Mr. Speaker, I just wish to announce that the hon. the Minister of Finance has informed me that he deems it necessary to introduce the Part Appropriation Bill earlier than the date already announced, viz. 22 February. It has therefore been decided that the hon. the Minister will make his Second Reading speech on Thursday, 11 February, and that the debate on the measure will then follow on 22 February.

laid upon the Table the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1981, as follows:

1. (1) Agricultural Control Boards

   Your Committee, having heard evidence on the reports of the Auditor-General on the accounts of certain control boards, wishes to express its concern at—

   1. (a) the large amounts spent by certain control boards on the erection of administrative buildings;
   2. (b) the lack of adequate storing facilities for wheat;
   3. (c) the existence of certain monopolistic organizations which affect the marketing of certain products.
2. (2) Parliamentary control: Shifting of funds during a financial year
   1. (a) With further reference to Resolutions (1) and (2) of your Committees’s Second Report and pursuant to further evidence before your Committee on the strengthening of Parliamentary control over the shifting of funds during a financial year, your Committee recommends as follows:
      1. (i) That grants-in-aid be placed in column 2 of the schedule to an Appropriation Act;
      2. (ii) that where the Treasury, as a result of policy adjustments and changed priorities, grants virement authority to a department to supplement the provision under a specific programme from savings under another programme, such programmes of the Vote concerned be included in the Additional Estimates of Expenditure, although the Vote as a whole does not require to be augmented;
      3. (iii) that as far as “Supporting and Related Services” programmes are concerned, subprogrammes which are supplemented as a result of policy adjustments and changed priorities be likewise included in the Additional Estimates of Expenditure (for the purposes of this Resolution the Treasury’s “Fiscal Transfers” programme will be regarded as a “Related Services” programme);
      4. (iv) that the existing column 2 items on parts of Votes be retained and that the Treasury investigate alternative methods of maintaining Parliamentary control over these parts.
   2. (b) Your Committee further recommends that consideration be given to amending the rules of debate in the House of Assembly on the Additional Estimates of Expenditure in such a way that debate is permitted not only on the increases, but also on the decreases.
3. (3) Other reports and papers

Your Committee has no comment to offer on the other reports and papers investigated by it.

G. J. KOTZÉ, Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly 21 January 1982

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

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

1. (1) In the English text, on page 9, in line 44, to omit “rand” and to substitute “cents”;
2. (2) in the English text, on page 9, in line 45, to omit “two hundred and fifty” and to substitute “one”.

I have already motivated this amendment of mine. Consequently I do not consider it necessary to elaborate on this matter again.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This clause in fact relates to residential areas in which people may live on diggings or at any particular mine. By this amendment we are trying to remove from this clause any reference to race or colour. We do not believe that such reference is necessary in legislation of this kind because this situation is adequately catered for in terms of other legislation which we already have on our Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, I have given very thorough consideration to the proposal of the hon. member.

†The position is, however, it is not a new principle which is introduced into the Act. In the Act as it stands reference is made to special areas for Blacks although the terminology used there has fallen into disuse.

*What we are doing here, is merely to replace the terminology for “compounds” and similar definitions, for example “locations”, with the more acceptable and general concepts which are now in everyday use, namely “black residential areas”, “White residential areas”, “Coloured residential areas”, etc.

So apartheid always comes into the picture again.

Consequently this is no new principle which is being introduced into the legislation. In the second place the Group Areas Act excludes diggings, and places such as those with which the legislation under discussion deals. In this connection I want to refer the hon. member to section 20(2)(o) of the Group Areas Act, where he will find that these areas are in fact excluded. For this reason, within the framework of the Government’s policy, the principle of residential areas on an ethnic basis is already accepted in existing legislation. We are therefore merely adjusting the position by bringing the terminology into line with modern terminology. No new principle is being introduced.

I think we should rather argue about the desirability or otherwise of this state of affairs, this difference in viewpoints of the Government and the Opposition, in our political debates and not when debating this amending Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister suggests that we should not use ideological or political arguments when discussing legislation of this nature. Our point is, however, that the ideology of hon. members in Government benches is carried out in this legislation. Therefore the correct place to object to apartheid legislation—and we call it nothing else— is in the debate on the Bill in which it actually appears.

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. the Minister has seen fit not to accept this amendment. I do not believe that as the clause is currently worded, or as we propose to amend it, it will actually affect the way that he runs his department or these particular areas. The hon. the Minister says that it is no new principle. We agree that it is no new principle, but we do not like the principle and as it is now being furthered in this amending legislation we believe this is a good time to try to get rid of this apartheid terminology, terminology that causes us so much damage in so many spheres. We believe that if we can start to remove this type of apartheid terminology in our legislation we shall then be getting somewhere, and therefore I would very, very seriously ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is trying to catch fish on dry land. This legislation does not lend itself at all to the type of argument the hon. member has now raised in the Committee. The hon. member who submitted the amendment referred by implication to an existing Act under which this matter could be regulated, namely the Group Areas Act.

I did not even mention that.

I am not referring to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central; I am referring to the hon. member who introduced the amendment. He said there are sufficient Acts on the Statute Book to deal with this situation, inter alia the Group Areas Act. If we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, it would mean that there would be no difference between residential areas. If the hon. member knew the principal Act a little better, he would see that free access to the various residential areas is not allowed in terms of the principal Act, and the reason for this is obvious. It is to counteract smuggling. If the hon. member were to read section 28 of the principal Act, he would see this. In other words, if we accept this amendment, we would be frustrating the aims of certain aspects of the principal Act.

Mr. Chairman, I endorse the arguments of the hon. member for Namakwaland. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that they both remained silent when we introduced an amendment to the existing Act in clause 13 of the Bill, page 9, line 1. The old Act read—

This was amended by clause 13, without any objections and without any amendment from that side of the House, so that the provisions now reads—

The mere existence of that subsection as amended, makes the insertion of this wording in the clause under discussion an absolute necessity. I therefore doubt whether it is in order to discuss the principle, already contained in the existing Act, in regard to separate residential areas at diggings, because the motion before this House does not amend it in any way.

However, you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to restate the standpoint of the NP and the Government in this connection very briefly, which is that when it comes to residential areas, there is a fundamental difference in principle between us and the Opposition. We believe it is absolutely essential that as regards residential areas, as is the case with schools and as is the case in its own community life, every group and every population group must be given the full-fledged right to live among its own people and have its own community life. It would be absurd if we did this throughout the country, but not at our diggings. I think it is a pity that this matter, which is a fundamental political debating point in our public life, is now being dragged into legislation which deals basically with the regulation of the mining exploitation of our precious stones. I really do not think it belongs here, but if you will allow it, Sir, I am really not afraid of such a debate. On the contrary, I think it would add a little life to the proceedings, and then we could discuss the matter in depth. We on this side are ready for it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has got himself into the thick of a political debate here because of the terminology entrenched by his party. I think in this regard the hon. the Minister should really take a leaf out of the book of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. In the Wage Act, without basically affecting the structure of that Act, the hon. the Minister of Manpower was able to remove all reference to race, colour or creed. He did this without, as I say, affecting the basic structure of that Act. We appreciate the fact that this is not a debate on group areas. We are debating the question of the prospecting for and mining of precious stones. However, perhaps the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to removing these references to race simply by using the expression “residential area”. If this is done it will remove what may possibly be considered to be offensive terminology without necessarily affecting the fundamental concept of reserved group areas for residential purposes. Perhaps, like the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will see his way clear to remove the specific discriminatory terminology in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, it is the policy of this Government, where it is at all possible and without impairing fundamental principles, to avoid unnecessary references to race. That is why I indicated yesterday that I would prefer to have time to consider the amendment to see whether this could be done without detracting from the fundamental principles. Upon studying the entire Act as it stands, however, hon. members will see that there are quite a number of sections where the question of whether a specific residential area is a Black residential area or not, is really of importance. In other words, it is part of the structure of this Act that there shall be separate residential areas.

Without option.

The movement to and fro and the access of one racial group to the residential area of another racial group is dealt with in other sections which are not part of the Bill. That is why this is not an appropriate occasion to discuss this question in depth, namely whether in the revision Act in its entirety, we could perhaps achieve the same objective without having special references. This is a matter we could go into and which we could debate. However, as the Act now stands it is part of the structure of the Act that there has to be cross-references, more specifically to Black residential areas. For this reason it must in any event be retained here for the functional application of the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This clause regulates areas which the mining commissioner can set aside for occupation by the different racial groups. For the same reasons that we advanced earlier, we wish to remove any reference to race from this clause as well. During my earlier motivation I was not aware that the provisions of the Group Areas Act did not apply to a mining area. All I can say in response is that this would have provided a small opportunity for the hon. the Minister to make a small step in the right direction. As regards the other points the hon. the Minister advanced, I will concede that to be entirely consistent we should have proposed amendments also to some other provisions of this Bill. We wish, however, to show our Opposition to apartheid and any reference to race in legislation.

As regards the arguments of the hon. member for Namakwaland, I find one of them the most incredible thing that I have ever heard. How a mixed residential area leads to a diamond smuggling I fail to see. Perhaps he could explain that to us some time later.

In conclusion I would like to reiterate an appeal that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made yesterday, namely that when any legislation is being reviewed for whatever reason, it be carefully gone through to remove any reference to race. I am sure that hon. members on the other side of the House will in fact be surprised at how much they can remove without affecting their policy in any particular way. We on this side of the House would like to see all reference of race removed.

Mr. Chairman, the same arguments I advanced in respect of the previous clause also apply here. I therefore do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

My motivation for this is exactly the same as my motivation for the previous Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was in the process of saying to the hon. the Minister that we on these benches have no objection to this measure. I was on the point of asking for clarification of a certain aspect, but since then I have been in touch with the hon. the Minister’s department and have received the necessary clarification. We have therefore nothing further to add to the debate. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the hon. member for Pinelands as well as the hon. member for King William’s Town for their support of the Second Reading.

*I should also like to thank the hon. member for Virginia for his support and contribution. I wholeheartedly endorse his point of view.

†The hon. members raised a number of questions yesterday. The first was in connection with the difference between university activities and a branch of a university. The fact is that there is a difference in that there could be a research project at a university on a temporary basis without the leader of such a project serving on the council of the university while, as the hon. member has pointed out, it is necessary for the head of a branch to serve on the council of the university. At the request of the University of Zululand provision is being made in clause 2 of the Bill for every member of the administrative staff of a university who is in charge of a branch, to be included as a member of the council. To accommodate the use of the term “in charge of a branch” as used in clause 2 of the Bill, section 2 of the University of Zululand Act had to be amended to provide for the establishment of branches. I think this amendment will obviate any misunderstanding in this regard.

The second question was how this concept of branches fits in with the University of Vista. This university will not operate in opposition to any other existing university. Indeed, it will complement existing universities. The existing universities will continue to extend their activities on the present campuses or on removed campuses within the national Black States, while Vista will operate in the urban areas outside the national Black States. I think therefore that these universities will complement each other.

*The last question concerned the members who could be nominated to the council of Medunsa by the independent Black States. When the University of Medunsa was established, an agreement was reached with all the self-governing Black States, of which not one was yet independent—Transkei was on its way to becoming independent and the Act in question had already been passed by Parliament—that they could nominate members to the council of Medunsa. When a territory becomes independent, an agreement is entered into with them in respect of the provision of certain facilities, inter alia that students of such States will be allowed to attend Medunsa in order to be trained as medical practitioners, for example. Consequently this clause is now being amended to provide that the territories which may become independent, may be afforded recognition.

The hon. member said it seemed as if I was becoming progressive, but I believe he is also becoming progressive, because he is now beginning to realize that Black States do in fact exist and that one has to recognize them. For that I thank him, Sir.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments that are being proposed are, firstly, the insertion of a penalty provision for the desecration of the coat of arms of the Republic. Secondly, an attempt is being made to eliminate the problem with regard to the trade in family coats of arms.

Hon. members will recall that last year this House approved an amendment to the Constitution of the Republic, 1961, which involved the insertion of a new section 5A, which made malicious desecration of or display of contempt for the national flag of the Republic a punishable offence, and in terms of which any person convicted of such an offence is subject to deportation in terms of Act 59 of 1972 if he is not a South African citizen by birth or descent. Hon. members will recall that incidents of desecration of the flag during Republic Festival ceremonies aroused deep feelings of indignation on the part of most citizens of this country. It was also agreed that the desecration of holding in contempt of our highest State symbols could obviously be used to promote conflict, to sow disorder and to defy and discredit the authority of the State.

This House is now being requested to extend to our other important State symbol, the coat of arms of the Republic, the same protection as was afforded the national flag last year. Although it is hoped that the coat of arms of the Republic is less likely to be desecrated, equal protection is nevertheless essential, because the effect of such a desecration, in undermining the authority of the State and attacking the maiestas of the State, can certainly be equally serious. So we are not only concerned here with an emotional or sentimental matter, but also with a potential instrument for promoting chaos and conflict and undermining the authority of the State.

Its attitude towards historic symbols is a good criterion for evaluating the level of civilization of a nation. In the Republic, national heroes, historic monuments and historic graphic symbols, such as historic flags and coats of arms of the authorities, are held in special esteem and imbued with deep sentiment. The coats of arms of the former Boer Republics and British colonies which together formed the Union of South Africa also survive in the coats of arms of the four provinces of the Republic, and the main emblems of the four provinces are united on the escutcheons of the coat of arms of the Republic. The graphic design of this coat of arms is emblematic of the authority of the State, and its content unites the historic roots of our State and the deep national sentiments on which it is built.

†Certain State symbols, for example our national flag, were born out of conflicting points of view, but are now by their very design prime emblems of national reconciliation and unity. The feelings which these symbols evoked have matured and although the past is very much enshrined in both the flag and the coat of arms, these symbols look equally strongly to the future as the embodiment of national unity. Our armorial bearings, being the principal token of the authority of the State can, nonetheless, become the focal point of acts of abuse. Those who adopt a high level of interpretation and derive a meaningful message from a State symbol, will nurture it carefully. But when those who are negatively disposed towards the same symbol, and to the State it symbolizes, seek to debase it, that symbol must be rendered inviolate by affording it the full protection of the law in order that it may continue to assert the legitimacy of the State untarnished.

*For the rest, the Bill involves an amendment regarding family heraldry. When the provisions of the present Act were formulated, attempts were made to inhibit the activities of people who professed to provide authentic family coats of arms, but whose products could not be heraldically or genealogically authenticated, by requiring that they should possess a certificate from the Council for Heraldry declaring the product to be a true family coat of arms. In implementing this statutory provision, however, it appeared that a more effective measure was required. On application forms completed by buyers of family coats of arms it is sometimes indicated that “direct heraldic or genealogical connection is not intended or implied”, but the atmosphere and circumstances, such as large exhibitions or shows where prospective buyers sometimes literally queue up and are subjected to ingenious sales techniques, are not conducive to proper reflection on the authenticity of such sentimental symbols. Customers are suddenly confronted with the opportunity to obtain tangible symbols of their descent and identity. Because symbols which do not really have any heraldic or genealogical authenticity nevertheless create the impression of authentic family symbols as far as content and appearance are concerned, an amendment is being proposed in terms of which the mere appearance of such products is set up as an alternative criterion. The representation of a coat of arms which is alleged to be an authentic family coat of arms, as well as one which on the face of it purports to be such a coat of arms, is now covered by the Act. This amendment is being introduced at the request of the Council for Heraldry as a result of their practical experience in implementing the Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister indicated, the Bill now before us is in large measure a consequence of the Flag Bill which we debated in the last session of Parliament. We shall be supporting this Bill in the same way that we supported the Flag Bill, i.e. with quite considerable qualification. As I listened to the hon. the Minister it seemed to me as though he was struggling to make a case for this further protection of our coat of arms.

