agreed constitution for South Africa. It started off on the wrong tracks and instead of bringing it back on the tracks again the Government is derailing it completely. Instead of its being an instrument of reconciliation and an instrument for creating greater unity in South Africa, the President’s Council by this clause is going to be an instrument of turmoil and conflict.

You seem to be an instrument of turmoil and conflict.

Whether one agrees with Rev. Hendrickse or not …

Order! I think the hon. member must come a little closer to the clause.

I think this is a very vital point because this clause gives the council the right to subpoena people. However, I shall go on to two other points. The first is the relationship between that council and this Parliament. I must assume that the right referred to in this clause is also a right to subpoena hon. members of this House.

Are you afraid?

It is something I want to know because I think there should be clarity on it—whether in fact the Leader of the Opposition can be summoned to give evidence.

Are you afraid?

I think we must have clarity on this—whether the President’s Council can summon the Leader of the Opposition [Interjections.] I assume that in terms of this clause it can summon him to give evidence as to what is happening in his own party and what happens at party caucus meetings.

Now we know.

It is all very well for that hon. frivolous Minister to make that remark but this Parliament is passing laws in terms of which the council can come along and subpoena hon. members. They can even subpoena Cabinet Ministers. I believe this is quite wrong. The relationship between this sovereign Parliament and a creature of this Parliament should be maintained. I think it is quite wrong. There is a provision in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963—I refer to section 24—which prohibits the giving of evidence by certain people. Although certain officials and members of Parliament are prohibited from giving evidence there is now a new law which provides that in spite of this provision the President’s Council shall have unqualified and unlimited rights to subpoena people. The hon. the Minister must say to us which of these provisions is going to have precedence, the earlier Statute which provides that in certain circumstances officers and members of Parliament shall not give evidence or the new law which provides that the President’s Council may issue subpoenas?

The third point I want to raise and on which we require some explanation from the hon. the Minister, is the following: Could he please explain to the House both the meaning and the purpose of subsection (3)? Subsections (1) and (2) deal with subpoenaing people. Whether one likes it or not, that is what they provide for. Subsection (3) however, says—

Can the hon. the Minister explain to us the purpose of this particular provision? As we see it, it means that on the one hand people can be summoned in the ordinary course of events, while, on the other hand, if there should be individuals sitting in the gallery or present in the precincts of the President’s Council building, one may, without summonsing those people require them to give evidence. To us, in the first instance, it is a mystery. What we should like the hon. the Minister to explain is why we should support this particular provision. We do not like the summonsing of people; that is one thing. Why, in fact, without summonsing people, can people who are in the precincts of the President’s Council buildings, be required to give evidence without having gone through the procedure of a normal summons?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has seen fit to make public the discussions which took place on the committee.

Well, it is evidence.

No, the hon. member has chosen a very dangerous course.

But it is only evidence.

No, please. The hon. member told us what discussions took place on that committee.

It is of course evidence.

No, the hon. member said when they had discussions with one another and when they held a dialogue with one another, certain things were done.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must either give me the opportunity to reply to him, or tell me he does not want a reply from me. [Interjections.] In the debate here this evening the hon. member told us what discussions took place on that committee. [Interjections.]

He will not fall for that. [Interjections.]

Because he has already fallen as low as that hon. member. One has no need to bring him to a fall. [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I should like to move on this clause. I have sent a copy of it to the hon. the Minister, and I trust he has already received it.

I move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment will merely be that an infringement of the provisions of clause 10—viz. the secrecy of certain things—will not be made a punishable offence. I motivated this amendment sufficiently during the discussion of clause 10.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not acceptable to me. The hon. member is aware that if I were to accept this amendment, it would mean that there would be no sanction with regard to the acts prohibited under section 10. It is therefore obvious that I cannot accept such an amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with our standpoint in regard to clause 11, in terms of which the President’s Council may summons witnesses, I once again wish to move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment will merely be that it will not be regarded as a criminal offence if anyone refuses to submit evidence under clause 11.

Mr. Chairman, for the same reason that I could not accept the previous amendment, I cannot accept this one either. The effect of the amendment is to remove the penalty in respect of failure to submit evidence, and therefore in respect of the clause itself. Therefore I cannot accept it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the standpoint we adopted in connection with the special status being afforded the President’s Council—in this instance, the right of the chairman of a committee to have a person arrested without warrant in certain circumstances—we shall oppose this clause as well.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading stage of this Bill, and I wish to take the opportunity of reacting to a few points made by the hon. the Minister and other speakers during the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage.

