Mr. Chairman, today it is my privilege to say a few words, on behalf of the relevant Select Committee, in connection with the report which has just been tabled. In the first place I want to convey my heartfelt thanks to all my hon. colleagues who served on the Select Committee and with whom I have worked so cordially this session. This applies equally to hon. members of all the parties in this House. I am also glad to be able to announce that we achieved consensus on all the matters submitted to the committee.

Secondly, I should like to convey the committee’s thanks to the parliamentary officials and the departmental officials who greatly assisted in the preparation of the petitions and the documents submitted.

During the past session this Select Committee investigated quite a few matters. I briefly want to refer to the whole matter of pensions in general. The committee also gave extensive attention to pension schemes. A standpoint that is of great importance to the Select Committee, and which I should like to sketch briefly here this afternoon, is the fact that we endorse the non-socializing of pensions in South Africa. This means that from the time that he begins working, each economically active citizen in this country, regardless of race, colour or sex, should begin building up his own pension in order to provide for his old age. It is also the committee’s view that it is the State’s responsibility to review cases deserving of attention on compassionate grounds, and also to give attention to cases of people who, for some or other reason beyond their control, cannot manage their own affairs.

There are two further matters of importance, one being that such pensions should not be terminated. We also advocate the principle of the transferability of pensions. I therefore request the attention of this House for the serious consideration of the introduction of a scheme of this nature for everyone who wants to or can participate in it. Our request is that such a scheme be introduced in South Africa as quickly as possible. Those who are not ready for it yet, e.g. many Black people in the country, can take part in such a scheme at a later stage.

In conclusion, I just want to say a few words about the pension needs of hon. members of this House. That is, of course, a very delicate matter. The Select Committee also discussed it, and because it is a very sensitive matter, as I have said …

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not believe that I can allow the hon. member to conduct a general discussion on pensions now.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I move—

Question agreed to.

Recommendation (2):

The hon. Chairman of the Select Committee has informed me that the relevant Select Committee did not make a recommendation in connection with the case under discussion because the Select Committee was informed that the matter would be dealt with administratively. Under these circumstances I think it advisable to recommend that the Select Committee be given the opportunity of correcting its report. I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for moving that this matter be referred back to the Select Committee on Pensions. It is obvious that we in the PFP cannot support the recommendation as it is contained in the report at the moment as it does not correctly reflect what transpired during the deliberations of the Select Committee.

Therefore we support the hon. the Minister’s motion.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to disagree with the hon. member for Parktown on one aspect. It is true that in the Select Committee we did not adopt a formal resolution on the second recommendation. We in the CP, however, hold the view that the Select Committee is an extension of Parliament and its functions. We would therefore be quite satisfied to have the second recommendation approved by this Committee of the House of Assembly now.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of one being satisfied or not. The fact of the matter is that I was informed by the Select Committee that a resolution had not been adopted by them. I therefore think it only fair that this Committee of the House should give the Select Committee on Pensions an opportunity to rectify this matter.

We agree.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to endorse what the hon. the Minister has just said. I have in my hand a letter from the chief spokesman of the official Opposition in which he also indicates that an administrative error crept in and that the Select Committee did not consider this specific matter. For hon. members’ information let me say that this matter has previously been dealt with interdepartmentally and that on the hon. the Minister’s recommendation it will again come before the Select Committee so that the Select Committee can rectify the matter. For this we have the official Opposition’s support.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that it is clearly an administrative problem.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it, in terms of our practice, possible for us to vote on a recommendation which, as the hon. the Minister has told us, has not been passed by the Select Committee? My submission is that there is no recommendation before the House. Therefore the matter must go back to the Select Committee. I do not believe we can debate it now.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that there was obviously an administrative error, I withdraw my suggestion.

Order! I put the question. No objection? Agreed to. The report of the Select Committee, as amended, has been agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: There is nothing to agree to. There is no recommendation before the House.

Order! What has been agreed to is the hon. the Minister’s motion that the matter be referred back to the Select Committee.

We cannot refer back a recommendation which is not before this House. [Interjections.] There is no recommendation before this House; there is nothing before this House.

Order! I do not know what the hon. member means when he says there is nothing before this House. Before us there is a motion that the recommendation be referred back to the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had listened, he would have heard me say that I thought that the Select Committee ought to be given an opportunity to rectify the matter.

Order! The matter has been dealt with. The first recommendation of the Select Committee has, in any event, been accepted. I shall report it as having been accepted.

Question accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, today we have reached the Third Reading stage of the hon. the Minister of National Education’s second apartheid measure introduced in the latter portion of this session. This legislation is aimed, inter alia, at introducing, for technikons in South Africa, a quota system in terms of which, for the admission of students of other colour groups, a figure will be determined which the relevant technikon may not exceed, and this will apply to the admission of the relevant students to a specific technikon, or perhaps to a course at a specific technikon. I think that hon. speakers on this side of the House have very clearly proved that in doing so the Government is sabotaging South Africa’s economy. At the moment South Africa’s economy is being adversely affected by a dire shortage of skilled labour. In the past there were several occasions on which it was not possible to extend South Africa’s economy and consolidate rapid development because of the shortage of skilled labour. One of the results of this legislation will be that efforts at solving the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa will be hampered by the provisions of this legislation. We have used chapter and verse and have furnished data to prove what the extent of that shortage is, and we have also brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention how this legislation is hampering the effort at solving that problem.

It is true that South Africa’s economy is fully integrated. There is the closest of cooperation between Black and White workers, in the economy of South Africa, in order to achieve our country’s economic objectives. We have set out those objectives for the hon. the Minister. It is all a matter of South Africa’s growth-rate. The hon. the Minister knows that if we do not, over the next 20 years, want to experience an explosive unemployment problem in South Africa, our economy must grow by at least 4,5% per annum. If that growth-rate cannot be maintained, we are going to be saddled with a tremendous employment problem in our country. Any step—whatever that step may be—that undermines the economy at this stage and prevents our achieving that growth-rate is a step towards sabotaging South Africa’s economy. The provisions of this legislation are a step in that direction.

We have also mentioned productivity. We have made it very clear to the hon. the Minister that a sound economic growth-rate and a sound economy depend, to a large extent, on a high productivity rate in our country. Thus far we have not been able to achieve this. The growth in workers’ wages is very high, whilst the growth in productivity is very low. One of the most important factors in achieving a high productivity rate is the training of workers. With this legislation the hon. the Minister is once again undermining the training of workers and the achievement of a high productivity rate.

The third point I want to mention is South Africa’s endeavour, as far as possible, to be independent of producers outside the country when it comes to the production of all those products involving our national security and our defence effort. That independence, which is basic to South Africa’s security and national interests, is also being undermined as a result of this legislation being introduced by the Government.

Then we come to what, in my view, is the most important aspect, and that is the stability of South Africa, which is very closely linked up with the improvement in the wages or the incomes of South African workers so as to give them a better standard of living than they had previously enjoyed and so as to establish generally higher standards of living. That effort is also being jeopardized by this legislation. Whether the Government or the hon. the Minister wants to accept it or not, there is an interdependence between White and Black workers in South Africa that cannot be argued away. Each business undertaking and every industry in our country is based on co-operation—as far as the manpower situation is concerned—between Black and White workers. The hon. the Minister of Manpower realized only too well that apartheid had to be rooted out completely in the manpower set-up in South Africa. He was not referring to a caricature of apartheid. He was not referring to the so-called overseas image of apartheid. He was referring to apartheid in the manpower dispensation in South Africa, and he displayed the fearlessness necessary to tackle the job of removing those aspects of apartheid from the labour set-up in South Africa. This resulted in the fact that today South Africa can boast of the fact that in labour virtually all aspects of apartheid have been removed. This is one of the spheres in South Africa in regard to which we can rightly say that apartheid has been removed. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister of National Education take a brief look at what has been achieved by the hon. the Minister of Manpower, and also at the methods that he employed to get rid of apartheid. He must also take into account the courage and daring displayed by the hon. the Minister of Manpower when he brought this about. Although he has done that, we are still faced with a situation today, a few years later, in which the hon. the Minister of National Education does not have the courage to remove apartheid from education, this important aspect of our society.