You did not listen carefully.

No, I listened very carefully. I followed the hon. the Minister and I also had his speech in front of me. It seemed to me as though the gentleman protesteth almost too much. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that by actually drawing attention to the coat of arms in this way he may even accomplish the very thing that he nor we want to see happen. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply how many incidents have actually occurred where the coat of arms of the Republic has actually been held up to ridicule, has been destroyed or where contempt has been displayed against it. It seems to me that here again we have a case of over-reaction. Certainly as regards the penalties set out in clause 1, i.e. a fine not exceeding R10 000—and I am grateful that there is no minimum laid down—and imprisonment not exceeding a period of five years or that both such fine and such imprisonment, we shall be moving amendments in the Committee Stage to reduce these penalties in the same way that we moved amendments to reduce the penalties in terms of the Flag Bill.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation. Whilst one can readily understand that every precaution must be taken to protect the public—and I think one does do just that here—I find it extremely difficult to understand why subsection (2) should be necessary. For the benefit of hon. members let me refer to an instance where someone, for example at the Goodwood Show Grounds, is selling family coats of arms.

Of the Boraine family?

Yes, or of any other famous name in the country. The seller makes it quite clear that in selling me that coat of arms, it is not possible to verify that it is exactly perfect, correct or historically accurate. I accept it on those grounds. I receive a certificate from him and he tells me that it is an approximation and that he cannot guarantee it. That man is then charged in a court of law and he can be prosecuted. In his defence, that man cannot offer the fact that he has made it clear to the buyer that there are certain limitations to what he is offering. The specific provision provides that—

We have had representations from people who are in business and who are involved with this matter. My colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, will be developing this argument in far greater detail at a later stage in this debate and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will listen to his arguments. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we shall certainly listen carefully to his reply. If the hon. the Minister can satisfy us, we shall accept it. If, on the other hand, we are not satisfied with his reply we shall have to consider moving an amendment to the proposed new section 23A(2) at the Committee Stage. As I have already indicated, we shall be supporting this Bill at the Second Reading.

The final point is in regard to clause 3. Our approach in this regard is the same as that towards the Flag Bill last year in regard to the possible deportation of people who are not South African citizens and who are found guilty of an offence referred to in the proposed new section 22A inserted by clause 1. We shall be voting against that clause at the Committee Stage because we believe that these provisions are an over-reaction and quite unnecessary.

With those few words, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands told us that the official Opposition will support this Bill subject to certain reservations. The first point he made was whether it was necessary at this stage to effect these amendments and draw attention to the coat of arms and, perhaps, by drawing attention to it, actually encourage people who may act maliciously in this regard. However, the saying that prevention is better than cure still holds true. We know that this was indeed true in the case of the flag incident. The whole question of the flag was not publicized. No-one in this House tried to push the whole issue of the flag to such extremes, and bring it to the attention of people to such an extent, that it incensed or encouraged people to desecrate the flag. Nevertheless, people did this. The fact that they did this despite receiving no encouragement by way of publicity for the flag incident makes it obvious that this could also happen in respect of the coat of arms. Therefore I think it is imperative for us to take timeous steps to prevent people from abusing the opportunity they may have of tampering with the coat of arms. Therefore I think it is as well that the hon. the Minister has at this stage taken this preventive measure so that people who may at some stage consider maliciously desecrating the coat of arms, will refrain from doing so because the coat of arms is now protected by way of this penal provision. This could deter a person from maliciously desecrating the coat of arms. For that reason I believe that the arguments of the hon. member for Pinelands in this regard in fact lack merit.

We must bear in mind, as the hon. the Minister has stated, that the coat of arms of the Republic is, in fact, a symbolic expression of the unity which came about historically among the four provinces which comprise the Republic of South Africa. This unity, which is symbolized by the coat of arms, must be protected and preserved at all costs. To me, desecration of the coat of arms would be tantamount to desecration of the unity that was once achieved in the course of our history.

The coat of arms of the Republic of South Africa, as an emblem of State, occupies a place of equal value to the flag and the national anthem in history, but also in the existence of our country and its people. If this is true, it goes without saying that one emblem of State should be treated and protected in the same way as another. As we already protect the flag in this way, it is essential that the other State emblems be accorded equivalent protection.

To me, another very important matter is the whole question of the authority implicit in this particular emblem of State, the coat of arms. The coat of arms does not only appear on the correspondence and documents of the Government as a mark of distinction, but also appears on Government buildings, as well as on the Chair of the Speaker in the highest legislative assembly of this country. This coat of arms is therefore the symbol of the authority of the legislature. It is also the symbol of authority imprinted on the bench of every judge and magistrate—an expression of the authority implicit in and symbolized by the coat of arms. Therefore an attack on this coat of arms is at the same time an attack on the authority of the highest legislative body in this country, which it symbolizes, and of its courts of law.

I think that the hon. the Minister is fully justified in submitting this legislation to the House at this time in order to afford the coat of arms such protection as to deter malicious people from displaying contempt for it, holding it up to ridicule or desecrating it in any way. On these grounds it gives me pleasure to state that I wholeheartedly support the amendments embodied in the Bill.

The arguments concerning the family coat of arms which were also advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands, will be dealt with by another hon. member on this side of the House. I shall therefore let the matter rest there.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall also be supporting the Bill, although we have certain reservations regarding specific issues in it. We agree wholeheartedly with the insertion of the proposed section 22A. As we indicated at the time when the flag as national symbol was under discussion, this party feels very strongly about contempt being shown for the symbols of the State. I should like to point out though that the R10 000 is a maximum fine and it will be possible for the judiciary to use its discretionary powers in order to fine an individual on the merits of the case.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, we have some difficulties and I would like to point them out to the hon. the Minister. The effect of this clause is that nobody may sell or purport to sell any aspect of or a total heraldic symbol which is supposed to reflect the genealogy of a particular family. Although this may be fine in theory, there are many artefacts which may be similar to a coat of arms but which may in fact not be a classical coat of arms as contemplated in terms of the heraldic description of the coat of arms. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the intent of this Bill will be to protect the public rather than the heraldic concept, and if it is indeed the intention of the hon. the Minister to protect the public rather than the coat of arms, I believe we are going about it in the wrong way. After all, is it not the public’s right to indulge in a little bit of fantasy from time to time on a sentimental basis in terms of their supposed or actual hereditary or root stocks? I think for instance of the proud tradition of the Scots, who relate to a number of heraldic symbols, some of them royal, some of them ancient and some of them fictions of their imagination.

Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister to protect the public from unscrupulous dealers or is his intention really to protect the heraldic concept and all that goes with it? If it is his intention to attempt to protect the public, then we believe this is the wrong way to go about it. The public are fairly mature and discriminating consumers and I do not think that they are going to become suckers for smart-aleck sales talk as the hon. the Minister has intimated in his Second Reading speech. I would like to query that with the hon. the Minister. If the Bill goes through it will probably also increase the cost of obtaining family crests quite considerably. The hon. the Minister is acutely aware of the fact that in order to obtain totally legitimate and authentic family crests, it would really cost the earth, because the amount of money which would have to be spent on research to establish the legitimacy of the coat of arms will be very high.

Clause 3 deals with the deportation of anybody who comes from overseas, abuses his hospitality in this country and who then becomes subject to deportation. My party feels very strong that anybody who is hosted by this country should pay the ultimate penalty of deportation if that hospitality is abused in a manner calculated to discredit the symbols of the State. What he does in his own country is his own affair. I believe that if you are a guest in somebody else’s country, even if you have a permanent residence there, you should be subject to the ultimate penalty—deportation.

Subject to the replies of the hon. the Minister, we will be supporting the Second Reading but we may well again take up debate with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North debated very sensibly with regard to clauses 1 and 3. I think this is one aspect on which the NP and the NRP agree. As far as the NP is concerned, it is very clear that there are certain values relating to our country’s symbols of State authority, about which we feel very strongly. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that over the past few decades history has made us aware of a growing number of people in South Africa who have no respect at all for the symbols of authority of the Republic. It is sometimes better, since one knows that such people exist, to introduce legislation so that those who live in Southern Africa and are citizens of the Republic, know exactly where they stand with the Government. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to the hon. member at greater length in that regard.

This brings me to clauses 1 and 3, and in this regard I just want to say that the kind of people who are guilty of this kind of behaviour, are, in the first place, only a small group of ignorant people. I think that in the emergent generation there are probably many who are ignorant of the value of the symbols of the State. I therefore think that it is the duty of all educational institutions and of the State to impress upon the younger generation and upon those from beyond our borders who become new citizens of the Republic, the value and meaning of symbols of State. If one is ignorant about this, one will necessarily be ignorant about other things, because a State symbol is a symbol which has grown out of the history of a certain nation, a group of people of a specific country. I think that one would also have a far better understanding of history if one understood and respect the symbols, just as one would respect the symbols more if one knew the history.

There are also, of course, people in our community who are indifferent. In the world we live in, with its increasing population growth, there is also, of course, an increasing number of people who are indifferent. I think indifference and ignorance are often very closely linked. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that a civilized nation has such symbols, but I also think that it is only a civilized person who can respect and appreciate the symbols of a State.

There are naturally also political reasons why people act in this manner. Of course it is not only in South Africa that we encounter this. One encounters it everywhere. Often it is for political reasons that people destroy symbols of the State, and of course by destroying the symbols of authority, they also seek to destroy all power structures. I think it is a very good thing that the Government has adopted a very strong standpoint concerning this matter. In this legislation an amount of R10 000 is mentioned, but I think it is difficult to convert the value of the symbols of authority into monetary terms. However, I think it is inherent in the legislation that when the courts have to decide, they can see to what extent a person acted in ignorance and to what extent his action was irresponsible or deliberate. In other words, they will be able to determine the degree of the person’s political action against the State and can take appropriate action.

This brings me to the question of the deportation of people who are guilty of this kind of thing. It is only a wise and sensible Government that sends such people back to their country of origin, perhaps with the message that every country in the modern world we live in must see to it that its citizens are responsibly educated regarding this matter.

I should like to draw attention more specifically to clause 2, and I hope I shall be allowed to extend the discussion a little further than merely the provisions before us. We find that in the past few decades an increasing number of people in South Africa have shown an interest not only in family history, but also in their origin and thereby also in heraldry, in its present form as a developing science. And, of course, as interest increases in a specific aspect, the specific discipline becomes better organized or regulated, and I think this specific clause helps those who are concerned with family history—and heraldry too, of course not only to regulate matters, but also to place them on a scientific basis. I think this is a very important development in heraldry here in Southern Africa.

I should like to quote a few passages from recent works on family history and heraldry, for I think it is necessary that we who sit in this highest council chamber in the land refer to the works of people who have been concerned with these matters. Someone who, in the first instance did a tremendous amount of work with regard to this facet in the previous century, is, of course, C. C. de Villiers, and then, too, there is a man like Pama who, in our time, is doing exceptional work in this regard. In his introduction on Christoffel Coetzee de Villiers, Pama writes the following—

Heraldry as a whole and everything connected with it is a very interesting subject and yields much that is of interest. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the book of Heese, Nienaber and Pama, Families, Familiename en Familiewapens, one finds the interesting fact that the Viljoens for instance …

They are a grand lot.

Although they are a grand lot, as far as numbers are concerned, they are quite far down on the list. They are not too far down: There are many more of them than there are Boraines, but they are, nevertheless, fairly far down. Most people probably think the Van der Merwes are at the top of the list, but this is not true. The surname Jacobs comes first. Then come those with the surnames Botha and Smith. Only then come the Van der Merwes together with the Van Wyks. In our case, therefore, we have not only quantity, but quite a bit of quality as well. The Oliviers are also fairly far down, but the Boraines do not feature at all.

Very interesting, too, is the whole question of the origin of names. I shall return to heraldry later. In this book one can see that the origin of names can sometimes be very humorous. Let me give a few examples. These are names which one finds in Holland, one of our countries of origin. There one finds, for example, a Mr. Alzoo and also a Miss Aldus. One finds a certain Petrus Zondervan, a Gerrit Ditto and a Jan van ’t Zelfde. Then there is the family Naaktgeboren and a Mrs. Seldenthuis, a Mr. Tijaart Evenwel and a Miss Stiene Juistement. However, it is not only the Dutch who have interesting surnames, but the Germans too. One encounters surnames such as Hieundda, i.e. “Here and There”; Auszundein, i.e. “Out and In”; Kuchenbeiszer, i.e. “Cake Biter”, and others.

Together with this, one of course, there is heraldry which also has a very interesting and ancient history spanning 10 centuries. It is also interesting to note how some heraldic coats of arms originated. I should like to quote briefly an interesting sketch concerning the origin of a specific heraldic emblem from the book Afrikaanse Familiewapens, also by Pama. It concerns a family in Holland by the name of Van Duyvenbode. I quote—

In addition he acquired a specific motto.

I therefore think—and here I agree with the hon. the Minister—that a civilized nation and a nation which seeks to perpetuate civilization, will begin with the smallest social unit, and therefore with the name of that social unit, i.e. with surnames and then also with heraldry. This brings me to the clause in question.

At last.

Although the hon. members of the Opposition are critical that we are depriving certain dealers, shopkeepers, hawkers, etc. of their livelihood, this is not true. The hon. member asked us whom we are protecting by this means. I think we are protecting both the buyer and heraldry as a science and an institution. Both are being protected by this clause. The old sellers—I do not want to call them hawkers—who sold family coats of arms, were, in my opinion, not people who sought to exploit the buying public. Naturally they wanted to make money, but by their actions they still stimulated interests in heraldry and family history. I am of the opinion, however, that it is equally true that many buyers, people who were genuinely interested in this, were misled and their gullibility taken advantage of. Indeed, I think that the hon. the Minister will also be able to tell us that the Heraldry Council specifically asked for this legislation. They are the people who are responsible for heraldry in South Africa and it is my opinion that this legislation will undoubtedly assist them in the execution of their task. In my opinion, the Bill is merely a subdivision of the legislation to accomplish the regulation of Heraldry, and I want to congratulate the Council wholeheartedly on the work they are doing. I trust that there will not only be greater appreciation for the work they do, but also greater interest in what heraldry entails and what it means in a modern society.