In the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister said that we had adopted a dualistic point of view. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making a final appeal to hon. members not to converse while an hon. member is speaking. It is impossible for the Chair to hear what is being said when hon. members converse as they have been doing. If hon. members disregard this, I shall be compelled to refer directly to the hon. members in question and ask them to obey the rules. The hon. member may proceed.

As I was saying, the hon. the Minister alleges that we have adopted a dualistic point of view. He said, amongst other things, that we have now become what he called “pleitbesorgers”—I think the best English word is “advocates”—for the President’s Council in the sense of having said that he should not create any situation of tension whatsoever around the President’s Council. It is not a question of our having any particular concern with the operation of the President’s Council as such, but believe me, hon. members on this side of the House will consistently attempt to prevent tension and conflict being created in any situation in this country. The hon. the Minister has furthermore said that my agreeing about the fact that I would not advise anybody to give evidence before the President’s Council meant that I would advise people against giving evidence before the President’s Council.

I think that is true too.

As I have indicated, I do not think that kind of logic is a worthy product of the human mind. I stick to that point of view, because it is simply not true. The conclusion simply does not follow. The President’s Council has been created by the NP, having been created in terms of its own ideology, its own thinking. It is therefore its business to make it work or see it fail. Quite frankly we would not bother to advise people one way or the other, for or against the President’s Council. I say that because I believe that the chances of that Council successfully producing a new constitution are severely limited.

The President’s Council carries the stamp of the arrogance of the NP. [Interjections.] It carries that stamp because of its very composition, because its very composition suggests that it would be futile for that body to come forward with any proposal which did not fit in with the NP’s separate development ideology. If there was ever any doubt about the statement I have just made, those doubts would have been removed by one statement after another by hon. members on that side of the House—particularly those made by the hon. the Prime Minister—which have made it absolutely clear that there are a large number of proposals that would simply not even be considered or entertained by the congresses of the NP and by this House. [Interjections.]

The President’s Council is the product of compromise, but not the product of compromise between different races or diverse political groups in this country. It is a compromise between the right wing and the left wing of the NP. [Interjections.] In order to obtain that compromise however, a very high price has had to be paid, and that price has been the fact that the President’s Council is unacceptable to the vast majority of Coloureds, Indians and Black people in this country. [Interjections.] If ever the question of boycott attitudes are taken up again, let me say that those people who refuse to allow representation …

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

No, shut up, man! If that hon. member were to come to me early in the morning, we could talk, but I do not trust him after dinner. If anybody should ever accuse us of boycott action again, let it be said once and for all that the people who refuse to allow 75% of the people of the country to be represented on the President’s Council are the real boycotters in South Africa, and not the PFP.

*Without reflecting in any way on any member or on the functions of the President’s Council, I say that the President’s Council does not deserve the status that is being afforded it by the legislation before us at present, nor does it need it. The President’s Council can perform and carry out its functions without that status. As far as clause 11, which we have already dealt with, is concerned, the element of coercion that has already been incorporated here can only endlessly aggravate the problems which the President’s Council will be faced with. For that reason we shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point made two important statements. In the Committee Stage he, and other hon. members as well, said that we wanted to cast suspicion on the President’s Council instead of helping to create a climate in which people would voluntarily testify before the Council. However, it is very interesting that the hon. member now says: “We cannot be bothered to make it work.” Then the hon. member objects when we accuse him of speaking with a forked tongue. If we were to summarize the debates of this session, what would the outstanding characteristic of the approach of hon. members opposite be, if not that they now pronounce an ambiguous judgment not only on every subject but even on every clause of a Bill? The hon. member for Sea Point has now conveniently left.

Tell it to me, I shall tell him.

Very well. I like to look a man in the eyes, even when he looks like the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point objected to a clause which provides that people may be summonsed to appear before a council on which they themselves do not have a seat. That was his argument. In other words, one should not be able to summons anyone to appear before an institution unless he, too, has the right to have a seat on it.

Sickly logic.

No, it is the hon. member’s brain that argues along those lines. The hon. member for Sea Point quoted Chief Minister Buthelezi as an example, but surely he has no seat in this House. Nor did he have a seat on the committee on which the hon. member for Sea Point served. Nevertheless this House and the committee have the right to subpoena him to come and submit evidence.

But Inkatha voluntarily …

I am coming to that. In other words, where is the logic in the arguments of the hon. members? I think the reply to the approach of the party of the hon. member for Green Point is to be found in the fact that they must at all costs prevent the President’s Council from succeeding, because if the President’s Council were to succeed, and if we as Parliament were to succeed in our efforts due to the work of that Council, it would mean the destruction of the PFP. [Interjections.] However, I want to say to those hon. members this evening, in all seriousness, that it is not the President’s Council that they are going to cause to succeed or which they are going to destroy, but something else. It is the attitude that prevails among those hon. members.