In South Africa Black and White young people work side by side, and the success of their efforts at expanding and promoting our economy, and the success of the co-operation between these people in the workplace, is directly dependent upon their mutual confidence in one another. That mutual confidence can only be brought about if there is understanding between those people, if they get to know one another, if they communicate with one another and if their is contact. This legislation aims at preventing contact and communication between White and Black workers studying at the tertiary level and also preventing them from making contact with one another. Although they work side by side throughout the day, although it is necessary for them to get to know one another, to work together and to communicate in the workplace, when they walk out of that workplace and attend technikon classes, the Government provides that Black students must attend a Black technikon and White students must attend a White technikon. What is the result? The result is simply that there is prejudice and that Black students are suspicious of the Whites. As a result these students are estranged from one another, with the concomitant recalcitrance and tensions. Black students are denied the right of personally choosing to go and study at the nearest and best technikon available. They are denied the right of taking the courses they would like to take. They are denied the right of studying at a technikon which is geographically the most convenient for them or which is the most economical for them in relation to their place of residence and place of work. In this way South Africa’s economy is effectively undermined.

What is perhaps the most important aspect of all, however, is that every effort at national unity, by way of better and sounder relations between peoples, is effectively being undermined by this type of legislation.

I now come to what, in my view, is one of the most unfortunate consequences of this legislation. We have all seen it. In virtually every newspaper in South Africa there are reports pointing to the disillusionment, the unhappiness, of people who feel that the legislation is clear proof of the fact that the Government is not sincere about the reform process. I specifically want to state that the hon. the Minister of National Education’s legislation is effectively undermining the Government’s reform process. It is jeopardizing the reform process. It is destroying the credibility of that reform process. It is a fact that the success of the Government’s reform process depends on the Government being able to convince the other population groups of the honesty of its intentions when it comes to reform; in other words, that is not merely another clever move, an apartheid ruse on the part of the Government, but an indication that the Government really wants to introduce significant reform in South Africa.

Surely it ought to have been easy enough for the Government to abolish apartheid at the third tier of education. The third tier of education is the obvious level at which the Government could have made an effort at abolishing apartheid without any disruption to the economy, without opposition from large sections of the population and without problems having to be created for them as a result. At the third tier of education the Government ought to have been able to abolish apartheid effectively and successfully. If the Government cannot abolish apartheid at that level, where can it abolish apartheid? That is the question the South African public is asking.

The Government speaks of power-sharing between Blacks and Whites. It speaks of having a joint say and joint responsibility between Coloureds, Indians and White people. The Government speaks of one Parliament in which there will be Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The Government speaks of a mixed Cabinet. When it comes to universities and technikons, however, rigid apartheid has to be applied there. One cannot convince the people, including the Coloured groups, of the fact that the Government is sincere in its reform effort if it incorporates this anomaly, this incongruity, in this situation. The hon. the Minister responsible for that is the hon. the Minister of National Education. He has been undermining and sabotaging the Government’s reform effort with the legislation he has been piloting through Parliament in the past few days.

What happened then? What went wrong then? Why, in 1983—this is the year in which the Government has come to light with its so-called reform—are we saddled with so unfortunate a situation? What has happened? The CP is what has happened. That is what went wrong in South Africa. The establishment of the CP is the greatest curb that has ever been placed on the Government, and that is responsible for the fact that the Government is now backing down, that it does not have the courage to continue with its policy of reform. Prior to and also after the by-elections in the Bergs, consultations were held—I think the hon. the Prime Minister must listen to this—even amongst members of the Cabinet, about the consequences of the Government’s reform processes. Transvaal Cabinet members swarmed round the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. The hon. the Minister of National Education was also involved, as was the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Defence, the Free State leader of the NP. Even today the hon. the Prime Minister knows nothing about these discussions. Nor does the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Horace, were those secret meetings?

Secret meetings which were held by Transvaal NP members and Transvaal Cabinet members and at which deep concern was expressed about the right-wing threat, about the progress made by the CP. At the time of those discussions, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning were blamed for that. At those discussions it was decided to take reform so far and not an inch further. In the NP ranks it is now being said that the right-wing onslaught on the reform process does not have its base in the caucus, but rather in the Cabinet, since under the leadership of the Young Turks the caucus of the NP is reasonably “verlig”. That revolution against the Prime Minister’s reform effort has its base in the Cabinet. It is being led by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. [Interjections.] That is interesting information, and it all has to do with the hon. the Minister’s legislation. That is the reason why, in terms of the legislation, the hon. the Minister is not prepared to abolish apartheid and why we are now saddled with an apartheid measure that is going to have an adverse affect on South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is blissfully unaware of what is going on in his own Cabinet. He is unaware of the anti-reform revolution that has taken place there.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the legislation.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, what I am now saying is virtually the only reason, the most important reason, why provisions, exclusively based on apartheid, have been incorporated in this legislation and why apartheid measures are being incorporated in legislation that should have been completely free of any tinge of apartheid.

I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is in the House. I want to make a very urgent appeal to him. On behalf of South Africa’s stability, our future, our education and overall reform, I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to immediately get rid of the so-called new verkramptes in his Cabinet. Why can our Prime Minister not do what Maggie Thatcher did? She got rid of her “wets”. “Wets” are people who cannot accept or understand the realities of life.

If you go on long enough, you will soon also be a “Nat”.

If the hon. the Prime Minister were to get rid of his “wets”, I would perhaps consider that. “Wets” are those people who do not understand or accept the realities of life. They are people who are too scared …

Order! The hon. member must drop the letter “s” from the word “wets” and come back to the legislation (“wetgewing”).

“Wets” are people who are too scared to introduce any fundamental change. [Interjections.] The word originates from the expression “wet blankets”, and not from what certain hon. members on the other side of the House might have thought it originated from. They are people who are afraid to accept any fundamental change and to implement it purposefully and fearlessly. I want to make a very serious and very sincere appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister: He must get rid of those “wets”, those people who are not prepared to accept his changes and ideas; get rid of those people who are jeopardizing reform. Let him replace them with the intelligent, competent and “verligte” Young Turks in his ranks and give South Africa a chance to get away from the apart heid framework that hon. Ministers like the hon. the Minister of National Education still want to maintain or perpetuate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston discoursed here at length and then, at the end of that discourse, asked the Government to get rid of certain people, certain Cabinet members, etc. But the hon. member for Bryanston must guard against his party getting rid of him and of his leader. Why do we no longer hear from his leader? He has, after all, always been a very talkative fellow here. We no longer hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, because the hon. member for Pinelands is now taking over.

The hon. member for Bryanston said that by way of this legislation the hon. the Minister was undermining the country’s economy, and specifically because of the fact that there was not enough trained manpower being made available. In his Second Reading speech the hon. member Prof. Olivier agreed with me that even if we were to open up all the available facilities, this would still not meet the demand for trained manpower. He acknowledged as much. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, asks for everything to be thrown open. That would ostensibly be the solution, and the hon. member alleges that he can give chapter and verse to prove this, but surely he knows that that would be no solution. The available training facilities are simply not enough. Technikons are being extended in accordance with what the economy or the available finances will permit.

We are opposed to this measure in principle.

It is specifically a Government priority to meet the demand for trained manpower which our country so badly needs. That is correct, but to throw open the available White facilities, which are already full to capacity, is not going to offer any solution.

The hon. member for Bryanston referred to negative newspaper reports. I can also quote newspapers which heartily congratulated the hon. the Minister on this arrangement extending the future autonomy of these fine educational institutions on an even firmer basis. The suggestion that technikons should become more autonomous, more independent and more mature institutions is a fine suggestion, and the fact that in terms of this legislation members of the other population groups may be admitted to White technikons is a good arrangement. It is, however, the task of each population group to care for its own youth. Hon. members of the CP must listen carefully now, especially the hon. member for Kuruman. Each population group has the task of looking after its own youth, its own youth in particular. This does not deprive any one population group of the right to be intensely involved with the training of its youth. This does not in any way deny me, as a White, the right to be very closely involved in the training of my own children. On the contrary, each population group can look after its own youth. To tell the truth, each population group must look after its own youth. We must have our youth forge ties with their own cultural heritage. We must bind them to their own development patterns. One cannot find any fault with that.