Mr. Speaker, this is a rather strange debate on a rather strange Bill. [Interjections.] The Bill has two aspects. On the one hand the crest of the Republic of South Africa is at issue and on the other hand personal family crests. In importance the two could not be wider apart. Up to now speakers on the Government side have dealt almost exclusively with the first issue, which is in fact an imaginary situation. No one has up to now actually damaged the State crest. No one has advanced an argument that the State crest is particularly under threat at the present time. At this stage, therefore, it is an imaginary situation that is being dealt with. Yet the hon. the Minister devoted two-thirds of his speech to that aspect, while the hon. member for Koedoespoort devoted the whole of his speech to it. The hon. member for Rissik also devoted most of his speech to this aspect. They have all been dealing with an imaginary situation. On the other hand the other aspect of the Bill deals with the real situation that is going to affect the livelihood of a number of people. Moreover, it is going to affect a pleasure which has been enjoyed by some 30 000 people in the past 30 years, pleasure that was brought about by the industry manufacturing family crests.

For the benefit of the House I should like to explain what is at issue here. This legislation, in its present form, is going to put out of business people who are manufacturing articles like the crest I have in my hand here. This happens to be a crest of the Du Toit family and seems to be a high quality piece of workmanship. The gentleman who made this crest made representations to me. He appeared to be a respectable, genuine, decent businessman and has been in business for many years manufacturing this type of article for sale. Indeed, he has thousands of customers. This man tells me that he refers to respected authorities in the field. The hon. member for Rissik quoted one of these, i.e. Pama’s book on the heraldry of South African families. This particular firm refers to works of this nature and produces heraldic articles in different forms. The crest I have here is only one form. The same crest can be put on a piece of glassware, on an item of jewelry or cutlery, etc., and a market exists for these articles. This firm will approach the Du Toits, the Slabberts, the Viljoens and others and he will offer to provide this sort of service for them. He has met a demand because he has been in business for many years. The industry is put at some R3 million a year, with some 30 000 satisfied customers. It seems unreasonable that a piece of legislation should in fact stamp out almost completely, if not entirely, this industry. Most hon. members in this House will be familiar with this industry. We have already seen those people at showgrounds, sitting in novelty shops, etc. It is quite well established as an industry. I am told it employs some 200 people at the present time, people who have made this their career. Why then stamp out this industry? I have not yet heard an argument advanced about why this industry should be stamped out. This is going to be the effect of the Bill. This Bill strengthens what was tried to be achieved in 1980, but which was not finally achieved then. It only strengthens what was attempted in 1980. What happened in 1980 was that provision was made for the authenticity of these crests. I think rightly so. One should not be able to produce a crest purported to be that of the Du Toit family while it is in fact that of some other family.

Like Suzman, for instance. [Interjections.]

Or Botha.

This was achieved in the principal Act, as I understand it. In terms of the principal Act the purveyor could prepare these crests, and with a disclaimer, could make it clear to the buyer that it was not guaranteed to be genuinely connected with his particular family tree. With that disclaimer he was free to sell his crest without transgressing any stipulations contained in the principal Act. Why then should the legislation now be strengthened in order to preclude that man from even operating under a disclaimer?

Van der Merwe was taken for a ride.

Why take away the pleasure which people have obviously derived from this simple business? We have not had one valid argument to bear this out. Why does the hon. the Minister expect the House to pass the Bill in its present form without his advancing substantiating arguments to merit this step he wants to take, the step of stamping out this industry?

It seems that the only protection which are truly justified with regard to this area of heraldry would be, firstly, to take action to ensure that a crest and a name are linked and can be substantiated by some authoritative reference work. We have mentioned at least one of them already. That is a fair protection, and we would certainly support such a protection.

The second protection would be for those few people with registered crests—and I believe they are very few—who feel terribly strongly about their particular crest, who have perhaps developed it especially for themselves. There are some people who have done this, people who have sat down and prepared their own crest, and have registered it with the Heraldic Council. They have perhaps spent R500 to have this done. They are people who feel terribly strongly about this matter. They may even have traced their family history through many centuries in order to identify their particular family crest. Such people may feel so strongly that they want to register their crest. Let there be protection for such people by all means. Let anybody who has taken the step of registering his crest for himself and for his immediate family have that protection, by all means. Let a manufacturer also be prohibited from selling that particular registered crest to anybody off the street. Why then stop the trade in all the other unregistered crests that are sold and that have been assessed by various people, and even put into books as authoritative linkages to a particular name? Why do that? It seems to me that if we should introduce the two types of protection which I have suggested, we will have succeeded in doing all that is needed in his field. I have particularly been talking now in connection with clause 2 of the Bill. If the hon. the Minister is absolutely committed to making it an offence as is envisaged in clause 2, why should he go even further to achieve what is envisaged in clause 2 (2) and make it an offence even if a man has disclaimed authenticity? We really feel that in these two respects the Government should look further into this Bill and that the sort of amendments which we suggest should be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their contributions, and for the generally serious and reasoned way in which they expressed their support— albeit qualified support in certain cases—for this Bill. I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort dealt effectively with the one objection raised by the hon. member for Pine-lands. That was the objection that we were not letting sleeping dogs he here by prescribing a penalty in advance for an offence which, as far as we know, has fortunately not yet been committed. The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out very clearly and convincingly that the same argument could have applied the year before last in respect of the national flag. There was no penalty provision at that time, and in spite of that, those sleeping dogs woke up. They were not woken up; they woke up themselves. In other words, experience has shown that there are certain acts which are not merely sentimental, but which, as several speakers argued, constitute an attack on the authority of the State, which should be anticipated and in respect of which the necessary deterrents should be provided. One could also refer, with all due respect, to the provision in the Constitution which is intended to prevent any impairment of the dignity and honour of the State President. This has never happened either, and I think it is unlikely that it will ever happen. But responsible government nevertheless requires that provisions be laid down and measures be taken in advance for dealing with such matters. Therefore I think the objection that we are not letting sleeping dogs lie and are in fact suggesting such an offence to people by laying down an explicit provision, as advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands, was quite effectively dealt with by the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

The hon. member for Rissik also dealt very effectively, I believe, with the question of the hon. member for Durban North, i.e. “whether the intention of this Bill is to protect the public rather than the heraldic concept.” The hon. member for Rissik rightly said that the intention was to do both, and that is in fact so. This is not a question of the interests of members of the public only. In fact, one could say that if it were only a question of the fantasy, romanticism and almost playful imagination of certain members of the public, there would have been no need to regulate the matter. However, heraldry is essentially a matter which is either regulated in an orderly manner, or degenerates into a chaotic or superficial game. That, I believe, is also the answer to the representations made by the hon. member for Pine-lands, and endorsed by the hon. member for Constantia, in which they raised problems in connection with, in particular, subsection (2) of clause 2. All that is required by that provision is that any person who wishes to sell family coats of arms should submit those coat of arms to the Council for Heraldry for its approval. If one left the matter open and allowed any person to design family coats of arms, even if he did so after consulting authoritative works, as suggested by the hon. member for Constantia, there would be no control over the matter, and then the question would arise: Should we still have a Council for Heraldry to deal with this matter at all? One either has an orderly system of heraldry or one begins to detract from that system with all kinds of loopholes, and then the whole business collapses. The effectiveness of heraldry, I believe, is entirely dependent on order.

†The moment one has some genuine family crests and some non-genuine family crests the whole concept of family crests as such is degraded as it were. The point here is not whether we are protecting the trade of people who are continuing to make non-genuine family crests available, but whether we are in fact protecting the trade of the serious person who is promoting the circulation and the sale and the use of genuine family crests. There is nothing in the way of a genuine dealer, a serious dealer in family crests who designs his own crests for a specific family, based on whatever information he can get from historical sources or reference books, from going to the Council for Heraldry according to the provisions of the legislation and submitting it for registration, after which he can carry on in business while the crest will also be protected for the person for whom it is intended. It would involve a certain amount of expense. There would be a certain amount of administrative involvement. However, if we wish to have an orderly trade in heraldry as far as family crests are concerned which is really worthwhile and which will be in the interests of the serious tradesman in that it will make the trade a really valuable and profitable proposition, we have to protect the genuine family crest and this we can only do by removing the non-genuine one from the market.

But that is not what you are doing.

Therefore, while I have sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Opposition I think that we must view this matter from the point of view that we must either have a system that is worthwhile, which is worth money, as it were, or we must allow it to break up by introducing loopholes and thereby allowing the whole structure, so it seems to me, to collapse.

What you are doing is actually taking away common law rights.

No, we are not taking away any common law rights. We are simply protecting the common law rights of the serious trader in this type of business which is of importance not only in regard to the application of heraldry in formal public life but also for a private individual who may be involved in this regard.

You are saying that people have to register.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to refer to hon. members’ objection to the severity of the penalty. I believe that both the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Koedoespoort dealt with that. I want to emphasize again what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs also said at the time concerning the question of the flag. In the first place, it is true that this is a heavy penalty. If it had been merely a matter of sentiment, if it had been merely an emotional matter, there would have been no reason to impose a heavier penalty. However, apart from emotion and apart from sentiment, this is also an act which can be instrumental in attacking the authority of the State. It will probably not be possible to assume this and to prove it in all cases. That will depend on the facts of the case and the court concerned will have to decide whether a proper case has been made out. However, if this means is used to undermine the authority of the State, then the size of the fine and the period of imprisonment, or whatever else may be involved, are actually still fairly limited, for then we are concerned with the whole basis of our orderly society and our orderly existence. I am confident, Sir, that this matter can be left in the hands of the courts. No minimum penalty is being laid down here.

It is a guiding principle. If they see that the amount is R10 000, they are not going to fine such a person R20.

If the court finds that the circumstances are such that there can hardly be any question of an attack on the honour of the State by means of an attack on the symbol of the State—and I think one could possibly conceive of such cases—then surely it will impose a limited penalty. The same applies to the mental state of the person at the moment he commits the act. These are all factors which can be taken into consideration by our responsible courts. In addition, I believe, that the very variety of the penalties provided for in this legislation makes it possible to evaluate every case on the basis of its own specific circumstances. There are three kinds of penalties. There is a penalty in terms of money, there is a penalty in terms of imprisonment and there is a penalty in terms of possible deportation which will be implemented administratively. In some cases, the one may be used and not the other. However, this can be done in the light of the facts pertaining to each case and it can best be done by the judicial bodies that have to deal with it.

With this, I believe, I have dealt with most of the objections, except perhaps for the one objection raised by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member argued that the cost involved in distributing family coats of arms may be increased by this provision which is now to be inserted. It is true that the costs will be increased, but I think it costs fairly little at the moment to have a family coat of arms registered, and in fact, very valuable assistance can be obtained from the Bureau for Heraldry in this connection virtually free of charge. I believe that by means of this approach, we shall ultimately promote the trade in family coats of arms and place it on a firm foundation, so that the person buying the coat of arms will know that he is buying a genuine coat of arms and will therefore be prepared to pay a proper price for it. However, if a person starts peddling all kinds of coats of arms that are not genuine, the entire concept of these products will suffer and the industry will be undermined. So there is no question whatsoever of stamping out the industry; it is merely a question of stamping out superficial exploiters who are harming the industry by their dealings. The question is clear: Do we want to extend the authority to design heraldic emblems to every amateur in society who wants to join in, or do we want to create order in the industry and to make the proposals or creative work of individuals subject to the export judgment of the Council for Heraldry?

Once again, I wish to express my appreciation for the contributions that have been made, and I believe that I myself and other colleagues who have already taken part in the debate have effectively refuted the objections that have been raised. Therefore I believe that we have every right to ask this House to accept the Bill.

I want to conclude by conveying my appreciation to the hon. member for Rissik for examining the wider field of knowledge which lies behind the question of heraldry, as he explained in his speech. It is true that one of the factors that motivate a community to preserve its cultural values, to uphold its traditions, to survive, as the modern cliché goes, is to be found in the roots of a community, as they put it in America these days. Therefore the work which is being done in our country in connection with genealogy is of very great significance to the whole spiritual motivation of the community.

Therefore I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Rissik and to refer to the HSRC’s unit for genealogical research, which is doing excellent work in this connection and has published a whole series of family histories and genealogies. What is particularly admirable is the fact that they are not only doing the work of experts at their head office, but that they have also involved voluntary amateur collaborators from all over the country to do very valuable work there under the guidance of the genealogical department.

Finally, I should also like to associate myself with those hon. members who have spoken with appreciation of the Council for Heraldry. On this occasion I should like to express my appreciation, as well as that of my department, which is responsible for promoting the interests of the Council for Heraldry and the Bureau for Heraldry, for the outstanding guidance provided by Mr. Justice Victor Hiemstra, the chairman of that council. He is also the one who suggested the amendment concerned to us. There is also a person who is very little known, a very modest person, a person who always stays in the background, but who in my opinion has done extremely creative work in South Africa, and that is the State Herald, Mr. Hartman. He has not only helped to introduce order into this matter, but has also promoted a unique style of heraldry in South Africa, something which required great ingenuity, because in a certain sense we are actually overpowered by the great historic weight of the heraldic traditions of our English background as well as our Dutch and German background. I believe that Mr. Hartman is a person who also deserves a word of special appreciation on this occasion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments that are being proposed involve only two principles, while the other amendments are of a technical nature.

The insertion of the definition of “Director-General” in section 1 of the Act and the substitution for “Secretary” of “Director-General” and for “Director” of “Head” in the definition of “head of education” arise from the rationalization in the Public Service and the creation of a new post in my department.

As a result of the constitutional development in South West Africa in recent times, the Education Department for Whites in South West Africa can no longer be fully represented on the Committee of Heads of Education, and the definition of “head of education” is therefore being amended accordingly.

†It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that education makes very high demands on the financial means of the State and that these demands will increase. It has therefore become necessary to review the principle of free education presently laid down in section 2(1)(e) of the Act in order that the policy determined on the basis of that principle may be reconsidered by the different education authorities.

At present the principle stipulates that all education, including school books and stationery, must be provided free of charge in schools maintained, managed or controlled by a department of State, including a provincial administration, for pupils whose parents reside in the Republic or are South African citizens. Pupils receiving instruction on a part-time basis and apprentices do not receive free education. Fees may also be charged for tuition in extra-curricular subjects which are not offered as examination subjects and also in respect of pre-primary education.

The proposed amendment of section 2(1)(e) of the Act will enable the Minister to amend the present policy so that parents contribute financially towards the education of their children. Any change in the policy will of course only be effected after the Minister has consulted the administrators and the National Education Council, as stipulated in the Act. I wish to give the assurance that no changes in either the policy or the co-ordinated implementation of the policy by the different education departments will be introduced without the closed consultation and without ensuring the maximum co-ordination not only among education departments for Whites, but also with the departments responsible for education of Blacks, Coloured and Indians.

*It is also desirable that the principle of free education in its present compulsory form first be amended in order to enable the National Education Council and the Committee of Heads of Education to advise the Minister on the details of the new policy in terms of which parents will be expected to make a direct financial contribution to the education of their children. I must state very emphatically that it will take a considerable time before any drastic amendments to the present system of absolutely free education can be worked out, announced and implemented. Naturally such amendments will also have to be preceded by statutory amendments on the provincial level. Therefore the public need not be concerned at the idea that any drastic amendments are imminent. The matter will be handled with circumspection and notice of any changes will be given well in advance.

The other amendments contained in the Bill arise from changes which have taken place in designations and from the abolition of the Senate.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that through an omission, the words “including books and stationery” in the English text, on page 5, line 20, are not printed between square brackets and in bold type, as an indication that these words must be deleted; the corresponding words do appear in the Afrikaans text, however.