You have been saying that for quite some time now.

Of course, and look at them now. A question has been asked of the hon. member for Green Point, but up to now he has not replied to it. The question is whether he is going to advise people to submit evidence.

You have already made misuse of my reply, and then you still say I have not given a reply. You distorted my reply.

No, Sir, he has not replied to that question.

I want to conclude by saying that the official Opposition itself is solely to blame for the fact that the conclusion drawn by people in every council chamber I know of and in every population group in the country is that they are totally irrelevant in the circumstances of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am quite prepared to debate with the hon. member as to who lost or won seats, but I just want to say to hon. members of the official Opposition this evening that the reasonable people in their ranks have not being strengthened by the seats they have won. Do you know who has been strengthened, Sir? Those who are leading them along the path of radicalism. They have been strengthened, and they link up with powers in this country—and they can be angry about that if they want to—which seek to bring about change in our country by means that are not constitutional.

That is an old one.

And they deserve the condemnation of every right-thinking person in the country. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members in greater detail about the reasons why it is deemed necessary to introduce the Technical Colleges Bill, which provides for the establishment, maintenance, management and control of technical colleges and for incidental matters.

Differentiated education on the primary and particularly on the secondary level has already been introduced over a wide front during the past decade. A differentiated educational system at the post-school level requires that apart from universities and technikons, adequate provision be made for institutions such as the envisaged technical colleges in order to satisfy the demand as regards—

1. (a) the total trained manpower of the country;
2. (b) the needs in the steadily developing scientific, technological and economic spheres; and
3. (c) the need for post-school education, taking into account the difference in abilities, aptitudes and interests of the population and the requirements of the country.

It is realized that an important section of the population does not comply with the admission requirements for universities or technikons. It is seen as the task of the technical colleges, as full-fledged post-school educational institutions, to develop to the full the potential of this group in particular. For the most part, the technical colleges will provide post-school education with a view to practicing an occupation or developing of a social or recreational skill. Where justified, they will also offer education at a tertiary level, for example post-school Technical Certificate 4 to 6 courses as well as certain other national certificates and diplomas. In this regard I also wish to refer to the new dimension of, and the emphasis placed on, manpower development in recent times, which will entail far greater responsibilities for these institutions. I refer to the recommendations of the Riekert and Wiehahn reports and the appointment of the National Manpower Commission.

The technical colleges for which the Bill makes provision will be State-supported institutions managed and controlled by college councils. At present, the post-school education to be provided at these institutions is provided at State institutions 28 of which are already known as technical colleges, while one is a training college for nursery school teachers, and at 42 technical institutes which are State-supported institutions. At present, all these institutions are administered as schools in terms of the Educational Services Act, No. 41 of 1967. It has long been felt that it is an anomaly and creates a false impression that technical colleges and institutes are administered in terms of that Act, which treats them as “schools”. Accordingly the Bill envisaged now recognizes the distinct full-fledged status of technical colleges.

Apart from the provision made in the Bill for the establishment of technical colleges, it is also provided that the Minister of National Education, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, may declare any of the State institutions or technical institutes I have mentioned, a technical college. It is envisaged that all the mentioned 29 State institutions and 42 technical institutes will be declared technical colleges.

The most important reason why the State institutions are to be declared State-supported technical colleges is that the college councils will possess a greater degree of autonomy of action. Therefore the technical colleges will be more flexible, streamlined institutions capable of keeping abreast of changing circumstances and offering and providing the courses and services required at short notice by making use, inter alia, of the revenue they derive from class fees and other sources. The existing State institutions are hamshackled as regards offering new courses or subjects, in that they have to budget 18 months or more in advance for the expenditure involved. Moreover, prominent local businessmen and industrialists will serve on the college councils, and greater co-operation with the private sector and local authorities and larger local financial contributions are envisaged. In the case of the present State institutions the community is less involved, and the controlling body can only make a limited contribution, and this means that the really competent man is often less willing to serve on it.

†Mr. Speaker, the declaration of the 29 State institutions as technical colleges over an estimated period of 3 to 4 years, will entail that fixed and movable property to the value of approximately R39 000 000 will be transferred from the State to the technical colleges, who will be legal persons. It is customary that such properties be transferred free of charge, as for example when the properties of two State colleges for advanced technical education were transferred to the Vaaldriehoek and Port Elizabeth autonomous colleges—now technikons—in 1970 and 1977. The Bill, however, contains sufficient control measures, as inter alia—

1. (a) A declared technical college may not without the approval of the Minister of National Education let for a period of longer than one year or sell, exchange or otherwise alienate its immovable property.
2. (b) The Minister may under certain circumstances close a technical college or withhold payment of the whole or any portion of the subsidy voted by Parliament: Provided that if the subsidy is withheld the matter shall be reported to the House of Assembly. This provision is identical to that found in the Universities Act and in the Act on Advanced Technical Education.