Let us, as Whites, look for a moment at whether we should not make an effort at searching our own hearts. All of us remember the headlines about the trial of Rodney Ax, that sick man. From what kind of a community does he come? That sick man comes from the White community; he comes from a White home. It is our calling to look after people like that. Take, for example, our Children’s Act schools. Sir, I know I am stretching the point a bit, but I am doing so with a view to better illustrating my argument. In our Children’s Act schools there are approximately 2 000 children, boys and girls, and 200 in our reform schools. In Standerton there are three Children’s Act schools housing children who have suffered injury in the community and in the parental home. We are free to debate idealism and that sort of thing, but if we do not go back to the roots of the growth process of our youth, we are failing in our calling. This legislation is not taking away any rights at all. Let us leave to one side the morbid, one-sided and critical view of this legislation. The new arrangement is subject to controls. Let us look to our youth, the youth that we need. The children in those three schools in Standerton have been entrusted to the charge of the community, having no contact whatsoever with their parental homes, or at least very little contact. But the community regards it as a privilege to have those children in its midst, and therefore I express my warm thanks for the trouble those people take to involve those children in youth activities. Last year those three schools held an inter-high school athletics meeting. Eleven schools participated. That was part of the process of making those children share in normal educational activities. We must lead our youth out into the sunshine of our country; we must lead them towards development opportunities and towards shouldering responsibilities in this multi-ethnic context that we cannot get away from.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill introduces a quota system as far as technikons are concerned. Other races may now attend the technikons for a specific group subject to a quota. Clause 16 of the Bill amends section 25 of the principal Act by adding a subsection (2) which reads as follows—

The most recent debates on technikons and universities have mainly concerned the autonomy of universities and the character of technikons, particularly as a result of the admission of people of colour to White technikons.

In the Cape Peninsula there are two technikons; one in Bellville South and the other here in Cape Town. I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister what the quota of White students is at the technikon in Bellville South. I have asked this question before, but have not yet received a reply to it. Various speakers on the Government side have maintained that the population growth of the non-Whites is so high that in the foreseeable future the labour force ration will be 80:20 in favour of the non-Whites. This will therefore mean that the quota at either the technikons or the universities, which began at 10% or 20%, will rapidly increase to a figure related to the population growth. I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister what the situation will be when the attendance quota reaches a 50:50 ratio. The hon. the Minister should explain to us under the education department of which of the three envisaged Chambers such a technikon will fall. Will it be an own affair or perhaps a general affair?

I should like to indicate one difference between a permit system and a quota system. A permit is a privilege granted to an individual student, although it may be granted to more than one student. However, it still remains a privilege. In addition, a permit refers only to an individual. In contrast a quota refers to a racial group and is something that particular racial group can lay claim to. A quota system is therefore permanent; only the quota itself is negotiable.

It is a fact that once a quota has been allocated with regard to a certain racial group, it cannot be taken away again because this would lead to racial friction. The hon. member for Johannesburg West alleges that we cannot speak of an ethnic university. He pointed out to the hon. member for Barberton that at present 15% of the students enrolled at the Rand Afrikaans University are English-speaking, but that that university cannot therefore be considered an ethnic university. [Interjections.] Now I want to know from the hon. member for Johannesburg West … [Interjections.] Yes, it does not matter. Whether it is a university or a technikon is irrelevant. I am only referring to RAU for the sake of my argument. If the English-language students at RAU—of which there are 15%—were to be replaced by 15% of Afrikaans-speaking Coloureds, would that university then be classifiable as an ethnic university in terms of the norm of the hon. member for Johannesburg West? [Interjections.]

You did not understand my argument at all.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West based his assumption solely on the language factor. Of course he does not believe that there is a White people in South Africa either. That is why he made such a statement. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon. member that he said that we are not a White people. Now I want to know from him why we refer to this House in Afrikaans as the “Volksraad”?

I suppose he wants to call it the “Nasieraad”. [Interjections.]

Why do we refer to a “Volksraad”?

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

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must now just keep quiet for a while. [Interjections.] He also stated that Whites, Coloureds and Asians are population groups that all form part of our nation. Is that still correct?

You do not want to reply to my question. [Interjections.] Why should I reply to yours?

You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not want to repeat what he said before, namely that the Coloureds, the Indians and all the other groups form part of a single South African nation. Now he keeps quiet. Can the hon. member for Johannesburg West explain to us why, in the Speaker’s prayer, as the hon. member for Kuruman rightly pointed out, it is stated that we are gathered here as representatives of the “volk”? [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon. member went on to point out that the NP still believes that the solution to the country’s problems can only be achieved within the context of its various peoples. What peoples are these? The hon. member said that in its policy the NP maintains that the country’s problems can only be solved within the context of its various peoples. To what peoples is he referring if there is not a White people in South Africa?

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

The hon. member must just sit still now. Children should not put up their hands too quickly. I want to ask the hon. member what peoples he is referring to. With what peoples is he dealing here?

As far as I am concerned the quota system has certain dangers. The character of a tech-nikon can change as the quota is increased. Then the technikon may eventually become totally unacceptable to the population group for which it originally made provision. The hon. the Minister will find that once one has opened up an institution to all races, this leads to a struggle for control of that institution. Once an institution has been opened up, it cannot be closed to other races again, because if one were to do that, one would be guilty of racial discrimination.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member’s argument does not apply here. The CP is in favour of the establishment of facilities in individual areas. I agree fully with the hon. member for Standerton that every child and every young person in South Africa should be afforded the opportunity of receiving an education in separate facilities under the guidance of his own people so that he can purposefully work towards a specific job in the future. This is very important, and there I agree with the hon. member. Is it not true that the NP, as he and I know it, has made the education of the various peoples one of its major tasks over the past 35 years? I have watched my friends in the NP, and I want to tell them, in the words of the prophet: Your political fathers have eaten sour grapes, and your teeth are set on edge.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pity that, judging by what the two speakers of the PFP and the CP said, to them this entire Bill consists only of clause 16. For the past seven years I have been privileged to be a member of the Board of the Natal Technikon. They have been a particularly fruitful seven years. This was a period during which, throughout the country and particularly on the part of the Government, a far greater awareness of the value of technical education, particularly at tertiary level, developed. During this period I observed very real progress in respect of the status of our institutions for advanced technical education, not only as regards their legal position, but also as regards the appreciation of the public for the value of technical education as such. It is true that until fairly recently people still considered a technical education to be rather inferior to an academic education at our universities. It is therefore a unique opportunity for me to be present here while this legislation in all its aspects is being piloted through this Parliament, because we are dealing here with what is virtually the last development of the technikons to turn them into full-fledged tertiary institutions. There is evidence here of tremendous progress in the field of the autonomy of technikons. Great steps forward have been taken. I think this may also be the eventual outcome of the differentiation which began to be applied at school level throughout the country during the ’sixties. This is obviously not going to be the last word in the development of our technical institutions. In certain respects technikons are not yet being accorded the same full autonomy that our universities have enjoyed for so long. I wish to express the hope that fairly soon this full-fledged autonomy will be granted to all our technikoms that deserve it. I am referring in particular to those technikons that deserve it because in our country, which is a rapidly developing industrial country, it goes without saying that there are tertiary technical institutions that are younger and which cannot therefore be accorded the same treatment, not in this legislation either, as the old established technikons, such as the one I am affiliated to, the Natal Technikon. However, at the same time it is also true that the older, more experienced technikons are probably better equipped today to handle total autonomy. I am thinking here, for example, of specific matters still excluded in this legislation and subject to ministerial approval, such as the provisions in connection with salary scales and so on.