Mr. Speaker, seldom in the almost eight years that I have been in this House have I heard such a remarkable motivation for a piece of amending legislation as has just been advanced by the hon. the Minister. What the hon. the Minister has in effect said is that he is putting before us an amendment which is extremely far-reaching but that he will consult with all the people concerned and that nothing will happen before then. I have never heard anything so absurd in all my life. Surely, what has to happen is that the hon. the Minister should do the necessary consultation and make his plans first and then come not with an ad hoc change, but with a very well considered change. I want the hon. the Minister to know that we in these benches are certainly not going to support this amending legislation. We believe it is ill-timed and ill-conceived. It is amazing that the hon. the Minister has just completed another piece of legislation where he quite rightly said that matters concerning the flag, the anthem and the coat of arms of South Africa were always emotional as well as political issues. These are always emotional issues as well as political issues. Here we are talking about education, which involves hundreds of thousands of people, and this is also an emotional issue. The hon. the Minister, however, introduces this amending legislation out of the blue. He even has to correct the text, without any announcement or notice on the Order Paper. I must admit that it was very supprising to us when we read the English and the Afrikaans texts because, of course, they do not coincide. I assume, from what he has said, that in clause 3 on page 5 the words “including books and stationery” are going to be deleted. I also assume he will move the relevant amendment in the Committee Stage. That only makes it worse, however, especially if one looks at the principal Act. One only has to refer to section 2 involving the “determination of national education policy”. That hon. Minister will know full well that we have many problems with that policy, as stated in the principal Act. We have debated this issue on many occasions. Let me, however, refer specifically to section 2(1)(e) where it is stated—

Before us, however, we have amending legislation which seeks to remove that almost sacred principle that has been on the Statute Book since 1967, and only after its removal is there going to be consultation, but we are assured that nothing is going to happen, so we need not worry. As an Opposition, however, we have to be worried. We have to be the watchdogs. We have to be concerned, because what is happening here is that legislation is being amended. We therefore cannot take the word of a single Minister, and I mean no disrespect by that, because I am talking about the hon. the Minister of National Education and not the hon. gentleman sitting there in person. Once this measure is passed, immediate effect can be given to it, or certainly in six months’ time, and there are thousands of concerned parents who are going to look at this and are not going to pay all that much attention to the assurances, but are simply going to see that the law is being changed. I therefore urge the hon. the Minister right now to withdraw this legislation. It is untimely and premature, to say the least. If he is not prepared to do that, would he not at least refer it to a Select Committee before we are asked to vote? This is a big issue about which there are varying ideas. The PFP’s policy on education is well known. The education policy is very clear. Let me quote point 8 of that policy, where it is stated that we must ensure inter alia—

In clause 3 of the Bill, however, not only is the phrase “including books and stationery” to be deleted and the word “shall” to be replaced by the word “may”, but we also have the proposed insertion of the words “primary and secondary”. This will mean that it would be at the hon. the Minister’s discretion to decide whether or not parents should pay at primary and secondary levels as well as the pre-primary level. That is very far-reaching, and I am utterly astounded that the hon. the Minister would do such a thing. I cannot believe that he has the support of his own caucus for this. I cannot believe that there are hon. members sitting opposite who will sign this blank cheque.

It is clear that you did not study this well.

I looked at it very carefully indeed. The hon. member for Virginia is demonstrating his concern. There is no motivation whatsoever except that education costs money. That one pregnant sentence of course has an enormous content. I concede immediately to the hon. the Minister that education will cost much more. However, one should not go about it the way the hon. the Minister is doing.

At this very moment we have, hanging as it were in mid-air, the report of the De Lange Commission.

It is very clear on this point.

That is right. It is very clear, but the Government has not given its decision about the De Lange Commission. Am I right?

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, there is no change in that. The Government and that hon. Minister have told the House that until the end of March there will be submissions, responses, suggestions and recommendations and that, after all that, the Government are going to consider which of the recommendations of the De Lange Commission they are prepared to accept. Why on earth do we then act in this piecemeal ad hoc fashion? Surely the logical way of going about it is to wait for the De Lange Commission to complete its work, to have it recommendations, for the Government to produce a White Paper in which they say they will accept A. B. C and D and they will not accept whatever they do not want to accept, and then to have a Select Committee of the House appointed, or something of that kind, in order to move forwards and to review that which has been enshrined in our legislation up till now. There are many aspects which I believe ought to be reviewed. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister believes the same. That is why there is a De Lange Commission. However, to go about it in this way when so many people are affected seems ham-handed to say the least. It is unlikely the hon. the Minister. I cannot believe that he is responsible for this. He is an intelligent person. He is a careful person. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Virginia has not persuaded him to do this. In fact, that hon. member looks very concerned. He will probably vote against this.

Do you want to take a small bet?

You are day-dreaming.

Yes, I suppose the hon. member is again bound by the decision of the caucus. I am, however, sure that the hon. members will agree with me that this particular change is vague, to say the least. There is no motivation here. This Bill effects an enormous change. It is a far-reaching change affecting thousands of people, but all we got was a five-minute introductory speech. We are dealing with education for thousands of people throughout South Africa and we are making a fundamental change. We of the PFP cannot support it.

I say it is premature. I say that the right way to go about it is to look at the best commission on education we have had for years and to take into account all its recommendations. This is an involved subject. If, for example, one says “I believe that every child should have free education”, what does that mean? Does it mean tuition alone, or does it mean books? Does it mean sports equipment? There are so many aspects to this. It is not a simple thing. If one talks of compulsory education, does one mean compulsory up to std. 8, as obtains now for White children in South Africa, or is it suggested that we should extend that to matric, or bring it down to std. 4, i.e. compulsory for six years, which is another recommendation? None of these have really been debated. Until such time as we have debated them, until we know where we are going and what is required, I think it is a very premature piece of legislation.

The hon. the Minister, by way of interjection, said that the De Lange Commission is very clear on these matters. Certainly, it is true that the De Lange Commission’s report on many of its pages forces all of us to sit up and take notice of where we are going in the future as far as education is concerned. However, they themselves raise the various problems; they themselves debate the issue, if you like, and no finality has been reached in regard to some of the arguments that they put forward. We ourselves have not had an opportunity to reach some finality as we are waiting for the end of March and it may even be later.

I now wish to quote a paragraph appearing on page 29 of the De Lange Commission’s report—

On each of these one could make a separate speech, Sir—

It goes on on page 30 but I will not hold up the House by quoting further.

Whilst it is absolutely true that in terms of providing equal access to education for all in South Africa there are going to be enormous demands made, the way that the hon. the Minister has gone about it is completely back to front and illogical, and I cannot believe that so much support has been given to this Bill. It is almost as if the legislation was introduced and then there must have been some sort of storm of protest that persuaded the hon. the Minister to give so many reassurances in his introductory speech. I say the best way he can reassure people that education is going to be available and that the poor are not going to be at risk, is for him to withdraw this legislation, or at least to refer it to a Select Committee before Second Reading. This will enable us to establish uniform criteria that will hold good for everyone and not just for some.

Other hon. members on this side of the House will be dealing with different issues on the same clause, but in conclusion I want to say to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members on that side of the House that for a very long time, since 1967, the provision regarding free education has been in existence. On both sides of the House there are many hon. members who believe this to be a birthright. They believe that this is the means that enables people to develop and to find a place of opportunity in their own country. The Government is, however trifling now with something that is very, very central and very important to all of us. As we all know, there is another Act, the Education and Training Act, which provides something quite different and affects even more people. I want therefore to say to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness that there are going to be many Black people in South Africa who are going to say that so long as it only affected the White group, it was free compulsory education for 10 years. Then it meant that books and stationery were supplied. But now that we begin to look at the problems and the demands of equal education for all, we begin to introduce qualifications. Now we begin to make changes which are going to affect not only Whites but Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. They have the same aspirations, the same hopes, the same dreams, and that education key would unlock the doors that are still barred to them, in the same way as hon. members on both sides of the House have found in generations past. If we begin to do this, if we begin to raise all sorts of bogeys, of means tests for example, how do we then enable a poor White family to have access to education? How do we achieve that if we now already start to qualify it as we are doing today? I urge hon. members of this House not to support this legislation, but to allow appropriate time for study and for careful thought so that we can proceed as a whole and not in a piecemeal fashion, which is the way in which we are doing it here. We in these benches therefore object to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands saw fit to start off by telling the hon. the Minister that in all the years he had been in this House he had never heard a Minister present such a motivation for legislation. He referred specifically to the fact that consultation would only take place after the Bill had been passed by Parliament.

I also want to put it to the hon. member for Pinelands that in all the years I have been in this House I have never witnessed such arrogance and such a lack of the insight gained from studying a Bill as I did today listening to that hon. member. If it is nasty of me to say so, I just want to say that I am only being as nasty as the hon. member for Pinelands was in what he said about the hon. the Minister. I shall try to indicate that the hon. member for Pinelands was barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Just listen to who is talking.

I find it ironic that the hon. member for Pinelands should have ended his speech with a moving plea of a purely political nature that he tried to drag in here in regard to national education, the education of our children. This was quite obvious to me. I have known the hon. member for quite a number of years now. Personally I found the way in which he tried to turn this debate into a political issue here this afternoon quite shocking.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to that hon. member at the back there, against the wall.

Why not?

Because he is a pipsqueak.

The hon. member for Pinelands saw fit to ask why the hon. the Minister did not first hold the necessary consultations before he introduced this legislation in this House. However, it is stated quite clearly in section 2 of Act 39 of 1967, the principal Act, that the determination of education policy shall take place after consultation with the Administrators. The principal Act also provides—in section 4—that there shall be a National Education Council that shall advise the Minister on the formulation and implementation of policy. Section 6 of the principal Act provides that the Committee of Education Heads shall advise the Minister on the implementation of the policy formulated.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a moment; first give me a chance. It is quite obvious that before this legislation was introduced, the necessary consultation took place. After that there will be liaison in respect of the implementation of the policy, as the principal Act provides. This legislation is therefore not premature.

It is.

It is therefore not necessary to argue that there should first be consultation with this body or that. After all, the question that arises is what body is responsible for legislation. Is it the provincial council, the third level of government, or the central Government? Surely the central Government has the right to decide what legislation should be introduced after the necessary consultation has taken place with whoever the Government deems fit, and subsequently to effect the necessary liaison and co-ordination in respect of the implementation of the policy.

However, what else was the hon. member for Pinelands doing? I again want to accuse him of having acted improperly in attacking the hon. the Minister on the omission from the English version of the Bill—I agree that it is unfortunately true—of the words in parentheses concerning books and stationery. The hon. member argued about this and asked why such basic requirements as books and stationery should be taken away. Why did it not also appear in the English text? It was a mistake, he said. I accept that. But what is important to me is that that provision has appeared in the Act over the years as an extension of the principle of free education. It appears in the Afrikaans text and I do not think it really caused the hon. member for Pinelands any unnecessary inconvenience. I am convinced that the hon. member was aware that it was merely an omission. Therefore it was not necessary to kick up such a fuss about it.

He did not do his homework.

The hon. member for Pinelands went on to talk about the inclusion of the words “primary” and “secondary”. If one looks at the Bill—and this is why I say the hon. member does not know what it is all about—one sees that section 2 of the principal Act is being amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (e) of subsection (1)—

Surely it is a fact that over the years pre-primary pupils have been excluded because they did not receive free education, but paid for it. The same applies to apprentices and special education, for example music education, certain facets of art education, etc. All that has now happened is that the insertion of “primary” and “secondary” will give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to change specific facets that might have been free education—not to remove free education entirely.

How do you do that?

I shall come back to this aspect.

All you are going to do is to include primary and secondary; that is a big ball.

In the context in which it appears, it is quite clear that what is involved is not the repeal of the principle of free education in its entirety. The hon. member referred to the De Lange report again. He said we should first have studied the De Lange report and then made proposals. It is quite true that persons and bodies have until 31 March to make recommendations in respect of the De Lange report, as the hon. member said, but the point I want to make is that when it suits the hon. member he is very quick to seize on certain things recommended in the De Lange report to support his argument. In the De Lange report the cost of completely free education is very clearly discussed—and to save time I shall not spell it out here. I shall come back to this aspect because there is a tremendous difference between free education and compulsory education. If one does not accept that, one will of necessity argue as stupidly as the hon. member for Pinelands has just done.

So you have accepted the De Lange Commission report?

The hon. member said that free education had been the birthright of our children since 1967. But when, since 1967, has free education meant education completely free of charge? The hon. member must tell me that. Not once since 1967 has education completely free of charge applied in practice—not even for compulsory education. When was it that we still had to pay for books, school grounds, school halls, and the like? In other words, it is not true that since 1967 there has always been education free of charge. The hon. member may as well listen because what I am saying is true.

No.

I challenge the hon. member to stand up and say that. If he was in a private school he may have a different tale to tell. I am referring to public schools, however. The hon. member for Yeoville must not venture into this debate. I do not think he is up to it.

Your children did not pay for their school education.

Just listen to the hon. member displaying his ignorance.

It is true that an extremely important principle is contained in clause 3, namely free education. I am not arguing about this, because it is true. However, this principle is not being rejected per se. It is not being rejected per se in this amendment. [Interjections.] I know what that hon. member is going to say. The fact remains that the word “shall” is being replaced by the word “may”. I know the hon. member a moment ago said that this Minister might adhere to this but a subsequent Minister might not. However, the argument that the principle is not being totally deleted remains a valid one. It is not being rejected per se.

Mention has also been made of books and stationery. This is now being deleted. This I concede. What is the effect of this? What is the effect of the word “shall” being replaced by the word “may”? I have already pointed out that the necessary liaison procedure in respect of consultation has been laid down in sections 2, 4, and 6 of the principal Act, consultation the Minister must carry out before certain policies can be introduced and implemented. It is therefore important to note that this amendment will not result in the Minister being able to determine overnight that free or gratis education is to be abolished and that the parents of White children must bear the total costs of all facets of education. If this idea emanates from this House it is incorrect. If any hon. member of the Opposition wants to make such a statement I say he is doing so to give the general public a false impression and he is doing so deliberately because this is not what this amendment seeks to do. Whatever this Minister or a future Minister wants to do in this regard, co-ordination will have to be a tremendously important factor, and not only co-ordination between the central and provincial authorities but also between the various education departments, White, Coloured, Asian and Black. If this does not take place, in accordance with the recommendations of the De Lange Report, and in accordance with the policies of the Government and the ideas of the hon. member for Pinelands, no changes will be made. It would therefore be quite wrong to create the impression that free education is a thing of the past now, because this is not true.

There is a second very important aspect, namely what does the term “free education” involve? Does it include all facets? Does it for example include the availability of the school and the payment of teachers’ salaries? Does it include teaching aids, school halls, school grounds, books and stationery, school buses, etc? Does it include all these things? What does history tell us in this regard? Let the hon. member for Yeoville, who thought he was so clever, debate this matter. It is quite clear from history that initially we did not even have free teachers. Initially we did not even have free buildings. We went through such a period. After that we understood free education to mean the erection of buildings and the availability of teachers. However, we did not have free school books. There was the so-called free book system, which gave a pupil an opportunity, when his parents were in a certain income bracket, to qualify for free books, but other pupils had to buy their own books. Free textbooks only came later. [Interjections.] If hon. members are thinking of school fees, I just want to tell them that up to the present day school fees have never been compulsory. It was therefore not true that school fees had to be paid. Only later did we get free stationery and afterwards school matters were considered to be a free service. Only at a later date were specific teaching aids made available, first on a so-called rand for rand basis and subsequently free of charge. Only recently have school grounds been made available free of charge to schools; previously school grounds could not be established free of charge. The hon. member must learn. At that stage school grounds were established out of school funds, by the parents.