Furthermore, the Bill contains adequate provision for the protection of the conditions of service, salary scales, allowances, leave privileges and pension rights of persons who are transferred to the service of a technical college as from the date on which a State institution is declared a technical college.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now explain briefly why it was found necessary to make provision also in the Bill for the declaration of the existing technical institutes as technical colleges. If this declaration is effected, all the institutions which provide the same post-school education will have the same legal status. A technical institute which is now a legal person in terms of its own constitution, will after being declared a technical college, be a legal person in terms of the Act. It may then also have a board of studies, if justified, and participate in the activities of the Association of Technical Colleges, established in terms of the Act. This association will make an important contribution to the effectiveness of technical education in that it will advise the Minister or the Director-General on matters regarding technical colleges.

*Then, too, Sir, the Bill provides for the necessary definitions, the composition of college councils, staff affairs, student affairs, inspections, granting of loans to technical colleges, financial control and delegation by the Minister and Director-General of certain powers. I should like to mention that this Bill stems largely from an in-depth investigation into post-school education, with the exclusion of university education, which was carried out by a departmental committee under the leadership of the recently retired Deputy Director-General, Mr. Steve Naudé, whose name I mention with sincere appreciation in connection with the development of technical and vocational education in the Department of National Education.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister and we are prepared to support this Bill. I hope that in the very limited time available this evening we may even dispose of this Bill. I am not, therefore, going to discuss it at any great length.

I want to associate myself with the words of appreciation addressed by the hon. the Minister to those who compiled this report. I also wish to convey my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having made this report available to us. Broadly speaking, the Bill follows the recommendations of that committee. Moreover, the structure of the technical colleges and their statutes are to a considerable extent based on the existing technikons. Therefore, even though one might have reservations—and I do have a few reservations—about the nature and structure of these technical colleges, it would really to some extent be a waste of the time of this House to stress the differences too much, since the technikons are already functioning on this basis. I also wish to say on this occasion that I do not know whether the De Lange Commission went into these aspects as well, but if the Commission did investigate them, then it is a great pity that we should again come to this House with an educational measure before the report of the commission is available.

Clearly, the Bill must perform two main functions. In the first place, it has to fill the gap between formal school education on the one hand and the training at technikons and universities on the other, and—it is to be hoped—do so on a scale and in a way that will meet the rapidly increasing needs of our economy in this connection. In the second place, the function of the Bill is to coordinate the existing arrangements and facilities and to eliminate what appears to be a somewhat artificial distinction between technical institutes and technical colleges. We welcome this co-ordination and the elimination of that distinction.

That these technical institutes and technical colleges are already playing a very important role at this stage was indicated by the hon. the Minister when he said that there are already 42 such institutes and 29 such colleges. Looking at the people enrolled at these institutions, the students or scholars, it is evident from the annual report of the Department of National Education that no fewer than 15 000 full-time students and more than 10 000 part-time students are enrolled at such technical colleges, whereas more than 5 000 full-time and almost 8 000 part-time students were enrolled at the technical institutes. This gives an idea of the important part played by these institutions in our social and economic life.

One striking aspect is the vast difference between the number of male and female students at these institutions. There would seem to be only one inference to be drawn from this—particularly as far as technical colleges are concerned—and that is that we shall have to involve our female manpower to a considerably greater extent in the training facilities to be created by these institutions.

Clearly, one of the main functions of these institutions which are to be created, is to make provision for the training of the lower and medium level manpower—as the report also indicates—and at the same time it will have to serve as a source of manpower for the higher levels in our country. The other functions indicated by the hon. the Minister are stipulated in the legislation. They also involve the community involvement which could stem from this. It is cause for gratitude that it will now be possible for the private sector to be involved and in that regard I believe that the measure is a step in the right direction. We also welcome the switch to the new institutions and the take-over of the staff members. Although problems are always created when such transfers take place it does appear as if these aspects are being provided for effectively in the Bill.

As far as the financing of the new institutions is concerned, as the hon. the Minister indicated they will be subsidized by the State to a considerable extent. Provision is also made for the granting of loans, as was indicated by the hon. the Minister. Then, too, provision is made for donations, and in this connection I appeal to the Government, in the light of the special role which these institutions could play in our public life, to make adequate financial provision in this regard. At the same time I want to make an appeal to the private sector to be generous in their financial support of these institutions. In particular I welcome the provision made in clause 37 relating to the issue of compulsory schooling for people who no longer can or wish to follow the usual school career.