When one gets to clause 16, about which the two chief Opposition parties have so far had the most to say, I feel that we on this side of the House owe the hon. the Minister and the Government a vote of thanks for the degree of flexibility for which provision is made in the admission procedure laid down in this legislation. Both the Opposition parties tended to absolutize certain points of departure and certain basic concepts. We on this side of the House do not for one moment, play second fiddle to the CP in our belief in the correctness and desirability of institutions for tertiary education linked to the community from which they originated. As a matter of fact, when all is said and done it is not the CP but the NP which, for more than 20 years now, has by way of purposeful legislation and action promoted this ideal of tertiary institutions firmly entrenched in their own communities.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Rissik was a member of this party when, as long ago as 1959, the Extension of University Education Act was approved. That was the start of university colleges for Blacks, Indians and Coloureds, and it was this Government which guided those university colleges to full-fledged autonomy. It was this Government which, as early as 1960, by means of the legislative steps which were taken saw, as it still sees today, and believed as it still believes today, that the communities in South Africa cannot be totally and absolutely separated, but that there have to be areas of contact, and this goes for universities as well. For the past 20 years now provision has been made for the admission of students of one ethnic group to institutions of other ethnic groups. Thus far it has been on a permit basis. However, now the CP comes along, 20 years later, and discovers the principle of absolute exclusivity, which was never the standpoint of the NP, not even when those hon. members were still in this party.

Now they are fighting Verwoerd. [Interjections.]

After all, hon. members of the CP know that one cannot separate university facilities and technical facilities so absolutely that one cannot admit a single member of one ethnic group to the institution of another ethnic group. After all, they know that in our community, with our diverse population groups, it is just not possible to offer the large variety of courses at every one of these institutions and that it is not possible to have a group of practical students for every imaginable course. It has always been the standpoint of the NP—even when those hon. members still belonged to this party—that where provision is not made at one institution for advanced education of a technical or academic nature, provision has to be made at other institutions. No single ethnic group should, however, be denied the right to be trained in a field of its choice or one for which it has an aptitude. I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to deny this and tell us where they got this new absolute principle of theirs from. [Interjections.]

It began on 24 February 1982.

That is in fact the weak spot in the reasoning of those hon. members. Those hon. members accept a community which is not totally or fully separated. They accept that they are part of an economic community where there are areas of contact, but they want to reserve specific facets for themselves in which it would ostensibly be possible to bring about such absolute separation. Surely it is unthinkable for someone, as the hon. member for Rissik said, to introduce this in South Africa—starting on 24 February 1982—if it is not the pattern of the entire community.

I maintain that hon. members of the CP are trying to absolutize ethnic exclusivity in institutions for tertiary education, and we have exactly the same tendency in the official Opposition, but with the opposite goal in mind, because they want to absolutize the concept of integration, of mixing.

The hon. member for Bryanston, who is not here at the moment, hid behind two important considerations when we were discussing another Bill. He used the argument that there was strong opposition to the quota system and went on to use the argument that the universities should have academic freedom to be able to admit whomever they wished—students of their own choice.

It is very interesting, when we came to the legislation on technikons, that they could no longer use that argument, namely that the technikons, or a certain group of them, were strongly opposed to the quota system. At another stage in the debate I pointed out to them that it was supported unanimously by the technikons, by the association of technikons. As a matter of fact, that association claims to be the actual initiator of the legislation. The legislation is therefore not merely being introduced with their consent, the Association of Technikons maintaining that it initiated the legislation. That argument of the hon. member for Bryanston therefore fell away and even he realized that he could not present this House with the principle of academic freedom for technikons. He therefore had to find another reason why he has to advocate technikon integration at tertiary level, come what may.

He found that argument in the legislation of the hon. the Minister of Manpower and put forward the ridiculous argument that because Whites and Blacks work together on the factory floor, they have to be trained together in the technikons. If we have ever heard a superficial argument in this House, then this is it. Let us take that argument a step further. Because two medical practitioners jointly perform a certain operation, according to the hon. member for Bryanston it would be undesirable to have one medical faculty at the University of Cape Town and another at the University of Stellenbosch. Because different engineers work on the same railway bridge, it would be undesirable for the University of the Witwatersrand to provide certain engineers and the University of Pretoria to provide others. Surely that is a ridiculous argument.

Evaluating the argument that because Whites and Blacks work together they have to be trained together one sees, surely, that there is no difference between it and the one I have just mentioned. Let us go a step further. If that hon. member’s argument had any merit, surely this would mean that it would be undesirable for people working in our offices at employee level, who do not have technical or academic training, but who entered the labour market as clerks and typists straight from school and found that they were doing the same work there, to have come from different White, Black, Indian and Coloured schools. If they work together—and that argument of the hon. member applies—this must surely also apply to the schools those workers attended. Why is the hon. member not honest enough to say that this should not only take place at tertiary level, but that schools for Whites and Blacks and Coloureds and Indians should also be totally integrated from the first year right through to matric? After all, the hon. member for Bryanston knows that his is a specious argument. If his argument that because people work together on the factory floor they should also study together in the same training institutions, was valid, why should they leave the factory floor to go home to separate residential areas? Then one has immediately started to break down the entire social pattern. [Interjections.] Then one has immediately started to break down the entire basis of the social pattern.

As with all things, so too with this legislation. Where we have a society in which we recognize group interests and in which we want to promote the future of ethnic groups, we can nevertheless not act in absolute terms when it comes to these matters. This is where the actual weaknesses in the arguments of both the PFP on the left and the CP on the right lie. I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was quite intriguing to listen to the hon. member for Umlazi. He lifted the skirts of NP policy very gingerly from time to time to show us a little of the reality that is hidden by those skirts. I found it quite interesting to hear the hon. member defending the use of technikons by all population groups. He tells us that this has always been the policy of the NP. What he is saying to us—indirectly, of course—is that previously and totally consistent with NP policy, all tertiary institutions were permitted to admit members of other population groups as students. The hon. member said so. Previously, however, we had the permit system so as to regulate the number of members of those other population groups who could be admitted to an institution for tertiary education such as a college for advanced technical education or a technikon. What the hon. member has actually told us is that the quota system is exactly the same mechanism for regulating the number of people belonging to the other population groups. I want to ask him where then is there an improvement? There is no improvement in principle because the principle is still exactly the same, namely that the NP Government will allow a certain number of members of other population groups to attend a certain number of technikons. All we are doing by means of this Bill in terms of clause 16 is to change the system of administration that will control that number of students. However, as yet, nobody on that side has been able to tell us what the magic point of titration is. For those hon. members who have never done chemistry, titration is that point where the last drop of a particular chemical changes the colour of a particular fluid from pink to white.

That is what they are afraid of.

Throughtout all the stages of the debate on this Bill we have been trying to ascertain two things from the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House. The first of these is at what level does the Government think that we will reach titration in respect of tertiary education in South Africa? Secondly, what mechanism is the hon. the Minister going to use to try to determine the point of titration in terms of this Bill? All that is happening as far as this Bill is concerned—and that is why we are going to vote against it again, primarily because of clause 16—is that the system of administration is being changed in regard to the control of the number of people in accordance with some mysterious figure which the hon. the Minister may have in mind. I want to ask the hon. the Minister once again what mechanism he is going to use to determine the titration level at the various technikons, whether there can be variation on a geographic level and whether there is going to be full consultation with the technikons concerned.

You have your chemistry all wrong.

Even the NP may dream about reversing titration but unfortunately it is a natural law. No matter what they do they will not be able to change that.

You have that concept mixed up. [Interjections.]

It is rather like getting water to run uphill. I am afraid that is physically impossible, even for the NP.

However, I would like to come back to the hon. member for Umlazi and ask him a question. He said that the technikons themselves motivated this Bill. I want to ask the hon. member two questions. Did that include the concept of the quota system as enunciated in clause 16?

The Bill as it stands.

Did it include clause 16? Did the technikons themselves initiate and motivate clause 16 of the Bill?

Not a peep out of him!