What did you pay for the education of your children? [Interjections.]

What was the result of this historic development? The De Lange Report indicates very clearly that it would cost astronomical amounts if absolutely free education were to be given at all levels to all children in the Republic of South Africa.

That is not true either.

But, Harry, you are a Rip van Winkle.

Not at all.

Now my question is simply: Can any State afford it?

Yes.

If the hon. member for Yeoville thinks he is cleverer than the compilers of the De Lange Report, he should get up and speak. [Interjections.]

There is another important matter I want to mention, i.e. the educational principles which are being combined in this legislation. The first principle I want to touch on is the principle of the involvement of the parent and the community in the education and the training of the child, not only by the sympathy shown but also by the acceptance of certain duties and responsibilities, including financial ones. There is no doubt about this; it has been proved in practice. It is only when the parent is more than sympathetically involved in the school or institution that it becomes of special significance to him. At the root of education as a whole lies the fact that it is a good thing to get that involvement, that sacrifice on the part of the parent.

There is a second educational principle implicit in this, especially as regards stationery and textbooks. After the abolition of the system of free books and after the era had ended in which we had to pay for textbooks and stationery ourselves we definitely experienced a decline in the respect shown by children for the books they received free of charge. During my years as a teacher it was my experience that a child developed a basic love and respect for his books if he knew that his father had bought the book for him; he was the only one to use it and he could keep it for his own bookshelf after he had finished using it. However, what is the position now? There is therefore educational value in the fact that one will not merely receive that book free of charge, because by the time one does get it, four or five pupils have already used it. The pupil uses it for a year and then it is returned.

Why did you not raise this before?

The question now arises whether the State should be completely absolved of all its responsibilities. My answer to this question is definitely not; this is already the premise. The State, the parents and the community should however, be partners in the establishment of training facilities for the children. That is the ideal situation. In my opinion, therefore, the State will still have to retain its responsibility for such basic requirements as buildings, teachers, etc. I know the hon. members can ask me what “basic” means. I think it is important to ask this. In the De Lange report— which the hon. member for Pinelands correctly pointed out has not yet been debated—a very clear distinction is drawn between compulsory and free education. But what is important—and I endorse this personally—is that when one speaks of compulsory education, it should inevitably follow that it should be gratis. However, when it goes past that point it is not necessary. The proposals of the De Lange Report in fact deal with the fact that one should have compulsory education for a period of six years. This is compulsory education, and is gratis, and I feel it is a sound premise. Then follows a further three years, the period of compulsory education. This is a total period of nine years. According to the recommendations in the De Lange Report this should also be gratis. I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government, but I feel there is consequently a distinction between free and compulsory education. The fact remains that the State cannot be relieved of its responsibility in respect of this basic education, the first years of education.

It is equally true however that the community and the parent also have a responsibility in respect of education. Buildings and salaries in any case form the greatest percentage of the total education budget, as the hon. member for Pinelands knows. This means that the State must do its duty, but that the community and the parents must also make their contribution to provide their children with the best of education, aids, facilities, etc. I feel that the provision of education over and above the norms laid down by the central authority, can be financed by the local education communities from their own resources in an attempt to meet the tremendous financial obligations in respect of education. Naturally this must be co-ordinated at national level to eliminate possible differences between the provinces. In my opinion therefore, there can be no suggestion of a lowering or curtailment of education opportunities. This measure is not really an economizing measure—that would be putting it too simplistically—but rather an educational principle which also takes into account the realities of demands.

I conclude by warning all political parties, inside and outside this House, as well as other individuals and bodies, to accept it as their responsibility to obtain only the best education for our children and to be careful about passing judgement on this legislation. It is an irresponsible act to try to make political capital out of this issue or to set up straw dolls and then try to knock them down again. Such behaviour will not ensure the best education opportunities for all population groups in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia dwelt at length on the principles contained in this Bill. The hon. member for Pinelands rightly pointed out that we are dealing here with a very important principle. This is a completely altered approach to education in South Africa. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister precisely what his motivation for this particular Bill is. Does his motivation lie in the prospect that one controlling department will be established in the future to control the standards of all the different departments—White, Indian, Coloured and Black—or is it a matter of our financial resources becoming exhausted and that in future we shall perhaps not have adequate funds for education in general? We on this side of the House believe that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are motivated by the fact that soon we shall have to apply equal principles in respect of all the different population groups in the country. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned this. He said that up to now the Whites have had more or less free education. They do of course make voluntary donations to the different schools, but basically they have free education. In contrast to this, the Blacks have to pay for such things as the books they use at school. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that we would encounter difficulties if we were to apply a principle of equality for all schools. However, the question which arises is whether it would be possible to provide better education on the one or the other principle for the various population groups in South Africa. If anything is certain it is that there is no such thing as “free education”. One has to pay for it, whether by way of taxation or by way of direct payment. Ultimately the parent has to pay for it. That is of course where the problem arises. If we want to apply the principle of equality for all population groups the input cost per student will have to be more or less the same. I say “more or less” because naturally there are different infrastructures, standards, etc. Generally speaking someone has to pay for that education, of course and ultimately it is John Citizen who has to do so. The money could of course be collected in two different ways. It could be collected by way of direct payment by the parent for school books or for the education offered, or it could be collected indirectly by way of taxation—one would then call it “free education”.

†This is, of course, precisely where the problem comes in. The law was amended in 1967 but has remained constant for quite some time, and as things stand at present the thrust in education in South Africa has been towards giving as many people as possible in the South African population free education, and by “free” I mean that the education is paid for indirectly by way of taxation and not directly by the levying of tuition fees. One only has to look, however, at the problems we are going to have in applying that principle of free education to all the population groups. I think the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia will agree that it would be a monumental fiscal task. Recent studies in KwaZulu have indicated, for example, that to obtain parity for Black education, assuming that the teachers were there, infrastructural costs in KwaZulu alone would amount to R785 million, something like 31/2 times the total provincial budget for Natal. [Interjections.] So it is going to cost a considerable amount of money, but the question is whether that money should be derived or obtained from general taxation—in other words a debt paid by society as a whole in South Africa—or whether it should be levied on the parent individually.

That is the test.

That is the gravamen of the problem. For a number of reasons we in the NRP were initially very attracted by this legislation. Firstly we were attracted by the fact that it, would give a modicum of devolution of power from the central Government to the provinces. It would also change the compulsory “shall” to “may” when it came to charging for education. That would leave the discretion or decision-making capability in the hands of the provincial council, where it should be because education is an intimate, domestic affair that should, in fact, be left in the hands of the provinces, except for overall co-ordination and the setting of standards.

There would, however, be a certain amount of difficulty in accepting that devolution of power. Let me explain this. The central Government could decide to cut off funds, as has happened so often. We saw it, for example, in the last fiscal year when the road-building programme in Natal had to come to a stop because the central Government discontinued the large grants to the province for road-building. In this case the same thing could also happen with the provinces. Although the provinces would have the discretion to exercise the prerogative in deciding whether or not to charge a direct fee, the Government could compel the provinces to levy school fees for tuition, books and stationery by simple turning off the financial resources from the central coffers to the provincial coffers. Therefore the discretion of the provinces would be extremely limited.

We must, however, take the matter a little further. It is a fact of life that Black parents cannot afford to pay either the same taxes or the same educational fees as Whites and that the tax burden or cost burden for educating the whole population of South Africa would have to rest with those who derive the greatest fiscal benefit in South Africa and therefore pay the heaviest taxes. Therefore, if we change the principle to one of levying a fee on the parents, it means that an unfair burden will have to be carried by the parents of school-going children and that the debt will not be carried by the whole of society, while it is the whole of society that will benefit from improved education for the total population.

Should a bachelor have to pay the same amount?

Yes, he pays his tax for a developing country. He pays tax for the sake of prosperity and for the sake of peace in South Africa. Education is a very important input into that system in order to ensure peace and prosperity. I think the hon. member for Rissik will agree with that. Bachelors would also have to pay tax, provided they had reached a specific level of income. There must be many bachelors who have a very good income.

There are also many bachelors who have children.

Horace, you are a “Vuil Uil”.

There are many young men, too, who have children.

†The problem we have with this legislation relates specifically to clause 3. We have very little difficulty with other clauses. We can talk about the powers the hon. the Minister is now going to have to negotiate and liaise with universities and technikons for the provision of specific courses and with regard to teaching in secondary schools, but that we regard as quite acceptable. The gravamen of the problem lies in clause 3. We believe that compulsory education for all population groups should be objective. I am talking about compulsory education up to a standard where the individual, in the words of the De Lange Commission, “is self-sufficient in life”, if I may use that shorthand term. One can argue whether self-sufficiency is achieved at a particular level, but there is no question about it that the minimum self-sufficiency level in education rises every year. As technological developments take place, and continue to do so, so the minimum level of self-sufficiency in education will change. I do not think it will be far-fetched to say that the self-sufficiency level today is at least Std. VIII in anybody’s language. That means ten years of basic education for the individual. In order to achieve that, it should be the policy and objective of the Government to provide free compulsory education for all population groups at least up to that level. If it is going to apply up to Std. VIII, in which case the infrastructure of the high school is already in use, one may as well include Stds. IX and X. That will leave tertiary education and the cost factor involved in that with the parents, although even here costs are so high that large State subsidies will be necessary.

The difficulty my party has with clause 3 is that, as we are on record as having said before in public, we fully support the principle of a parent contributing towards the cost of stationery and books. We are fully in accord with the hon. member for Virginia when he said that a greater degree of respect will be shown for property if that property is purchased by the pupil. I am sure that the hon. member for Pinelands will agree with that. Hon. members of the official Opposition as a whole will probably agree with that as well. It is the educational side which presents the difficulties, because the cost of that should be covered through general taxation and not charged to the parent. Education, if it is compulsory, should also be free. It is impossible to make basic education compulsory and then to charge a fee for it which some people may not be able to afford. We therefore considered one stage the possibility of moving an amendment, but as the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. the Minister will know, that is impossible. In the present position it would not be possible for us to indicate that we should like education to be free—i.e. “shall” will apply to it—while there may be a charge raised by the authorities in respect of books and stationery. Because that is impossible, we shall not be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill. We will, however, see what we can do to ameliorate that position during the Committee Stage.

However, Sir, my party is on record, and we still stand by it, as stating that a parent should, if he is in a position to do so, make a contribution towards stationery, books and the educational process for his children.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister—and I told him this in a previous debate—that if there is one human right that every citizen in a country can legitimately claim, then it is the right to education. Society owes that individual the right to education. We believe that that is the only legitimate human right that any citizen can claim of the State, and that the cost thereof should be spread right across the full spectrum of society and not be borne by the parents individually.

I should therefore like to tell the hon. the Minister that we in these benches will not be supporting the Second Reading. We would prefer to see compulsory free education up to the optimum level of self-sufficiency available to all race groups, under one central, co-ordinated department that will set the standards. Beyond that, there can be the devolution of power at the discretion of the provinces and the different race groups to implement those standards as they see fit. We regret therefore that we will not be able to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Durban North because he is a reasonable man, someone with whom one can conduct an argument. He adopts a moderate standpoint and it is a pleasure to reply to it. However, before I come to that, I just want to say that in my entire life I have never been so shocked by the behaviour of an hon. member in this House as I was by the behaviour of the hon. member for Pine-lands this afternoon. One received the impression that he had come here totally unprepared and then while he was sitting and listening to the hon. the Minister, had tried to find political arguments to which he could link his speech. After that he behaved in such an emotional manner—and here I must agree with the hon. member for Virginia— that he gave the impression of not having made a study of the Bill or of the hon. the Minister’s objectives.

I do not think there is anyone here in the House who can call into question the proud record of the National Party Government with regard to education and the development of an education policy. Nevertheless, this afternoon the hon. member for Pine-lands uttered the first “White” sentence that I have ever heard from him, viz. the question: What is going to happen to the poor White child whose parents cannot afford to pay for his education? This practically shocked me to the bone because that hon. member cannot even imagine poorer conditions than those that our little group experienced during the thirties.

Don’t be ridiculous!

He is not aware of the poor conditions that we had to struggle with at the time in order to obtain the requirements for our education.

We had to go to school barefoot.

In those years we received half a crown from the Government to buy a donkey on which we had to ride to school, but the hon. member is not aware of that. At this stage, however, he comes here and talks about the poor White child whose education is supposedly being endangered. [Interjections.] However, this is not what the Bill before us is about.

In 1948, the Government practically had to build education in South Africa up from nothing. Sites for schools had to be laid out, and today there are still White schools in South Africa that do not yet have their own school hall. When I was involved in education, I often bought chairs for my school hall from school funds. However, the hon. member is acting very emotionally this afternoon and is making out that these conditions have never existed in education before. There are still schools today who are trying to lay out sites for schools using their own funds. At this stage there are school principals who approach parents for money to purchase certain supplementary handbooks. Eventually those handbooks are donated to the school and can be used by other pupils the following year. There are still parents who have to give their children money so that they can buy a file for roneo’d notes at school because the school does not have the funds to give them to the pupils. Nevertheless, hon. members on the other side are speaking as if this type of thing is not happening in education.

Thus far we have traversed a difficult road in developing education, but in its projections for the future today, if the Government sees that we are going to reach a stage where we will really not be able to manage with the available tax contributions, what then? If it sees that these things can no longer be reconciled with one another, and it becomes clear from its projection for the future that it could be detrimental to education—which is the last thing it wants to happen—it can therefore now approach the Minister in good time with the request that it be given the right to entrust an educational committee with the task of investigating possible ways in which substantial support for education is possible without asking for free financial support from the Central Government. This is how I interpret this legislation. Therefore I do not know why hon. members opposite have to become so emotional about it.

You will soon find out; that is sure.

Mr. Speaker, I think that of all of us present here. I am probably the one who has most recently been involved in education. As recently as two years ago, parents were discussing this matter seriously. When it is their children that are at issue, when the minimum that their children need is at issue, parents become very upset. We can understand this because children are a parent’s most precious possession. That is why a parent is prepared to spend all his money on his child—his private money, his loan money, whatever money it may be. During 1977 and 1978, when mighty storms raged in education and increasing demands were being made of the State, in private and formal conversations, parents declared that they were prepared to reach into their pockets on condition that the money that they gave, would be spent directly on the education of their children.

I want to put it clearly today that our community is ripe and ready for this matter, provided that it has certainty with regard to the spheres in which its money is spent. Indeed, the hon. the Minister himself gave the assurance that this matter is going to be referred to a committee of education heads. Therefore I do not understand why hon. members have to call this matter into question. Nor is it necessary for the integrity of the hon. the Minister to be called into question as far as his assurance with regard to the planning that is going to be undertaken in order to find these funds is concerned.