One does of course have a few reservations. I was very interested in what the hon. the Minister had to say about the greater flexibility that is now possible due to the conversion of these institutions into technical colleges. This of course links up with what is stated in the report, particularly on pages 80 and 140. There reference is also made to the greater flexibility that is now possible.

We now come back to a problem which we have encountered more than once in this connection, and that is that when one looks at the Bill—and this does not apply to this Bill only but to the Bill on technikons as well—the really overwhelming position of the Minister is very clear. It is striking in clause after clause. I really find it amazing that in both types of institutions of this nature, the functioning of the institutions should be made dependent on the Minister to such a great extent. However I am not going to weary the House with …

Yes, please do not.

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member had really made a study of the Bill I might not have deemed it necessary. However, I fear that he has not done so. In spite of that, I shall not do so and I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am unhappy about the fact that in both this Bill and the Bill on technikons—which is not at issue here—the Minister occupies a strong arid dominant position in every possible respect, even in the minor details, as if the college council being created by the Bill is not in fact regarded by the Minister as good enough to do the work. However, I want to add that if there is one aspect which redeems the situation to some extent, it is the provision in clause 38 enabling the hon. the Minister to transfer some of his powers and functions in respect of a number of clauses, to the council or the Director. In passing, I just wish to say to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training that if a similar provision had existed in the Vista University Bill, we should perhaps have fought about it less. In this instance, however, the hon. the Minister is at least creating the possibility in law that many of his functions and powers may in fact be transferred. We are not discussing the Vista University now, but I do just want to point out that if this provision in clause 38 had not been included I should have objected far more vehemently to this really overwhelming and unnecessary position which the Minister has to occupy vis-à-vis the college council of this institution.

As far as clause 34 is concerned—and I mention these matters now because I do not intend taking up the time of this House unnecessarily in the Committee Stage—I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has not made provision in this legislation for proper consultation with regard to the amalgamation of the two institutions. In the case of clause 35, which relates to the closure of a college, he did provide that such a technical college could only be closed after consultation with the council of that technical college. Therefore it seems to me only logical—particularly in view of the involvement of the private sector in these technical colleges—that as regards clause 34, relating to the amalgamation of more than one college, the hon. the Minister should have provided that such amalgamation could only take place after due consultation between the colleges in question.

That is really all I had to say in regard to this Bill. I began by saying that I would not speak at length. [Interjections.] I do also just want to point out that the problem which arises here—this is of course usual in other spheres of society as well, and of course in terms of the Government’s general philosophy as well—is that we are dealing in this regard with two separate sets of legislation with regard to technical institutions. In the same way, we have separate sets of legislation with regard to schools and universities; one set for Whites and another for people of colour. Of course, this specific aspect is not at issue here because this Bill only concerns technical colleges. It is legislation which relates to the Department of National Education, and there is no way—for example, by way of an amendment or anything of the kind—in which we could discuss that situation, or even change it. Therefore I am not going to stress that. However, in the Bill itself there are no racial provisions. That, in any event, is one aspect that we welcome.

It gives us pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to hear from the hon. member Prof. Olivier that the PFP will in fact support this Bill. After the negative attitude the PFP displayed here earlier, it is really a great pleasure to hear them sounding a positive note now.

With reference to the hon. member’s objection that the report by the HSRC which has not yet been tabled whereas we are already discussing the legislation, I just want to refer the hon. member to the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote earlier in the session. If the hon. member was present in the House on that occasion he would recall that the hon. the Minister of National Education expounded the policy of the Government very clearly as far as the functions of his department in general are concerned. This of course applies to technical colleges as well. The Government will not depart from its course in that respect.

This legislation envisages the granting of greater autonomy to technical colleges. For the technical colleges this increased autonomy will entail greater flexibility, particularly in the designing of courses. It will also entail a greater degree of flexibility which will be particularly useful in the light of the rapidly changing circumstances and the growing demands of South African society. Technical colleges play an important role in society. People trained at technical colleges certainly perform an important role in commerce, industry and the State administration of the country. Therefore the technical college cannot and may not dissociate itself from the community it serves. It cannot and may not blindly adopt any course or follow its own head. The technical college serves the community and must meet the needs of the community of which it forms part. Therefore the technical college will at all times have to keep abreast of new knowledge, new insights, skills and expertise for which provision is made in the training programme. Unfortunately the fact is that academic training and a university degree are still a status symbol. Many students study and obtain degrees but encounter difficulties when seeking appropriate employment. Then, too, there are those who know that they will not pass at university and are not interested in any post-school training. Therefore the benefit of training at technical colleges must also be brought to the attention of this group of people.