The second question I want to ask the hon. member is whether technikon representatives actually supported the concept of the quota. I think that when he goes back and does a little research for himself, he will find that his generalization does not hold water as far as the whole Bill is concerned. One can quite glibly say that technikons are in favour of this Bill simply because they favour certain aspects of the Bill, but I think we have to be very specific and talk about clause 16 as such.

We still oppose this Bill vehemently because of clause 16. In respect of all the committees that have investigated tertiary education in South Africa, and I say this very specifically, the majority of the members on those committees—I am now talking about the De Lange and the Retief Committee—has indicated that the long-term solution for the admission of members of other population groups to our institutions for tertiary education is to be found in local option and decision-making at institutional level. The individual institutional level’s decision-making process should be taken into account and supported. The majority opinion of every one of these committees has been that that is where the long-term solution is to be found. There are so many variations and additional factors that one has to take into account in determining the number of people that should be admitted to these institutions, that it is going to be a physically impossible task for the Minister to decide on his own. The only way he can do that, is in consultation with the technikons. If in fact the prerogative is going to lie with the technikons to make the ultimate decision or recommendation to the Minister, then we have of course already achieved local option.

This Bill goes against the mainstream of sociological and education philosophy in South Africa. I say that as a categorical statement. It is only a specific view of the NP and of the Minister in particular which is trying to swim against the natural stream of evolutionary development at tertiary educational level. We can find no merit at all in clause 16 and will therefore continue to oppose this Bill vehemently.

Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the hon. member for Durban North’s standpoint on “local option” in a moment. I first want to say that for the Third Reading of this measure it is perhaps necessary to review the Bill and put it in perspective.

The most important facet of this Bill is definitely the greater autonomy being given to technikons and, then of course, there is clause 16. The purpose of these amendments is to have a more streamlined arrangement in connection with the admission of people of colour to technikons. I want to repeat that we should not lose sight of the fact that even if the PFP is opposed to this in principle, it is the point of departure of this side of the House that the various technikons are community-orientated institutions that arise out of communities. It is also of importance to remember that the various technikons are also group orientated. Technikons are established as a result of a need which is identified in a specific population group. However, it is a fact that over the years a need was identified from which it became clear that there were certain points and spheres of contact in respect of certain fields of study and that a need had arisen in that people of colour wished to follow specific fields of study at specific technikons. Initially, the permit system was used, a system which I think the CP accepts. However, there a fundamental objection is now being made when a measure is introduced which makes for a more effective arrangement. I want to repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate, namely that this new measure has built-in control mechanisms, but at the same time gives greater recognition to the autonomy of the various technikons. I want to repeat the statement that the CP has identified itself as the group which, when reference is made to people of colour and certain rights and privileges are given to them, immediately forms a laager.

The other day, during the Second Reading the hon. member for Rissik objected when I accused them that through their behaviour which was ostensibly aimed at protecting the Whites, they were moving towards an absolute absurdity which did not do credit to the Whites here in South Africa. We in South Africa are not living in clearly demarcated compartments. We cannot isolate ourselves to such an extent that there are no points or areas of contact at all. One finds a good example of the CP’s standpoint in their attitude towards the Committee of Technikon Principals. Through both the hon. the member for Rissik and the hon. member for Koedoespoort—who I observe is not here today—they have admitted that there has to be consultation on matters of common interest. There has to be a reciprocal, back-and-forth discussions. But when it comes to holding discussions, they object. When, for the purpose of holding discussions, various lecturers or principals of the technikons have to be united in one body, a body which has to discuss matters of common interest, they object. What kind of criteria are we dealing with here? I want to accuse the CP of absolute political ambiguity. The statements they make here are far from the truth and do not do them credit.

Mention just one example.

I have just mentioned the example of the Committee of Technikon Principals, in regard to which they have argued that there have to be discussions, but the moment reference is made to a co-ordinated committee, they object. The hon. member for Rissik objected to my accusing them of wanting to set themselves apart as a so-called super group. They are elevating themselves to such a level that, if it had not been a serious matter, it would have been hilarious. Suddenly they claim to be the advocates of separate development. They have no right to that claim. If they have their way, people of colour will remain hewers of wood and drawers of water here in South Africa. Separate development does not mean the oppression of other groups. The CP believes in, accepts, advocates and fights for the concept of “separateness”. They are displaying a typical HNP mentality here. However, when it comes to the development of other population groups, they become blind and in a flood of words accuse the NP of having deviated from the principle of separate development. They come along and say they are the only supporters of the policy of separate development. No, Sir, the NP still believes in separate development for each group. But we are not afraid of the development towards which we want to guide the other groups. Under the policy of separate development, a development process has taken place. That process has now reached this stage, and this is where the CP, the HNP and these right-wing factions, are now panicking and insisting that too much is being done for people of colour. Sir, surely development also presupposes an improvement in standards, a higher standard of living and rights and privileges. But the right-wing groups do not recognize this; they do not recognize those rights and privileges. They begrudge other groups an improvement in their standard of living.

The hon. member for Rissik accused me of lying when I accused the hon. member for Koedoespoort of having attacked the Black technikons and in that way also the Department of Education and Training. But, after all, the hon. member for Koedoespoort did say that the other technikons are not being fully developed. After all, he did say that we have called a halt to developing the technikons of people of colour and that they are not full-fledged technikons. To support this, I want to quote from the unrevised Hansard of the hon. member. According to this, he said—

Sir, this is what the hon. member for Koedoespoort had to say, and I repeat: I object to that statement because it is not correct. I do not know whether the hon. member is a member of the CP’s study group on Education and Training, but I nevertheless want to advise him when we visit the Mabopane East technikon during the recess, to accompany us so that he can see what progress has been made.

A while ago the hon. member for Rissik referred in an interjection to the rift which occurred on 24 February 1982. Sir, it was indeed a rift. That was when those hon. members moved away from the NP and when they renounced the NP. On that day they shifted to a position away from the NP. I reject their allegation that the NP has lost touch with separate development and that they alone can claim to the preservation of that policy.

Mr. Speaker, my advice to the hon. member for Gezina is that he should rather not mention 24 February 1982. Where did the hon. member stand on that day? When the hon. member rises here in this House and begins to apologize for his conduct on that day or when he begins to launch a violent attack on the right side of the political spectrum in South Africa, he makes us feel the way we felt as a nation about the Piet de Wets and those people during the Anglo-Boer War. Unfortunately the hon. member for Bryanston is not here at the moment. He mentioned members who were supposedly moving in the direction of the PFP. I should like to inquire from him whether the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for Gezina are among those members, because it seems to me that time after time the hon. member for Gezina, at any rate, tries to move closer to the Progressive side instead of moving closer to the right. Today we had to hear about the two factions within the NP again.

The hon. member said that this Bill streamlined the present system. According to him the substitution of a quota system for the permit system streamlined the system. When members of this party were still sitting on the opposite side we agreed to the permit system because it was said that it was an interim measure until such time that the necessary facilities became available at the technikons for people of colour. When that stage was reached permits issued by the Minister could then be withdrawn by him. He had complete control of the system. But surely the same does not apply to the system that is now being introduced. Surely this means the partial throwing open of White technikons on a permanent basis. He accused us of being a group, that was forming a lager, as a “verkrampte” group. He said we were opposed to the proposed Committee of Technikon Principals. But, Sir, we have never been opposed to negotiation as such and we would not have taken stand against this proposal either if the NP were still committed to the policy of separate development. We are not opposed to negotiations between autonomous educational structures of independent States. But we are opposed to such negotiations leading to a shared say and to integration.