I should like to refer to an argument that was raised by the hon. member for Virginia with regard to the question of education. While the hon. member for Virginia was delivering his speech, I was reminded of a dictionary, which should still be somewhere in my house today. It is a dictionary that I purchased in 1947. Those were the years when we still had to purchase our own handbooks. In the front of that dictionary I read that it was sold for the first time in 1932 for 11/6d. When I purchased that book in 1947—i.e. after 15 years—there was already a long list of names in the front of the book, names of people to whom it had belonged previously. Nevertheless I still paid 10/3d for it. Over a period of 15 years the value of that book had therefore decreased by exactly l/3d. In terms of today’s money this is something in the order of 12,5 cents, if I am not mistaken. However, what is important, is that that dictionary is still intact today because in those days, when I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I learned to appreciate it and to look after it.

If, for instance, we were to visit a school today that had purchased a set of new handbooks for chemistry in January 1981, a year ago, for nearly R15 each, what would we see? The school has made the money available, has purchased the handbooks and given them to each pupil without charge. The pupils may have been asked in a polite way to put a plastic cover on the book if need be. If they did not want to do so, it was probably not even necessary. Now, after a year, we could do well to look at what that book costing R15 looks like, after one owner has used it for only one year.

Then we come to the standpoint that the hon. member for Virginia adopted on this matter. He asked: Is there not sense in the standpoint that we should think seriously, for the sake of educational values, about whether we should not do some of these things? I am not saying that it is going to be this or that, but could we not discuss whether it might be worthwhile to do it in this way?

I am pleased to support this legislation of the hon. the Minister. It may be true that there are many facets of the legislation and that there are things that we shall have to discuss seriously with one another in the future. One thing that we must clear up is when the parent has to stand in for certain costs with regard to education. He will then definitely take a careful look at his other expenses and decide whether it would not be worthwhile to make this investment in education. It is clear to me that we shall have to move forward to a point where the parent himself will have to make a contribution towards the education of his child. Somewhere in the future it is going to become unavoidable, and therefore I am pleased to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brentwoord paid tribute to what the NP has done for education since 1948. I say that certainly some things have been achieved, but on the other hand I would also suggest that in respect of children who are not White the education of those children has indicated neglect and selfishness over many years. This has landed us in the crisis situation in which we find ourselves today. I would also suggest that during this period a great deal of arrogance and intolerance has been shown on the part of the NP towards those parents and children who are White but do not happen to subscribe to the tenets of Christian National education.

You do not even know what the position was in 1948. You do not know what you are talking about.

The issue covered by clause 3 which we have been discussing is certainly an extremely complex one. It refers to the question of free education, compulsory education and so on. It cannot be viewed in isolation. I should also like to mention some of the difficulties that have not really been satisfactorily resolved by hon. members on that side of the House.

Firstly, there is the point that was raised by both the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Durban North in regard to an explanation as to how we are going to have compulsory education if it is not free. The De Lange Commission report has commented upon various aspects of this, but we heard nothing at all from the hon. the Minister in this regard although the preceding paragraph in the principal Act refers to compulsory education. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned his philosophy in this regard and basically quoted aspects of the De Lange report. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister himself to tell us whether the hon. member was talking on behalf of the Government in terms of that philosophy in relation to compulsory education. Is that the Government’s policy as far as that aspect is concerned?

Mr. Speaker, we also have this question of the words in brackets. I am not talking about the words “including books and stationery” but the words further on in lines 25 to 28. It was provided previously that education shall be provided free of charge other than certain categories such as pre-primary and others. It is now the intention to substitute the word “may” for the word “shall” and to add within the brackets to which I have already referred the words “primary and secondary” which serves to increase the categories that may be excluded. The inclusion of the word “shall” made the position quite clear because, in respect of the categories to be excluded the Minister could decide that they should or should not be excluded, as the case may be. The question that now arises— and it has not been answered—is whether the categories previously exempted may not now be allowed free education by the authorities. Will the authorities concerned be obliged to provide such education in respect of such categories or will they not be permitted to provide it in respect of those categories? We need some elucidation on that point.

The third area of confusion, which again shows that the way in which these provisions are set out is totally inadequate, is the whole question of White school education being free at present. I do not wish to become involved in arguments within the hon. the Minister’s party. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister referred to the present system of totally free education. However, in his speech, the hon. member for Brentwood proceeded to tell hon. members on this side that we were being stupid if we imagined that there was totally free education. He mentioned examples such as that of a school having to buy chairs, textbooks and so on out of its own funds. If that hon. member has this particular problem in regard to not understanding the meaning of free education, he should speak to the hon. the Minister, not to us. However, this again serves to highlight the point raised by the hon. member for Pinelands, viz: What in fact is free education? In regard to the amendment mooted by the hon. the Minister in his speech in regard to the deletion of the words “including books and stationery”, the hon. member for Virginia seemed quite happy that those items were not part of education as such in terms of the way in which the word is being used whereas, as I have said, the hon. member for Brentwood on the other hand considers chairs for school halls to be part of education. Therefore, one finds oneself in this confusing atmosphere in regard to the matter we are discussing. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the other side are muttering and shaking their heads. The fact remains, however, that the hon. member for Virginia said that books and stationery were not part of education in the sense in which the word is used in this legislation and therefore that the deletion of the words “including books and stationery” did not make any difference. On the other hand, the hon. member for Brentwood said that we did not have free education and, in order to illustrate the fact that we did not have free education, he said that schools had to pay for chairs for their halls. I agree with the hon. member for Virginia that if we take education in its broad sense we do not at present have totally free education in White schools. For example, the allocation for library books is far less than what a school needs and the same holds good in respect of grounds, equipment and so forth. There are numerous examples if one wants to talk about education in a broader sense. However, I mention these matters so as to emphasize the point that his whole issue is very complex. I feel that to effect an amendment which seeks merely to change one word is really not the proper way in which to deal with this matter. The key question is surely: What priority are we going to give to education in this country? This applies to the education of all race groups. I was astonished, in view of the importance of the change which this legislation envisages, to hear the limited motivation provided by the hon. the Minister. All he said in motivation is—

This is true and has been going on since time immemorial. He then went on to say—

The only reasons he gave to review the principle are that education makes high demands on the financial means of the State and that the demands will increase, something which has been going on for a long time.

The hon. member for Virginia obviously did not feel that those motivations were sufficient. He then decided to announce some new educational principles which were going to apply and which would therefore justify the change to be brought about by this legislation. These principles are essentially the following: The concept of free education must be abandoned. This leads one to realize that the 1982 principles now are that parents must pay for some or all of the education of their children. The second principle is that books are abused when they are provided free of charge by the State or the school. These are the 1982 educational discoveries of the hon. member for Virginia. With all due respect to the hon. member, I think it is hardly coincidental that the De Lange report together with the analysis it provides has given rise to these new principles. Personally I do not believe for one moment that were it not for the De Lange report we would not have this amending legislation before us today.

The question of priority remains the key question. Let us look at just one figure. The percentage of total Government expenditure on education amounted in 1973-’74 to 17,9% but in 1979-’80 it had dropped to 15,5%. In relation to Government expenditure other things had squeezed out a bit more of the money. At 17,9% in 1979-’80 we would have been spending an extra R332 million in that one financial year on education; in other words, if the Government had kept education at the same priority level in terms of its percentage expenditure, we would have had R332 million more for education in 1979-’80 and of course similar amounts in the following years.

In the Interim Memorandum the Government issued in response to the De Lange report it had this to say about its attitude towards education—

This we read on the very first page. In paragraph 4 on page 3 we read—

All I can say is that if this legislation is an example of the further improvement of the quality of education in the RSA, it is a very strange way to go about it. It also places in doubt what sort of priority education is being given. That statement about the “further improvement in the quality of education” makes one wonder whether this Bill indicates the first sign of abdication from adherence to that principle.

During the course of the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands the hon. the Minister interjected something about the De Lange report and how an analysis of that report supported the view and the Bill presented today. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that in its Interim Memorandum the Government specifically said in paragraph 4—

We all know that interested parties have until the end of March to comment to the committee that is going to look into the matter further. Surely it is premature—as the hon. member for Pinelands has pointed out—to come now, contrary to the undertaking given in the interim memorandum last year, and start bringing about fundamental changes in our approach to education before the deadline for submissions. The challenges in education must be seen in the context of the educational needs of the country, in the context of the other community needs of the people of the country, as well as in the context of the present financing possibilities. The proposed amendments to the Act are an inadequate response to those challenges, and we in these benches can certainly not support them.

Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition is suffering from political anaemia, their condition in the sphere of education is much more serious, particularly with regard to their insight into the educational situation. This became apparent once again today. The Opposition may have specialists in other spheres, but in this specific sphere they are lacking.

The hon. member for Yeoville alleged by way of an interjection that now there is completely free education. I want to invite the hon. member to look at the situation in hostels at ordinary schools—I am not referring here to the boarding facilities of schools in terms of the Childrens Act—in order to see for himself how a formula is applied to calculate what sum the parent should contribute towards the board of his child. This practice holds good throughout. In the sphere of accommodation there is no question of free education, but it is nevertheless part of the education structure. Surely it is clear from this that the interjections that the hon. member for Yeoville made earlier on, were not true. If he is not aware of this practice, he knows very little about education.

You are therefore saying that food is now part of education?

But of course the board and care of children is part of the educational task. I am not denying it.

I am very glad that you say so.

The child’s participation in sport is also part of his education. We are not evading our duties.

That is not what your colleagues in the provincial council say.

Earlier on the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked: What priority does the hon. the Minister accord to education? The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is the last man to ask such a question. We do not measure priorities in terms of money alone, we also measure them according to the contributions of our sons and daughters who enter the teaching profession. What contribution has the hon. member made in this regard? What contribution has the hon. member’s party made towards the teaching profession by encouraging their children to take an active part in the profession and share in the educational task? These matters must be thrown open because hon. members on the opposite side of the House want to make politics out of a very fine principle. Three of my children will enter the teaching profession. I am convinced that they will do good work. I ask the hon. member for Pinelands: Can he say the same?

My children are not yet as old as yours.

Last year he and I exchanged a few ideas. I actually had the ideas, but he would not listen. He was really very angry with me.

Yes, of course, and I still have reason to be angry today.

Yes, the hon. member still has reason to be angry with those children of his. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens should not let the word “priority” pass his lips. As far as that is concerned, he should first put his own house in order.

If there were no Black children in South Africa, would this piece of legislation ever have been before this House?

There is a certain climate or set of circumstances in education that are not easy to define. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attended a decent school when he was young, a high school in the Transvaal. Therefore, I can ask him straightforwardly and frankly today—because I knew him when I was head boy of that fine school—what enriched his life as a scholar if it was not the involvement in school activities, those things that they planned and did together as a school, teachers and pupils together? Involvement leads to motivation. This is simply true. After all, there are four pillars in the education structure. We all know this, but I am mentioning it nevertheless. There is the State, the parent, the child and the teacher. Tremendous debates have already been conducted in this House about the contribution of the teacher and his task, very recently too. We are now conducting a conversation about the parent and child here. Each of these pillars must comply with its responsibility in the true sense of the word. What do we expect from the child, whether he is at the primary, the secondary or the tertiary level? We expect him to do his bit, if I may put it so bluntly. Deep within that idea is rooted the concept of motivation, the will to build, to do the things for which one is there. However, this is a matter in which the child must be involved together with the parent. Grandstands were mentioned a moment ago. Let me challenge the hon. member for Yeoville once again. He would do well to take a look at a certain high school in the Transvaal that has already presented the South African junior athletic championships on its track on two occasions, because that track complies with all the standards. The control board of that school, together with the local authority, negotiated a loan in order to help to build the track. That was in 1971, and the amount concerned was R35 000. They did not ask the department for a single cent. The school’s roof has not been burned down yet and the great-grandchildren of those children will look at those grandstands with pride one day. Boys who did not have the physical ability—perhaps they were not healthy enough—to play rugby, planted trees in the school grounds and cared for them. Today they regularly look at the trees, because those trees remain valuable articles that they have established.

What school is that?

One must be able to understand that school spirit, but if one has never been a teacher, surely one cannot understand it. Therefore, I also understand that hon. member’s poverty and lack of insight.

Yes, his poverty.

This legislation …

I can see that you are very worried about this Bill.

This piece of legislation is merely creating the opportunity for the hon. the Minister to arrange financing in co-operation and in consultation with various bodies and institutions, that have already been spelled out here. Those hon. members have referred to the De Lange report so often, but they would do well to read it in more detail. That report says very clearly inter alia that senior, intermediate education, should be free but in a limited way defined with possible stimulation of study directions in which manpower needs exist.

Some hon. members of the Opposition— particularly the NRP and more specifically the hon. member for Durban Point—will recall the debates of 1967 very well, because they participated in those debates. They will recall the spectres that they saw when the simple, fine principle of mother-tongue education were discussed. At the time they saw the most tremendous chimeras. The hon. member for Houghton …

Yes, here I am.

… waxed lyrical about the bogeys and other unpleasant things in that piece of legislation. The points of departure that were spelled out in that piece of legislation, are, however, still standing today and they do not question them. They accept them now and it works very well. After all, the NP is in control of affairs. Surely it is a strong party with a decent approach.

Nevertheless you have deprived the parents of a right.

We shall yet conduct further debates on this, and we could still amend laws, but inherent in this Bill is the involvement of people, the pillars, in the responsibility of providing good citizens in our country. I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member for Standerton very surprising this afternoon. I get the impression that the hon. member protesteth too much. Somewhere in his heart there is a feeling that he has to make a lot of noise to cover up the fact that he really agrees with us. It is one of the talents I admire in the hon. member for Standerton that he can argue any case, whether he believes in it or not, with the same amount of fervour and enthusiasm. I find it a most remarkable thing. I shall tell you why, Sir.

You do it yourself.

I am sorry that the former hon. member for Koedoespoort, who was also formerly Administrator of the Transvaal, is not here anymore, because we argued with the NP in the Transvaal Provincial Council—an hon. member opposite is laughing because he knows what I am talking about—that food is as essential for education as a book and that sport is also as essential. We said that the whole concept of education involves not merely books, desks, teachers and learning the three R’s, but that all these other things are also part of it. The NP members then said: “What are you talking about? How can you bring food into this? How can you bring accommodation into it? How can you bring sports fields into it?” I can recall debates in which the hon. member for Standerton would have been outstanding if I could have had his services in those days. I can remember talking about school feeding. I was told: “One does not need food: What are you talking about? Why are you talking about boarding schools? Why are you talking about these things?” It is remarkable how the NP can switch from one day to the next when it suits their particular purpose. It is really most remarkable.

The other thing I will not allow the hon. member for Standerton to get away with is the attack he made on English-speaking South Africa today. [Interjections.] I want to tell him I am an English-speaking South African.

Are you a Jewish-speaking South African?

I am not English, but I am an English-speaking South African. I want to say that the English-speaking South Africans have made as big a contribution to this country as anybody else.

Most certainly.

Their contribution has been no bigger but also no smaller. To make this kind of attack on English-speaking South Africans is uncalled for, it is undesirable and it is not going to be tolerated by us. I want that to be clear.

You are a known “boerehater.”