Vocational education at school will have to play a greater role so that pupils with academic aptitude can be identified at an early stage and may carry on with their training at a technical college. Nowadays a high standard of scientific, technological and economic skill is required to deal with the existing issues. Therefore education must be dynamic and adapt itself to altered circumstances. Post-school education plays an important role in this regard in seeing to the total trained manpower of South Africa. Post-school education must be built up step by step so that the student may progress as far as possible in accordance with his ability, aptitude and interest.

The introduction of this legislation will mean that the technical college can develop its own identity. It will differ from, but still be equivalent to, universities and technikons. The principle of ongoing training is inherent in the role of a technical college. Education and training is a lifelong process, and the technical colleges must provide for the possibility that lecturers can return to the technical colleges periodically for further training. Due to this legislation, and due to this new dispensation, the level of education will be increased and will serve as a catalyst to provide the country with a hard-working and increasingly better trained corps of lecturers.

With those few words we on this side of the House lend our support to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Alberton we in these benches agree entirely that technical colleges are a very important link in the chain of integrated education, starting at secondary school and working through right up to university. We also agree with the comments made by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech that the creation of technical colleges is going to be of tremendous benefit to technical education and skills development in South Africa, which is such a vital component part of the development and welfare of South Africa itself. It is interesting to see that as far as terminology is concerned, if not the structure of technical education, the wheel has turned full circle. It was not so many years ago, as hon. members will remember, that we only had technical colleges and universities in the tertiary educational field. Then for very good reasons we created colleges for advanced technical education and latterly of course the technikons. Today we are going right back to the beginning of that process, and quite positively, and we are again re-establishing the terminology, if not the concept, of the technical college.

The magnitude of the investment by South Africa in technical colleges is determined to a very large extent by the transfer of assets, which, according to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, will probably be in excess of R39 million. Although this probably only reflects the infrastructure, or the hardware which is going to be transferred from what are now schools to technical colleges, the real test of the success of this concept will not lie in the amount of hardware one transfers, however important that is, but in the availability of teachers and tutors for these technical colleges.

In this regard we should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels confident that the transfer of staff from the present schools to technical colleges is going to be satisfactory. We anticipate that there will be a considerable amount of shedding of staff. This will not be due to the fact that their conditions of service have been changed because the Bill makes adequate provision for security in that respect. However, compatibility with the new demands in the technical college sphere as compared to those of the school sphere will inevitably lead to a shedding of staff. All educational systems can only be as good as the staff within those systems. The hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Education and Training is aware that it is not a lack of demand for education or a shortage of funds which are the critical points. The Archilles heel in any educational system is the availability of sufficient and well-trained tutors and teachers. This, Sir, is really the only reservation we have in regard to the conversion of schools into technical colleges. That need certainly exists, but I am sure that we are going to have very considerable difficulty in staffing those institutions successfully. That is a problem to which a solution must be found because there is a specific and intensive need for technical colleges.

We believe that for a number of reasons technical high schools have had to battle to attract sufficient students, and we believe too that to a large extent this will now be ameliorated by their incorporation as technical colleges. One of the reasons why a number of technical high schools have had an increasing deficit of students in their institutions, is because, irrationally, of the stigma which for historical reasons attaches to technical schools. I think the incorporation of these specific types of schools in the category of technical colleges will make a considerable difference to the appeal those colleges will have for the same student population.

Tertiary education will now also be spread over a wider spectrum and, although the educational chain-link system will never be complete, we believe that it will certainly be far more compatible with the demands of a highly industrialized country such as South Africa. We have the secondary school which does provide some technical training, we have the high schools, and now there are the technical colleges and, in addition, of course, there are the technikons and the universities.

I think hon. members will appreciate that the universities themselves, in terms of the demands of society, will have to start restructuring their programmes to link in successfully with the technikons and the technical colleges because inevitably in a technologically developed society or a highly industrialized society there is a tremendous demand for technically trained personnel.

Generally we welcome all the provisions in the Bill. We do not have the same difficulty with the powers of the Minister that the official Opposition has, and I think it is just as well to clarify the position at this stage. I should like to use the example or simile of a company. There are shareholders who invest funds in a company, and the managing director or the chairman of that organization carries the total responsibility. He cannot abrogate his responsibility on behalf of his guardianship of the funds of the shareholders. In our view the position of the hon. the Minister in this case is absolutely identical. Both the shareholders who are the public of South Africa and the R39 million that is going to be put into these institutions initially, are the responsibility of the managing director or the corporate chairman on behalf of South Africa, in this instance the hon. the Minister. Obviously, the hon. the Minister is not going to exercise all the powers given to him in terms of this Bill all the time. He will work on the rule of exception. However, I think what is most important to remember, is the fact that we are creating a two-way channel of communication between the technikons and the Minister, so that both parties will be aware of the demands and the needs of the other party.