The hon. member says the NP is still committed to the policy of separate development. I want to remind him of the fact that separate development has two legs. It does not merely involve development, something we advocate ourselves. It also involves a separate ethnic basis, and that hon. member’s party has now abandoned this basis. We on this side—as the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Koedoespoort spelt out very clearly during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, particularly as far as the consequences of clause 16 of this Bill were concerned—have no objection at all to greater autonomy and a greater measure of independence for these technikons. But as in the case of our universities an element of permanence is being introduced here by the admission of other population groups to White technikons. As we pointed out in the debate on the introduction of a quota system for universities, the intention with the permit system was to make ad hoc arrangements, arrangements merely on an interim basis. Permits could be withdrawn when there was no longer any need for them. The ultimate goal was for the different population groups to have their own institutions. However, that is no longer the goal of the NP, particularly in the light of the new dispensation. It is now the policy of that side of the House that Whites, Coloureds and Indians should have equal participation in one nation. No separateness is to be found in that policy any longer. That Whites, Coloureds and Asians belong to one nation is now the policy of that side of the House. No one has contradicted it as yet. Then this quota system, this whole policy, is nothing other than an interim measure preceding the complete throwing open of all educational facilities at the tertiary level.

If the hon. member for Bryanston is still not satisfied with the present regulation of the quota system he should just be patient for a little while because the Government is moving in the direction of throwing open all educational facilities at the tertiary level completely. [Interjections.] On the other hand the hon. member for Bryanston has to be careful how he eggs hon. members on the Government side on to move in the direction of full integration. As soon as that happens, surely the PFP will have no more room left for its own policy.

After all, why should the Government provide separate educational institutions at the tertiary level to members of the same nation in the new dispensation? Surely that would be futile and, of course, also completely contrary to the NP’s policy of a single nationhood. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister categorically whether the quota at technikons would be subject to the consideration of a specific course not offered at an own technikon and whether the quota system now eliminates this approach so that these institutions are now, at least partially, being thrown open to all population groups on a permanent basis. Furthermore I should also like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether the quota at technikons would also, as in the case of universities, be negotiable, for example, as far as enlarging or reducing that quota is concerned. What norm would be applied in this regard? To what extent would the hon. the Minister be prepared to make concessions as far as the quotas of technikons are concerned? Is it possible, for example, that we could find ourselves in a situation where a quota of 50% of another population group were admitted to a specific technikon? I also want to know whether these quota systems, as the hon. the Minister explained in regard to universities in the new dispensation, would also, in the event of the reduction of the quota, be an own affair, while increasing the quota would be a general affair.

Don’t you know that it is a micro-macro educational policy?

Is it true, as the hon. member for Rissik has just remarked there, that the macro educational policy of the Government would then apply? If that is so, the Minister of National Education takes the final decision. As the hon. the Minister himself admitted, that Minister could be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. Consequently the educational policy obtaining then would be enforceable upon each of those population groups, as the hon. the Minister set out very clearly in this House during the discussion of the Universities Amendment Bill.

As far as clause 7 of the Bill before us is concerned it is clear that a racially mixed committee of technikon principals is being established here. Mr. Speaker, allow me to make one thing very clear. We in the CP are now being reproached for having approved of committees or advisory bodies of this nature earlier on while now we are suddenly opposed to them, as the hon. member for Gezina also said. However, hon. members should remember that in the past the policy of separate development still applied and that the educational structures of the various population groups were completely separated. These advisory bodies and negotiating bodies which were established for the purpose of, for example, determining a standard of education, were then still quite acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the time to reply to questions. [Interjections.] Furthermore I want to submit that those advisory bodies and committees were necessary. However, the situation has now changed radically. Since the Government is now moving in the direction of a mixed educational structure, starting at the level of tertiary education, as is also the case with technikons here, we reject a co-ordinating structure of this nature because this committee of technikon principals is now going to make recommendations in a multi-racial educational structure which is completely at variance with the policy of separate development, and for this very reason we in the CP shall vote against this legislation at the Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, as educationists who follow the development of the various educational institutions in our country with a great deal of interest, it is truly a memorable occasion for us to be able to welcome this Bill granting the technikons, the tertiary institutions for technical education, a high degree of autonomy. We are grateful to have reached this stage. However, it is a pity that this Bill, which could mean so much to our country in the educational sphere, is being used for political ends, to score a few meagre points off a person as regards possible future events. It struck me that the hon. member for Pietersburg was obsessed with the idea of the quota system now making the admission of people of colour to particular institutions a permanent manifestation. I want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg where this Bill states that the quota system is a permanent system.

Tell us where it says anything to the contrary.

Why does he draw conclusions based on something one does not even find in the Bill? It is merely a good story to tell the public, thereby serving their own political ends.

Is it an interim measure, then?

It is a fine story, but it has no substance whatsoever, and he has no grounds for saying that this is being introduced here in its full and final shape.

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

Really, Sir. The hon. member for Rissik should bear in mind that one could ask many questions that do not necessarily attest to any special insight or intellectual capabilities.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He stated, inter alia, that the quota would have to be increased in view of the increase in the number of people of colour. An hon. member made that statement, but what does it mean?

Precisely what he said.

This statement is based on the assumption that the Government has already decided that no more technikons are to be built for people of colour. I now challenge the hon. member, as I did during the Second Reading debate, to tell us where the Bill states, or where any Minister or any member on this side of the House has said or implied, that no additional technikons will be built for people of colour. If he is unable to do so, his statement can be dismissed as utter nonsense, as simply being a political fairy tale he is conjuring up to impress people, a fairy tale about how far the Government has deviated from the principle of separate development. He went even further and said that once others had been admitted, one would never again be able to close such an institution.

You, of course, no longer discriminate, do you?

I recollect very well a question having been put to hon. members of the CP, during the Second Reading debate, about their policy that technikons and universities with all the necessary facilities should be built for each population group …

Is that wrong?

There is nothing wrong with that. The question that was then asked, however, was what they were going to do in the interim, when those institutions with all their facilities had not yet been established. The reply to that was:

We would admit them on a temporary basis.

Conditionally, with a permit.

However, they argued that once those students had been admitted, they could not be turned away, nor could farther admissions be refused, since this would cause racial friction. They say things to suit themselves. One thing applies in one argument, and something else applies in another argument. Nothing is ever consistent, because it suits them to be inconsistent.

I now want to refer to the semantic exercise involving people (volk) and nation (nasie). I should like to give hon. members an idea of how far one could go with these semantic exercises and contradictions. Does the hon. member for Langlaagte belong to the same people as the hon. member for Hillbrow, for example?

Yes, we belong to a White people. We sit in the same Assembly Chamber (Volksraad) and we sing the same anthem (volkslied). [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston stated that the Government was sabotaging the economy by way of this legislation and the quota system. The hon. member said that the Government was sabotaging the economy since, due to the introduction of the quota system, there would be no real opportunities for training. However, this statement presupposes that there is still room for admission in either a White or a Black technikon. Only if one accepts that there is still room, but that no more people of colour may be admitted as a result of the quota system, can one claim that the economy is being sabotaged because there are no opportunities for training? This whole statement is therefore based on a false assumption, for no other purpose than to try and make a little political capital from this whole matter which is of such importance to the development of all our people.

The hon. member for Bryanston also stated that the Black student was being deprived of his right to choose for himself—and now comes the mean insinuation—to study at the nearest and best possible technikon. If I may say so, that is a mean and despicable insinuation.

Order! The hon. member may not say so.

Then I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] As the hon. member for Innesdal has just whispered to me, that insinuation does not carry much weight, in my case. Be that as it may, just look at the insinuation embodied in that statement! It means that Black technikons are inferior to White technikons, but that is not true. Surely the hon. member for Bryanston knows that that is not true. Why does he say that kind of thing? I repeat: He does that to try and give the whole argument a political and emotional flavour.

I am privileged to be able to give my full support to the Third Reading of this legislation. It is a fine achievement in the educational field. As I have already said, it is a fine achievement for that section of our education and training system which, until fairly recently, has been stigmatized and scorned.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Kimberley North.

I want to say at the outset that I agree with the last few sentences of his speech. I indicated earlier that it was a pity that the hon. the Minister was placing us in a position in which we were unable to give this Bill our unqualified support. We readily conceded that this Bill does, in fact, contain positive elements, for furthering technical training. I only hope that as far as these aspects are concerned, we are going to enter a new phase of technical training in South Africa.