I want to turn to other matters. This debate has the sort of atmosphere about it that perhaps we are discussing something that is not so important, but seldom has there been as important a debate in regard to a matter of ideology as this particular debate. This debate is in fact about one word “shall” is to become “may”. In that change of one single word lies a deep ideological concept which we are debating today. Perhaps that deep ideological concept is illustrated by this quotation from John Kenneth Galbraith—

The essential ingredient here, when talking about schools, is that the affluent will be able to pay while the poor will not be able to pay. That is the test. That is the ideology which, in fact, we are debating today. The striving for free and compulsory education has been a striving of people over generations. Hon. members may like to go back into history some 2 000 years …

[Inaudible.]

Please keep quiet. You are of no consequence in this House. You are a failure, so just keep quiet and accept it. [Interjections.]

Over 2 000 years ago the concept of free education was being debated under the rule of no less a person than King Herod. These concepts were therefore already being debated in those days. Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages the concept of whether one was entitled to free education or not was being debated. In the last century the fight of the ordinary man in this field was one of the significant features, and this century saw free and compulsory education available for all people in most Western countries. In South Africa that particular object was achieved for a section of the population, with tremendous results for that population.

The hon. member for Rissik, for example, knows and agrees with me that in the 1920’s and 1930’s we had thousands and thousands of deprived White people in South Africa and they were able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and take their place in society as a whole because they were given education. [Interjections.]

It was not free!

Oh yes, it was substantially free. [Interjections.] I went to school here in the 1930’s and hon. members cannot tell me that there was not free education here in this town.

There was not!

Of course there was. The reality is that now we are debating what free education is. Games are being played with words as to what free education is.

Well, you should know.

The hon. the Minister of National Education himself has told what free education is. He said in his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 9 February)—

And we have advanced to that stage; it had not been reached in the 1930’s—

That is a quotation from the Act …

Correct. That is what the hon. the Minister said; that is a quotation from the Act and that is what we are talking about. How, therefore, can hon. members on that side of the House say that they do not know what is meant by it? [Interjections.] We can play games and say, “Yes, you must contribute to school funds; you must have more books etc.” We can play games, but the reality is that we know what free education is because in South Africa there are some people who enjoy free education while others do not. [Interjections.] All one has to do is to compare the per capita cost of education in South Africa in respect of various children. Those who get it will know what free education is, and those who do not know even better what it is. That is the reality, Sir, but hon. members on the other side of the House play with words.

The test is—and I agree with the hon. member for Durban North’s approach in this regard—really that there is no such thing as saying that nobody pays for education, because nothing is free, there are no free lunches or free education. The reality is that one has to determine who has to pay for it. Is it to be paid for by the individual? Is it to be paid for in accordance with one’s personal needs? Or is it to be paid for by the community? If the individual has to pay for education on his own, it will mean that some people will receive education of a higher quality than others. It means that in fact other people will not be able to afford to compete and to have equality of opportunity in South Africa. That is the reality, Sir. That is why there are taxes in any Western society, in any industrialized society, and these taxes are progressive. Those who can afford to pay have to pay and the result is that the community provides education for the people as a whole, that there is equality of opportunity. If one is going to have equality of opportunity in a society, the most important feature is that one must give everybody a chance to participate in education of equal quality.

The next argument is: What is education of equal quality? For example, why should we not simply have primary education free and have the rest of it paid for by parents? The simple test is, if one is going to have education of equal quality, to bring the level of the have-nots up to the level of the haves. We must not bring the have-nots down to an even lower level. That is our objective. The objective is to take the section of our community which is best off today and raise the level of the others up to that level, not to lower the level of the community. This simple amendment, this question of simply changing one word—because this debate is all about the change of one word—means that we are now accepting the principle that we can bring the level of people down in order to provide education of equal quality. [Interjections.] That principle is unacceptable to me in its entirety. As I have said, our concept is that we have to raise the level.

If we are going to have a situation where we are going to make parents pay for some degree of education over and above the basics so that their children can receive an education—I am not talking about fringe benefits, the things that make matters a little better in respect of which parents can contribute voluntarily—what is the effect going to be? In regard to parents who can pay, it will be within their reach and their children will be able to enjoy it at the maximum level. For those parents who cannot pay, it means that for some of them such education will be out of their reach or else it will mean that such people will have to make undue sacrifices in order to enable their children to receive such education. It will also mean that some may have to do entirely without it. It also means that those who pay the taxes, will have to pay twice because they are paying their taxes in respect of education for their children and now we shall be asking them to pay again for such education. I suggest that that is not an acceptable principle.

The other argument that has been advanced—and it has been widely advanced— is that this country cannot afford to provide education for all, education which is free, which is compulsory and which is at a level which the Whites enjoy at the moment. That is the argument. I want to suggest that that is in fact a fallacious argument. I maintain that this country can afford to pay. I should like to demonstrate this by means of certain figures. I want to deal with this matter on the basis of comparing the figures for 1980 with projected figures for the year 2000. In 1980 the total number of primary school pupils in South Africa was approximately 5,2 million. The anticipated number for the year 2000 is 6,5 million. Of this number the number of Black children was 73,6% in 1980 and it is anticipated will be 80,5% in the year 2000.

Those are spurious figures.

The hon. member says that they are spurious figures. Well, Sir, these are figures provided by the Human Sciences Research Council. [Interjections.] These figures are so spurious that they are provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and have been compiled by the Bureau of Economic Policy and Analysis of the University of Pretoria under Prof. Lombard! I suggest that that hon. member direct his comments to them.

In regard to secondary school education, in 1980 the figure was 1,2 million and by the year 2000 it is anticipated that the figure will be 2,6 million. We see therefore that the most substantial increase is actually in the secondary school sphere; in other words, it will be in the secondary school sphere that the real demand will arise and that is where the Government does not want to make it free and compulsory. That is the crux of the matter. That is where the real increase is going to occur. It is quite obvious to me that that is where the shoe is going to pinch if this policy is going to be changed.

I want now to deal with the question of expenditure in respect of the figures that I have just quoted. In 1980, on the basis of White education as it is now, the amount involved was R1,4 milliard—that is, for the information of hon. members, thousands of millions. By 1990 that amount will have increased to R2,6 milliard and by the year 2000 when one could have achieved equality of education, we shall be dealing with an amount of R5,7 milliard. If we are actually to bring about parity over the 18 year period from now until the year 2000, it will mean that the expenditure will increase to R5,7 milliard. I say that that is actually within our reach and it is also within our capabilities. I say that on the basis that in my view we should be averaging 5,5% growth in the GDP during that period. However, the compilers of this report which has been published work on the basis of a 4,5% increase during that period. Their argument is that if we are growing at that rate we will be able to cope with this increase. Let me quote from this report which is published in this instance by Mercabank—which I think I should acknowledge—and which, I may point out to hon. members, is not a PFP institution. It says—

They refer to the figures which include education and which I have quoted. It says also and I should mention it—

That is on the assumption that it remains a constant percentage of the domestic product, which is a very charitable assumption in that regard. When we look at this situation we realise that even if we assumed that there would be no tax increases at all, we could in fact still cope with the situation provided we maintain these percentages. But the issue is whether it is socially desirable that if necessary the community should pay for what is required in education by means of tax increases. That is the test that has to be applied. Is it more desirable that people should pay for education out of their after tax income so that some are privileged, some can send their children to private schools and some can enjoy higher education, or that the community as a whole should accept its social responsibility and accept the fact that it must come out of the Exchequer? I say, with great respect, that these figures show that the community of South Africa can pay for education of equal quality without reducing the standards and without asking people to pay for their own education. We can do it. The growth potential is there in the economy. The ability of the economy to pay is there. If we allow the community to pay for it we will have equality of opportunity in South Africa. Then we can face the world and say that this is what we are doing for all the people of South Africa. Then we will have a stable society. I venture to suggest that this debate today about one word, as to whether “shall” shall be turned into “may”, is perhaps one of the most important debates that we have had. As I said at the beginning, it represents an ideology and we must now decide whether we are going to follow that ideology or not. Are we going to follow an ideology where all our people will have equality of opportunity or are we going to accept an ideology where we are going to say that education may well in the future become a privilege in regard to the upper levels and purely of those who can afford it? That will run contrary to what I believe is a trait that has existed in the industrialized Western World. I believe that if we follow that course we shall be playing into the hands of the communists, the Marxists and the people who want to destroy this society. I appeal to this House not to fall into that trap but to accept the fact that education free and compulsory, is the birthright of all our children.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very intersting to sit on this side of the House and listen to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member reminds me a great deal of a featherweight boxer, a lightweight who is engaged in shadow boxing. And the more the cameras focus on him, the quicker he runs around in order to aim blows in every direction. This is the impression that the hon. member gave me today. I must say that on other occasions I have heard him come forward with more weighty arguments than has been the case here this afternoon. [Interjections.] I also want to put it to the hon. member that he quoted the hon. member for Standerton incorrectly in one or two respects or possibly did not interpret him correctly. The hon. member for Standerton never uttered any negative reference to the English-speaking people in our country. It was absolutely untrue to allege this, or otherwise it was an incorrect conclusion. I want to state this very categorically. What the hon. member for Standerton did in fact say, was that there were many more English-speaking people probably could and should enter the teaching profession. As far as I am concerned, the dilemma in debates of this nature, over the past number of years since the PFP has become the official Opposition, has been the fact that the PFP has not provided this House with any teachers. I do not know of one member of the official Opposition—and of course I could be wrong—who has undergone any training in education at all. [Interjections.] However, I must point out that the former hon. member for Durban Central, Mr. Andrew Pyper, as well as a former hon. member for Kensington, Mr. Philip Moore, were amongst the last teachers to sit in this House on the Opposition side. I am really sorry to say so, but I should very much like to exchange the above mentioned two gentlemen for a few of the hon. members of the PFP who are now sitting in front of us. [Interjections.] It really is very difficult to conduct a debate on education when hon. members of the Opposition simply never know quite what it is all about. [Interjections.] The previous three speakers from the NP were all people who were not only qualified teachers, but people who progressed very far in education before they became members of this House. In view of the position that I have now sketched, it is therefore clear that debates of this nature have become futile in many respects. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville should also be very careful in this House when he refers to the years when he served on the Transvaal Provincial Council. He often has the knack of putting his foot in it with regard to certain matters, for instance when he referred to Mr. Hough. He did so recently with regard to the incident concerning the skins, and all those things. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville said that we should rather quote the education debates in the provincial councils of our country to the credit of the Opposition.

Daan, I really did not expect you to become a racist too. [Interjections.]

All I can say to the hon. member for Yeoville …

No, I am quite disappointed in you, Daan.

The conclusion that I came to today after the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville, as well as the speeches of his colleagues, is that they felt that there was something brewing here, that the Government was up to something, that they could not really pinpoint. They could not figure it out or see it on a scientific or an educational basis. That is why they are parrying so. On the one hand they are dragging the less privileged Whites into it by the hair and believe it or not, they are bringing back the old poor-White question, whilst on the other hand, they are also trying to drag the education of Black people into the debate here and there. As far as I am concerned, the conclusions that hon. members of the Opposition have drawn about this Bill, are not only absolutely hyperbolic, but here and there they are also extremely sinister. Whatever the case may be, I want to allege that their conclusions in regard to the Bill under discussion, are entirely incorrect.

Just like other hon. members on this side of the House. I too had the feeling that the arguments that were put forward on the Government side, have been based on true principles. This was the impression that I received from the speech of every hon. member on this side of the House. Each one of them put it completely unperspective why the amendment of the Act fitted into the general view of the education policy as the NP has been formulating it over the years. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brentwood, who said that the achievements of the NP with regard to education are numbered amongst its finest achievements. In every sphere or facet of education, the NP has achieved wonders.

As far as I am concerned, there are a few bodies and persons that are involved in the education and teaching of our children. These are the child—I am not mentioning them in a specific sequence—the parent, the staff, the Government and the community. These are the bodies that must serve. These people are involved in education and training. In the changes that are to be brought about by means of the Bill, the NP is still adhering just as firmly to the fundamental principles of its view of education and teaching, as it has stated through all the years. There has been no deviation at all in this regard.

The second point that I want to make, is that the NP stands for the education of the youth, the youth of all the nations of our country. The youth must be trained in all the facets that are essential for the growth of the community in Southern Africa. We stand for the training of children for every facet.

As long as they can pay for it.

In the third instance, without a doubt, we stand for the fact that the quality of the education of our children should be absolutely of the highest standard. It must be of the highest standard, not only for the individual child, but also for his future employer, the community that he is going to serve and for science in general. The children that we educate, will therefore be valuable not only themselves or their employer, but also science throughout the entire world. I think that education and teaching in our country is such that we have produced some of the best products in all these spheres, despite the fact that we have so few people.

The other important matter—this is what the hon. members of the Opposition do not understand—is that we in South Africa are not dealing with one homogeneous community only. We have already debated this matter ad nauseam, and it is the one reality over which the hon. members there always stumble, and with regard to which we differ. In the nature of things it is an historical fact that the multiplicity of peoples here have a difference in background with regard to their educational standards, quality and methods. Surely it is obvious that when Jan van Riebeeck landed here or the Whites moved northwards, there was a difference in the nature of the education of different people. Bringing together the first and third world was so fundamentally vast an undertaking in many respects that this could not be wiped out in a moment.

In its educational policy the NP has not only acted justly towards the people that voted for it or for whom it was responsible, but since 1948 the NP Government has looked after the education of every child of each of the population groups well. [Interjections.] We could discuss this matter further, but I must point out that it is clear from a comparative analysis of the rest of Africa and many other similar countries that the NP has quite probably done more for people of other nations than their own people have done for them. The Opposition is not going to force the NP and the Government into a situation where we would be in the dock with regard to the education of the children that are our responsibility.

They do not want you as a Government.

We did not ask for control over the education of the children of other nations; it was granted to us by history. The NP and the Government can look the children and parents of other nations in the eye more frankly than those hon. members could when our children or the children of the Black people in the rest of Africa or in South Africa were their responsibility. They will not force us into a situation where we have to take the blame for what we have done for the children of the various peoples. Since the NP does not simply approach these matters in a political-emotional fashion, and since it knows exactly what education is about, we are in a much better position, with the money that is at our disposal, to comply with the responsibility that we have been given in such a way that ultimately we will have a situation in South Africa where children will be educated in such a way that they will be equipped for the various tasks that they will have to carry out one day. History has placed a tremendous, responsible task on the shoulders of the NP. The greater that responsibility, the greater the degree of success with which we shall comply with our responsibility. This diversity of nations in South Africa, with the diversity of quality and content with regard to their education, is not an easy situation to deal with. It is no solution merely to throw everything into one pot and to expect everything simply to come right. The reality of education is much greater than hon. members on the other side of the House want to admit.

A great fuss has already been made today about the De Lange Report. One could almost swear that the PFP had been the father and mother as well as the marriage officer of this report.

It is a good report.