If this responsibility were not placed on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, obviously the formal channels of communication would also be cut, and we do not believe that would be in the interests of either the Technical colleges or the shareholders who have invested so much money. We do not have that particular problem. There is, of course, some good news, and that is that, like the official Opposition, the NRP would also like to see, at tertiary level, open education for members of all race groups. There, of course, we are in accord with the official Opposition. I know that the hon. the Minister will not be commenting on this because he has already told us what his position is. We can therefore only look forward to the De Lange Report. With those few words I should like to say that we in the NRP fully support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious of the value of these institutions. For many years I personally have been involved in sending people to them. I have checked up with the civil engineering profession to find out what the relationship is between the responsible people there and the technical colleges and I have found out that they are full of praise for these institutions. They find the technical college staff co-operative, competent and ready to tailor courses to the needs of industry. In fact, frequently they will go so far as to design a course tailored specifically to the needs of a particular sector, if it can be proved that such a sector needs such a course and that there is a need for that course in our economy.

We have such a situation at the moment because in the civil engineering industry it is extremely difficult to get construction foremen. The old sources from which such people were drawn were the carpenters and heavy plant operators who used to come up the scale naturally. Either because we need so many more for our expanded business activities or possibly because we need so many more for our expanded business activities or possibly because we need a slightly different type of person, we are finding it very difficult to get people with the necessary skills. We have discussed this with the technical college authorities and they have agreed to introduce a course for construction foremen. The course will be tailored for youngsters with a standard 8 qualification. It will be a three-year course with one year in three trimesters at the Technical College and the remaining two years practical experience. A pilot scheme is due to start in Johannesburg at the beginning of the coming year.

The technical colleges are institutions run by dedicated people and are making a cardinal contribution in an essential area of activity in this country. We have only one reservation, however, and that relates to the fact that we would like them to be multiracial. When young Coloureds are sent to a White technikon, for example, one finds that this ultimately establishes far better relationships between such trained people and the people they will eventually work with. It has been found to be very beneficial to have people of different races educated together. It has been traditional in this country—and I am afraid the NP must bear a great deal of the responsibility …

No, blame.

… for fostering this tradition at a time when every effort should have been made to get rid of it—to have semi-skilled work done by Whites, and unskilled work, which was considered unsuitable for Whites, done by people of another colour. There was a stigma attached to such work and it was also poorly paid. Whites were led to believe that their position was protected by provisions such as contained in the Black Building Workers’ Act of 1951 and section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Technical college development during this time kept pace with the production of young White volunteers but not with the national requirement. As our industrial revolution got under way, there were too few Whites to carry out the work they had previously done in industry. Labour had to be obtained from somewhere, and some Coloureds and Blacks were brought in to make up the numbers. What was the result? Whites had to work alongside Blacks, and according to the way in which they had been brought up, this was considered shameful. Their mates told them: “You are now doing work unsuited for a White man”. The Whites then dropped out of these trades as quickly as they could get other posts. I have seen this happen, and so have other hon. members. Take the shoe trade. When I came back from the war, the shoe trade was completely White, but today there are no Whites at all in the shoe trade. In the building trade we saw it happen with the plasterers, and then it happened with the masons, and now it has happened with carpenters to a very large degree. This has also happened in the tyre plants. It has also happened in respect of truck drivers, in respect of heavy plant operators and in the motor assembly plants. When non-Whites move into jobs Whites got out of those jobs as quickly as they possibly could, and I believe this is a very, very dangerous situation. Artisans, technicians and semi-skilled workers were told that apartheid would protect them. Job reservation was like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, but the one difference was that the Government would not pull its finger out. When at last it was forced to do so, the total White labour force had to readjust itself to the new situation, and the fact that it has actually done so so well, is greatly to the credit of the pragmatism and the good sense of the South African workman. Much harm has, however, been done, and unless we are prepared to abandon this country, we must not abandon a single skilled or semi-skilled job. I believe this is a very important principle—that as non-Whites move into jobs, we must not move out. When people advertise for technicians they should be very careful and make a great effort to try to get a proportion of Whites into those jobs as well. We must either share jobs or give them up. One has a responsibility to do this, even if White labour is hard to find, as it often is. If we do not share a trade, we will lose it. Apartheid is a policy of division, not sharing. If we do not share this land but divide it territorially, we will lose it in accordance with the same system that applies to those trades. I believe hon. members should think about this because it is the same policy. If it applies to trades, it also applies territorially.