I think the hon. member for Kimberley North misunderstood my colleague, the hon. member for Bryanston, when he used the words “nearest” and “best”. What the hon. member for Bryanston meant, was that we would certainly want to grant an individual the right to attend the technikon nearest to him, if that is the technikon he wishes to attend. He must have the freedom to do so. If he thinks one technikon is better than another, he should have the freedom to attend the technikon he thinks is best. The hon. member for Bryanston used the words in that sense, but he certainly did not use them to cast a reflection on the standard, or on any other aspect, of particular technikons in South Africa.

The hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Kimberley North also said that we were trying to turn this into a political issue. This was also said a number of times by other hon. members opposite. I really cannot understand this argument, since as far as we are concerned, the issue in this debate is not the merits contained in the Bill. To us, the issue is rather the fact that with this Bill, the Government has in fact introduced a political philosophy which it wants to implement here, viz., the political philosophy of apartheid. I shall come back to that in a moment. The accusation that has been levelled at the hon. member for Bryanston—that of saying that we have dragged politics into the matter—is therefore unfair.

The hon. member for Umlazi spoke about the greater flexibility and streamlining this legislation would bring about. I want to tell the hon. member for Umlazi that I find it difficult to associate this statement with those principles of the legislation we have opposed here. The flexibility the hon. member is speaking about, is not apparent to me, since the issue here is, firstly, the implementation of a principle, viz., that people are being prevented, on the basis of race and colour, from attending certain institutions. There was the accusation that we absolutize certain things. This absolutization lies in the fact that time and again—I am sorry that the hon. member for Umlazi is not present at the moment—we absolutize race and colour in this legislation. That is where the absolutization comes in. It is not an issue in any other sphere. Secondly, as regards flexibility, having listened to what the hon. the Minister had to say, viz., that he was, in fact, going to use all possible means permitted by this legislation in order to impose the quota system, I do not know where flexibility comes into the picture. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister said that he was going to impose certain conditions, e.g. relating to accommodation, etc., and in view of that, I want to reiterate that what I find completely incomprehensible, is how we could then regard this legislation as being more flexible than the present legislation.

The hon. member for Umlazi mentioned the report of the Association of Technikons. The hon. member for Durban North put a few pertinent questions to the hon. member for Umlazi, to which he did not even reply by way of interjection. I must say that unfortunately it was not possible for us to get hold of that report. It was not available to us through the usual channels. It is not obtainable in the Parliamentary Library, nor at any of the other institutions. The hon. member for Durban North asked whether the technikon principals had specifically approved each clause in this Bill, and that question remains unanswered. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would explain the matter to us. Despite all these circumstances—and the hon. the Minister made a great fuss about this last week—I simply cannot see that the argument that they have approved all these matters and that consequently there is nothing wrong with them, has any validity. All I want to say is that until one has further and more comprehensive information, one has to keep to the standpoint that most thinking people do not, in fact, approve of this restriction.

I am still waiting patiently to hear what the real motivation for introducing this restriction is. I want to point out in this regard that the hon. member for Umlazi said that we were absolutizing the concept of integration or mixing. That is not the case. What we are, in fact, doing is lodging a plea for the principle of voluntary association. We are not going to force people to integrate. We definitely would not do that. We are merely saying that one should be able to choose to be admitted to all these various State institutions. We believe that people should be free to associate with one another in the political sphere, as well as all the other spheres, if they wish to do so.

Would you prevent us from being separate?

The hon. member for Bryanston has replied to that question many times during the course of these debates.

We do not wish to treat the universities and the technikons as one would treat children. That is a second principle I want to mention. These are fully-fledged institutions with adult, thinking people in charge. One has no right to treat those institutions the way one treats children.

Thirdly, I wish to confirm what has been said here many times. The issue is not integration or mixing, but our inexorable opposition to any form of statutory discrimination on the basis of race and colour, for the simple reason, as we have stated time and again, that in this country of ours we are caught up in a factual situation we cannot change, whether we want to or not, whether we like it or not. For all time we are going to be living in a community that consists of a multiplicity of groups, a multiplicity of colour and race groups. That is why, for the sake of the future of our people and our country, we cannot approve a measure such as the one contained in this Bill, a measure which is based on discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

I readily accept that the Government and the NP, given their past, are caught up in a problem. The problem is that the NP cannot simply move away from certain things. I am not accusing hon. members sitting there at present since we do, after all, inherit many things that were created before our time. We should therefore display the necessary understanding and tolerance.

Do not make things too easy for them now.

No, I would not want to do that. I just want to say that hon. members opposite are saddled with concepts that assisted them in coming to power at the time, but which are completely counter-productive in the times we are living in, since they are achieving precisely the opposite of what hon. members and/or their predecessors thought they would achieve at the time.

I asked—we are still waiting for a reply—why there have to be measures of this nature. I claim that there is only one of two reasons for this: The first is that they are unable to move away from discrimination on the basis of colour or race. I have been waiting for hon. members opposite to tell us that that is the case. I have said many times that if that were the case, we would disagree, and disagree most adamently, but then at least we would understand why that was the case.

Time and again, however, it is said that the element involved is community orientation, and that that is the dominant factor. I find that incomprehensible, since I honestly do not think that community orientation could be a factor. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the Government has accepted the responsibility of telling a university and a technikon that it will decide whether or not their community orientation is being endangered. Surely that is absurd. We have allowed complete freedom to White universities. No one can say that either the Afrikaans-language universities or the English-language universities have lost their community character or community orientation because members of other language groups attend those institutions. Why, all of a sudden, are we living in fear and trepidation, when it comes to race and colour, that if we were to admit people belonging to other groups, the relevant institutions would lose their community character? I said earlier that if that were ever to happen—I do not foresee it happening—we would already have reached a stage where those institutions, and the society in which they function, would already have come to terms with that development. Under these circumstances, I regret to say that the hon. the Minister has not convinced us of the desirability of the restrictions imposed in this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the debate on the Third Reading, I cannot but conclude that few new arguments and few new questions, if any, were advanced or put to which a counter-argument or reply had not already been given, particularly during the Second Reading stage, and once again by hon. members on this side of the House during the Third Reading debate.

The hon. member for Bryanston spelt out in varying terms here what interests would ostensibly be affected and undermined—he even used the strong word “sabotaged”—by the policy of the Government as manifested in this legislation. I want to state once again that the Government clearly, without making any apology and without beating about the bush, bases the point of departure of its policy on the standpoint that it accords recognition to the diversity of peoples and population groups in this country. The Government accepts this as a fact and a reality. Proceeding from that premise the Government is also convinced that differentiated education systems which make differentiated provision for the various population groups, are not detrimental to the best interests of the country but that they are in fact in the best interests of the stability, peace and order which we need here, and in addition I wish to emphasize—it came out in the argument which I advanced earlier in which I contrasted the “tokenism” and its results in terms of which provision had been made in the past for persons of colour in so-called open institutions with the spectacular expansion of opportunities at university and tech-nikon level for these people—in particular that they open up and make available the best economic opportunities and vocational opportunities for persons of the various population groups.

Proceeding from this fundamental standpoint I wish to emphasize once again that as the policy of the Government makes provision for universities of their own for the various population groups, it also makes provision for their own technikons. I wish to repeat briefly some of the important additional practical considerations.