Yes, it is a good report. However, hon. members must bear in mind that the NP initiated the De Lange Committee, and in the final instance the NP, as a responsible Government, will decide on the future of not only the people that have voted for it, but of all the children of all population groups, in a way that will be beneficial to the children and the various communities. Indeed, the same responsible behaviour characterized all other commissions that have been appointed by the NP. Hon. members on the other side of the House may try to plough with our heifers, but they do not understand the heifers. Ultimately no maize or wheat will be able to be harvested on the land where they have ploughed and sown seed. In terms of its own principles, the NP’s approach in regard to this matter is well founded. The conclusions that the hon. members of the Opposition made, were faulty and sinister to a large extent. The NP will contribute its share, after the share of the parent, the child, the teaching staff and other authorities, and will not evade its responsibility and action in this regard.

As far as books are concerned, it is true— as has correctly been pointed out by some of my hon. colleagues—that books are often destroyed, although we are also aware of cases where children did in fact handle their books carefully and neatly. However, I think that we should simply accept that we are dealing with a situation where the responsibility of the parent as well as that of the child must be given much more emphasis. This is what the objective of the Bill is, viz. to emphasize the responsibilities of other sections of our community to a greater extent than has been done during the past 10 years. The NP will not allow the quality of education to drop. We shall ensure that the quality continues to improve and that it will be placed on a level at which not only ourselves, but the parents and the child of today and tomorrow will benefit by it.

This has so far been an extraordinary debate in that we have been discussing for several hours the changing of one word, i.e. mandatory to “optional”. This is, however, a very important issue. I want to make it clear that I do not want to get politically orientated in this debate but I do want to apply a little common sense into the debate. I want to do so because I believe this to be one of the more retrogressive steps. [Interjections.] I am sorry to have to say so, but I do believe that to be so, and I further believe that it will have the effect of having us laughed out of school by other Western powers. We in South Africa like to think of ourselves as essentially Western-orientated, certainly as far as our culture is concerned, and I believe we are, but can the hon. the Minister tell me of any country in the Western World that has removed the concept of compulsory free education over the last 50 years? I do not know of one. Perhaps the hon. the Minister knows of some, but I do know that in America, Britain, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries and, in fact, in most of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, to the best of my knowledge, the principle of compulsory free education is adhered to. I believe therefore that by doing this, we are distancing ourselves from our own culture.

The concept of compulsory education is, as has already been mentioned, one which has been in existence for a very long time in the civilized world, yet here we find ourselves in the very strange situation of retaining compulsory education whilst, at the same time, charging people for that compulsory education, without telling them what they may have to pay. We go one step further than that, however, and find ourselves in the even more extraordinary situation of having different bodies running education in the different parts of the country, and I am not only speaking about the differences in Coloured, Indian and Black education, but also the different educational bodies in the different provinces, each of which will have the right to decide whether it is going to charge a lot, a little or nothing. There are obviously going to be substantial variations between the various education departments. Is this fair or reasonable, because taxes come from the country as a whole, the money goes into the central coffers and is then distributed. So in some provinces people may well be paying for their education individually whilst still paying taxes for education. They would, in other words, be paying twice for the same thing. I believe this to be iniquitous.

Let us stop to think about why this Bill has been brought forward. I think it has been made very clear this afternoon that the hon. the Minister feels that compulsory education would be desirable for all South Africans, whether they be Black, White, Brown or Asiatic. He believes—and I feel quite rightly—that all should have equal compulsory education, but the problem is that it has been found that to do this on the basis of the present White educational system would be far too expensive. Again I must agree with the hon. the Minister. To do it on that basis would be far too expensive. In South Africa we have virtually Rolls Royce education for the White community and push-cart education for the Black community. I am not trying to make racial politics out of this. It is quite simply a fact. One only has to look at some of the beautiful schools that have been built for the White community, particularly over the last 10 or 15 years, and also look at some of the bush schools one finds. From such a comparison one can see that there is this great disparity. There has, of course, been a terrific building programme over the last few years for the Indian and Coloured communities, and as far as facilities are concerned, their schooling is virtually on a par with that of the Whites. We do, however, have this wide range and there is no doubt about it that, if we were to endeavour to bring Black education up to the same standard as White education overnight, it would be beyond the fiscal ability of the country to achieve. Nonetheless, this is what the hon. the Minister would like to do and, as he sees it, the only way in which we can do this is for the Whites to make a greater contribution towards education. With due humility I would suggest that, whilst his intentions may be good, the way in which he proposes doing it is not necessarily either the best or the right way. I am probably one of a few here today who was in public office at the time of the introduction of the Education Act of 1967. There are a number of members here who have spoken on this very issue. One has a sense almost of déjá vu listening to the arguments that have been put forward by various hon. members, because at the time I remember so distinctly hon. members on the other side in the Natal Provincial Council arguing the exact reverse of the way they have been arguing today, particularly in respect of schoolbooks. I heard the hon. member for Yeoville make this statement and it is perfectly true. I remember it only too well. I am quite sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development, who represents Port Natal and who was with me in the Natal Provincial Council at the time, will remember that. This is, however, the sort of situation we are faced with.

What will be the effects of this Bill? As I have mentioned before, one has the situation where there are many different school agencies, e.g., Indian education, Coloured education and Black education, not to mention the education authorities in the homelands except for those homelands which have not already taken their independence. The Coloured and Indian people are at the present moment more or less on the same sort of standard as the Whites. I believe that for all practical intents and purposes the platoon systems have been removed. Beautiful schools have been built. I have visited many of them. However, if all are to be treated equally, they are not going to be in the situation of having to pay for education as well. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister again whether the Indian and Coloured communities have been consulted in this matter which is going to affect them directly and closely. I know that the policy of the Government is for there to be consultation at all levels. Possibly I have a different idea to that of some people of what consultation means, but nevertheless I believe that in a matter such as this consultation is very important. If they have not been consulted and it is going to cost them a lot of money, I believe they are going to be angry and, I believe, justifiably.

Again, there are many people—not only amongst the Coloured and Indian communities but also amongst the White community—who are partially if not wholly indigent to the extent that they cannot afford to pay. Obviously, one is not going to say that there is going to be compulsory education and that, if people cannot pay, their children cannot go to school. That is quite illogical. One is therefore going to have the situation that people will have to plead poverty. I think a terrific amount of book-work is going to be involved, increasing the cost of the secretarial work in the schools to a very substantial degree, particularly in the less affluent urban areas.

I cannot help but feel that this is something of a panic measure, engendered, as I say, by the goodwill and the good wishes of the hon. the Minister in this direction. His heart is in the right place but, as I have said before, I believe he is going about it in the wrong way. He wants to do this in a hurry and he is doing it in this way. With respect, I believe he is going about it the wrong way, because even if it were to be of immediate effect, one could not bring compulsory education to the whole of the Black community overnight. There are various reasons for this and the hon. the Minister knows those reasons as well as I do. First of all, the number of teachers is totally insufficient. It would take years to be able to create a teaching staff anywhere big enough to give effect to even a fair percentage of his intentions. Secondly, there is a shortage of schools of the right type and in the right places, and it would take several years to plan, develop and build these schools.

The third point is important and must not be overlooked, and that is the traditions of many of the Black people. It is true that many of the Black people are keen for education, but there are a great number who are not so keen, and if one were to try compulsory education I believe that one might well encounter some trouble.

Up to now I have possibly been destructive to a degree, but I believe that one must go one step further if one has to make a meaningful contribution and offer suggestions as well. I would suggest that if one is to try to raise the funds to have compulsory education on a broad scale for all South Africans, one of the first things one will have to do is to greatly reduce what I would like to call the extravagance in our White schools. We are building White high schools costing R3½ million and R4 million in some instances. We are providing these schools with 20, 25, 30 acres of space for playing fields and paying fantastic prices to buy that land. We are reducing the number of pupils per class, although I know the number has been increased recently. However, relative to the other communities our classes are still fairly small. There is undoubtedly a great deal of extravagance and I know that what I am going to refer to now will make me quite unpopular with a lot of people outside this House, if not also inside. Facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts and various other amenities of that nature are not essentials and, until such time as we can provide universal education, we should not be using public money to provide these facilities. I am afraid that a great deal of public money is being used for this purpose.

Another way in which one can reduce expenditure on education generally is by reducing the number of education departments we already have. To the best of my knowledge there are nominally four education departments, but there are subdivisions and what have you. Quite frankly, we have a massive overlordship in education, and I am quite sure this could be reduced, not only with economies in so far as the personnel themselves are concerned, but also in respect of efficiency in the running of the organizations.

Another aspect to which I believe the hon. the Minister could well give consideration is to go ahead with his plan in respect of providing education, but perhaps a little less ambitiously: In other words, proceed with the training of teachers and build things up on a 10, 15 or 20 year plan, because I do not think that with all the goodwill in the world it is possible to do what he wants to do. I believe that it would be to the detriment of the reputation of our country if we were to proceed to give other people education by such an amendment as is before us today.

We in this party are quite prepared to support the concept of the White community paying more, paying for their children’s books, stationery etc. In fact, that was one of the bigger arguments way back in 1967 when the NP members in the Natal Provincial Council said that the Government must pay all the time. We said that this was something that the parents should pay for. If the parents pay for the books then their children will look after them. It is rather extraordinary that that same argument should have come up today. I support the thinking of my colleagues on this side of the House that whilst we appreciate the sentiments of the hon. the Minister, we cannot support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude towards hon. members who have spoken on this extremely important matter. I want to say that I fully agree with all hon. members who emphasized that we are dealing with an extremely important principle here. I do not want to try now to reply step by step to all the arguments that were raised by the various speakers. In the first place the fundamental question that I probably have to answer, is the question about where this Bill comes from. Is this Bill a thoughtless, fearful reaction to the implications of the report of the De Lange Committee, which was published at the end of last year and deals with future planning in education? I want to say without a doubt that this is not the case. I found this Bill on my desk on 7 October 1980, when I accepted this portfolio. This Bill was initiated in the Department of National Education six months prior to the Government requesting the HSRC to appoint the De Lange Committee in order to undertake this investigation. Therefore, where does it come from? This legislation was recommended to the Government by all the bodies and persons that are to be consulted by the Government in terms of the National Education Policy Act when it deals with education principles and education policy. This legislation was recommended to the Government by the committee of education heads, i.e. the heads of all the education departments in the country that deal with White education. It was a unanimous recommendation.

After that, this Bill was referred to the various Administrators, in terms of legal prescriptions in connection with policy determination by the Minister—at the time it was my esteemed predecessor. I assume that, in consultation with their Executive Committees, they had all agreed with the principle contained in the Bill under discussion. In addition, it was not only the Administrators, on behalf of their provinces, not only the Committee of Education Heads, on behalf of the various White education departments, but also the National Education Council that does not simply, as hon. members on the other side so often sneeringly allege, consist of a group of bureaucrats, officials in charge of departments, who simply have to implement the policy of the Government, but which, besides all the education heads, also consists of three representatives of the English language universities and three representatives of the Afrikaans language universities. Each of these groups of three university representatives consists of one rector and two educationists. Furthermore, the board consists of a representative of the English language teachers’ associations and a representative of the Afrikaans language teachers’ associations. Then there is also a representative of the S.A. Teachers’ Council, as well as someone to represent the technikons—in this case it happens to be an English-speaking person, if it is at all important to mention this. Quite by chance at the stage when the recommendation was made, the National Education Board that recommended this matter to the Government, was under the chairmanship of Prof. J. P. de Lange. I am personally acquainted with the comprehensive consultation that took place in regard to this matter amongst the members of the National Education Board, because I myself was privileged to be Prof. De Lange’s predecessor as chairman of the National Education Board. As chairman of the National Education Board, we not only discussed this matter amongst members of the board itself, but we also consulted with leaders in education throughout the entire country, who are not members of the board. From my own experience, and also from what has been told to me by my own department and by my esteemed predecessor, this Bill, as it has been formulated at the moment, was modelled on the unanimous recommendation of all the relevant education bodies to which I have already referred. Therefore it is not legislation that has simply been dreamed up. It is a product of carefully considered advice that was submitted to the Government by the leaders in the education world, representing all the groups in White education. [Interjections.] Nor is it simply a random piece of politics. Last year at the NP congress in the Transvaal we received a spontaneous proposal after a discussion on educational development that arose further to the discussion and was spontaneously accepted by the congress, viz. that there should be a movement towards giving the parents a direct share in the financing of the education of their children. In other words, it is a matter that has been tested in broad terms.

Having said where this baby comes from … and I think his background is good; he deserves a good family crest because I have set out his genealogy very thoroughly here. I am sorry that I did not say this before, in my introductory speech. Then a good number of the upheavals amongst hon. members of the Opposition could possibly have been avoided, but I thought it was so obvious that the Government would act according to the procedure in terms of the National Education Policy Act, that it would not even be necessary to spell it out.

I should like to emphasize another point, and this is that there are three basic steps that have been laid down by the National Education Policy Act in regard to education policy matters. The first step is laying down the general principles, and we find this in section 2 of the Act. The principles are spelled out there and have been accepted by Parliament as a basis of the Act. It is that general premise with regard to free education that has thus far been completely compulsory that we are now suggesting should be amended. The second step in regard to the education policy matter is that, after consultation with the Administrators and after consultation with the National Education Board—of course, the advice of the Administrators is based on the opinions of the various Directors of Education who serve on the Committee of Education Heads—the Minister can lay down a policy, spell it out and promulgate it in the Gazette. Once this has been done, the Committee of Education Heads comes along and where necessary advises the Administrators and the Minister on how that policy will be implemented in practice, in a co-ordinated and practical fashion. Therefore these are the three pillars, the three steps on which the entire educational profession has been built. Firstly, the fundamental principles that are laid down in the Act by Parliament itself. Then, after proper consultation, the policy is spelled out. In the third place that policy is implemented in a co-ordinated fashion. This immediately furnishes a reply to the remark by the hon. member for Umbilo, when he said that he is concerned—and I want to thank him very much for an otherwise very realistic and positive contribution—that the policy in its finally amended form would be implemented in an unco-ordinated fashion because every province would go its own way and various contributions would be asked of the parents in various provinces. This is simply not possible in terms of the provisions of this Act, provisions that emphatically provide that the Committee of Education Heads is responsible for implementing the policy that has been laid down on a co-ordinated basis. I think that if one bears these three steps in mind in the entire development of the policy, as it were, there need be no concern that we are now simply dealing with a lorry that is careering down a slope and is going to destroy everything in its path.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize—and I think the hon. member for Umbilo put it very clearly—that although it is the amendment of a single word that is at issue here, basically it encompasses the movement away from free education, which is compulsory in its entirety for the Whites in the sense that the White authority is obliged to provide education without cost, towards a new dispensation where it will in fact be able to supply free education, but does not have to provide it in its entirety; in other words, we are moving away from a compulsory directive to an enabling directive.

The bodies that have advised the Government to make this change in principle, said that it was essential for educational reasons, to which I shall come back later, that there should be an amendment, but they could not work out the policy and the detailed co-ordination if they did not have the decision in principle that instead of the current compulsory directive to provice free education there was an enabling directive. At the time, as chairman of the National Education Board, I proposed that they commence working out the matter in practice, but all the bodies came back and said that they would be taking action beyond the bounds of their authority as long as there was an express provision in an Act of Parliament that education should be free. Therefore, Parliament first had to indicate whether it was in fact prepared to change over from that compulsory to an enabling directive. Otherwise we would have been putting the cart before the horse.