When we consider the part that has to be played by technical colleges in the development of the country we must get certain background information correct. The number of artisans attaining artisan status in South Africa dropped from 11 600 in 1977 to 7 790 in 1980. In 1980 fewer artisans passed than 10 years previously. The number of apprentice contracts in operation dropped from 37 000 in 1970 to 29 000 in 1980. What does this tell us? First of all, it tells us that Whites are finding it easy to get good jobs in a growing economy without going through a laborious training process. Secondly, it tells us that the skilled labour force will increasingly come from the non-White ranks. Lastly, it tells us that we must remember the recommendation of the Wiehahn Commission, viz. that we must ensure that White training facilities are fully utilized at all times. Students of other races must be allowed in on merit.

There is another matter I should like the hon. the Minister perhaps just to comment on later on. He has probably received, as we all have, a letter from a Mr. Paynter, a person who belongs to some religious group. He is concerned about the fact that the technical colleges are apparently run as corporate bodies. He points out that it is against the religion of his group to belong to a body corporate. He appeals for provision to be made in the legislation for Christian conscience whereby specific exemption of staff and students from body corporate involvement would be possible. I know it seems a bit extreme, but I had some contact with these people and I know that they feel so strongly about this, however strange it might seem, that they are prepared to resign from the technical colleges, even within a year or two of their retirement age. I believe this could prejudice things like their pensions very gravely. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would just comment on this.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support for the Bill expressed by hon. members from various sides. I must say that the conduct of the hon. members of the official Opposition and even of the NRP reminded me a little of a dog who keeps scratching at the same place because the same flea is biting him, because they keep coming back to the issues of “open education” and “mixed education”. I do not wish to go into that now. I think we have scratched those itches long enough. I merely want to make the statement, with reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Walmer, that I had thought that the fact that there is more room for non-Whites to obtain training and employment in trades at a higher and better-paid level than in the past due to the non-availability of Whites would be welcomed, since this will give everyone more opportunities to share in the development of the country. I cannot see what could be objected to in that. Moreover, I think this constitutes elementary recognition of the freedom of choice of the employer to decide whom he wishes to employ and of the employee to decide where he wants to work. If I understood the hon. member for Walmer correctly, then I really cannot agree with him that people of a specific population group should be coerced to remain in a specific trade when members of a different population group want to enter it. As long as there is proper employment, the work is done and there are promotion opportunities for the people as far as their careers are concerned, then I really do not think there is anything inherently wrong in that.

I should like to express my appreciation for the remarks of the hon. member for Alberton particularly as regards the vital need for vocational guidance with a view to training opportunities in technical fields. I should like to stress that we must devote attention to proper vocational education in schools so that pupils too may become aware of technical career opportunities. I should also like to make appreciative reference to the remarks by the hon. member concerning the importance of ongoing education. I think that that is extremely relevant. The technical colleges do of course have an important role to play in this regard in affording people who are already in an employment situation to return regularly and undergo enriching training.

†The hon. member for Durban North expressed his fears in respect of staff recruitment. I must say quite frankly that I do not share this fear. I think employment on the staff of a technical college in the new form will be more attractive because there will be greater flexibility and greater freedom of operation for the staff, and the conditions of employment will be at least as good as those that presently exist.

If I could link up this remark with the reference made by the hon. member for Walmer regarding the people in Port Elizabeth who have religious objections to becoming members of a body corporate, which I frankly do not understand or appreciate, I would like to say, both with regard to the reservations of the hon. member for Durban North and those referred to by the hon. member for Walmer, that in the legislation specific provision is made for the present staff members who wish to remain employees of the State to do so by being transferred to other posts where they can retain their status as State employees in an educational or other job. Therefore I do not think we shall lose these people.

*I should like to give the hon. member Prof. Olivier the assurance that as regards the question of amalgamation, to which reference is made in clause 34, the Minister will obviously only act in that regard after consultation. If in future it becomes necessary to eliminate any reservations that could arise in this regard, we could effect amendments. However, I think it is quite unimaginable that action could be taken in this regard without there being consultation.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier also referred to the vital need for making adequate financial provision. I wish to remind this House that in the National Education Vote this year there was an increase of 40% in the funds allocated for technical education. This gives some indication of the higher priority this enjoys.

The hon. member for Durban North replied very effectively to the reservations expressed by the hon. member Prof. Olivier concerning the extent of the powers of the Minister. I really do not believe it is appropriate to compare technical colleges with universities and technikons. They are an entirely different type of institution. In my opinion, the technical and managerial sophistication at the universities and technikons is at a higher level. I know, too, that co-ordination is essential.