A point which the hon. member for Standerton stated very neatly in his speech was that even if we were to throw open all the existing educational facilities that have been established for Whites, this would still not offer any substantial solution to the tremendous increase in demand owing to the growth in numbers of persons in the other population groups who are calling for education on the various levels. Consequently, to be able to meet the needs of the tremendously rapid and comprehensively growing numbers effectively it is necessary to make provision for tertiary educational institutions located in those communities. I have pointed out previously, and I wish to emphasize it again, that the institutions which are located in specific communities, particularly in the sphere of technical training that makes exceptional demands on a community which is still relatively less sophisticated and which is in fact still on the way to modernization, offer a fair, generous and natural opportunity for special adjustment education in view of the problems which students of those communities experience because of their community background, their milieu and also owing to specific shortcomings in their education, particularly as far as technical training is concerned. Here we are concerned with shortcomings in the sphere of mathematics and science. I should like to remind hon. members here of the attempts made in various institutions for higher education in the USA to absorb students from the so-called “deprived communities” into the “Wasp” institutes for higher education of the USA—in the more established “White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant” groups’ institutions for higher education—by means of so-called “affirmative action” and to accommodate them there by means of special adaptive education. According to research results pointed out to me during visits to America and which also became known in other ways, this really led to poor results, precisely because it was found that a person or a group requiring specific adaptive education was able to assimilate it best in the context of his own milieu and that he in fact found it offensive to be offered special adaptive education as part of a minority group within a greater community. These are a few of the reasons which I mentioned and which I emphasize again for the importance which the Government attaches to the creation and development of own institutions for higher education on technikon level.

At the same time we have acknowledged since the beginning of this debate, and we still do so and shall continue to do so, that there are in addition areas of contact among the educational needs of the various population groups which make it necessary, particularly on tertiary level, to accept reciprocal throwing open of these institutions as part of our policy, but in a controlled and limited way. I have already mentioned various reasons for this and I wish to repeat them briefly since various hon. members have asked for them again. In the first place there is the fact that the state of development of the various technikons in terms of the number of courses which they offer is still not always comparable and consequently that the opportunities which a person of a specific population group is seeking are not always available for him at the technikon of his group. In such a case, in all fairness, provision therefore has to be made for him in the meantime until such time as there are such own opportunities, at another technikon. I also pointed out that, unlike the situation in the case of universities, there is in technikon education a very intimate interaction between a student’s training circumstances, his work circumstances and his residential circumstances and that these three aspects, particularly in regard to the so-called “sandwich courses” and similar courses, which play an important role in technical education, exert an important influence and that they must also be taken into consideration when opportunities are created for persons to further their studies at technikons other than those of their own population group.

Moreover it is a fact that some technical training fields of study, as regards the demands of manpower in respect of lecturers as well as the tremendously high costs involved, are very difficult to duplicate, particularly if they are so specialized that they attract only relatively small numbers of students, and in such cases it appears necessary for the foreseeable future to allow students from other population groups as well to attend that technikon where such highly specialized instruction in these fields of study with small numbers of students are being offered. I also pointed out, and I wish to reemphasize, that within the set-up and the demand of the business world, as well as those of the industries, the need arises time and again for rapidly fluctuating, specific short courses which are introduced at short notice to try to meet a specific need in a specific industrial or business community. In this respect, too, it is not always possible to meet a specific need of this kind everywhere and on a continuous basis, and it is therefore necessary to bring about a greater degree of flexibility in the admission of students.

That is why we also acknowledge, besides the premise that the respective population groups should have their own technikons, the need for making available the training facilities at a specific technikon to members of other population groups on a limited and controlled basis.

I should like to thank hon. members on this side of the House for presenting the standpoint of the Government. I have already referred to the hon. member for Standerton, who emphasized the argument that even if one were to throw all existing White facilities open, this still would not solve the material problem of providing the other population groups with educational opportunities. The hon. member also emphasized that it was the premise of the Government that each population group should look after its own youth, and that the Government was concentrating on providing additional facilities to the youth of all the population groups, on the level of technical training as well.

As I also pointed out earlier, the hon. member for Umlazi emphasized that there were certain practical circumstances, which had in effect already been recognized during the past 20 years, so that—for the sake of fair opportunities for everyone, and because it is not possible to offer the same courses everywhere, at all times and to everyone—provision has to be made for the admission of students of other population groups. I also have appreciation for the fact that the hon. member indicated what unrealistic and unfair absolutism existed in the standpoints of hon. members of the Opposition parties.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gezina for the fact that he pointed out the anomalies which existed in the argument that a quota must of necessity have greater permanence than a permit. I do not wish to repeat the entire argument which I myself advanced in this connection in a previous debate pertaining to this legislation. I think that I did so fully during the Second Reading debate.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Kimberley North for his rebuttal of the fallacious argument of the hon. member for Langlaagte, who alleged that the allocation of a quota inevitably had to be increased until it eventually stood at 50%.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to ascertain whether the hon. the Minister is going to react to the talks which they held, according to the hon. member for Bryanston. I should like to have more particulars in that regard. What is the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this?

Mr. Speaker, I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member for Lichtenburg is, of course, a great expert in regard to talks of this nature. He will be able to remember very well how this was done in the past. He was always a master in this respect.

I am simply very interested. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Durban North wanted to know what the “point of titration” was. Of course this links up in a certain sense with the argument which the hon. member for Langlaagte raised. The essential point in this respect is the basic premise of the Government, which I stated at the outset, that it wishes to expand technikons, which are primarily concentrated on service to a specific population group and its communities. An expansion of the quota which whould endanger this aspect would be unacceptable to the Government. Otherwise the Government, in consultation with the technikons concerned, would take into account the recognition of the need for variation from place to place when it considers and determines the quotas.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, if I heard him correctly, maintained that I had allegedly said that the quotas as a general affair, when they were determined, would be enforceable on the institutions concerned. I wish to state categorically—the hon. member can go and read my speech in Hansard; I have already elucidated this point clearly—that the Government is absolutely opposed to enforceable quotas, in terms of which an institution is compelled against its will to accept students from other population groups whom it does not wish to accept. This is very clearly the standpoint of the Government, as I elucidated it in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that the hon. the Minister stated in this House that the education policy of the Minister of National Education, who will have to decide on the general education policy and who in terms of the new dispensation may be a White, a Coloured or an Indian, will be enforceable upon the respective chambers of Parliament?

I said that any general policy, whether in respect of education or in respect of other own affairs also mentioned in the Constitution Bill, will of course, serve as a framework within which a person has to act. If minimum standards for employment, for the awarding of qualifications and for examinations are stated as being general policy, then it would be meaningless and foolish if any of the own affairs departments were able to maintain standards lower than those stated minimum standards. Then there is no order whatsoever in this country.

I should like to refer briefly to the hon. member for Bryanston. He told Sandman stories of a kind we have not heard in this House for a long time. If there was ever an illustration of the total bankruptcy and embarrassment of the Official then it was these nonsensical stories, these idle stories, which the hon. member for Bryanston told. This was a fantasy which he not merely sucked out of his thumb but which built on and are a projection of his experience within his party. As I indicated earlier in the debate it is very clear that the Mafia, the Politburo, of the group of extremists on the extreme militant left wing of his party are acting in such a way that he and the hon. member for Yeoville do not really have a choice but to adopt the standpoint which I think they could have stated with greater conviction.

The hon. member for Bryanston also implied here that this legislation supposedly undermined or discredited the credibility of the Government’s process of reform. I find it very ironical that that member should say this, that hon. member who in advance, when the Government was still in the process of spelling out its guidelines, intimated that one could not really expect any process of reform from this Government. Then he came along and implied through a remark which he made, that the Government had indeed embarked on a clear course of reform, but that this measure was detracting from it. That is nonsensical. The one moment he is attacking and discrediting the reform plans of this Government in advance, and the next moment he says that this measure was affecting those reforms.

I think it is very clear that the official Opposition feels great concern, in fact great fear, in their hearts at the strong and definite support which the Government is receiving in respect of its reform attempts in the constitutional sphere, that they are filled with chagrin at the success which the Government has attained with its constitutional initiatives, in contrast to the disappointment which the Government experienced in 1977 as a result of the undermining and disparaging conduct displayed at the time by spokesmen on the official opposition side.

I think that I have with this replied to the most important points. The hon. member Prof. Olivier reiterated that the Government was in fact applying a political philosophy with this measure. Let us now be very honest and candid with one another. I do not think the hon. member will differ with me on this score either. Basically, educational matters are approached on all sides from a specific political premise in Parliament and the semblance of objectivity, of neutrality, of being unaffected or unsullied in respect of politics, as displayed by the official Opposition, is in fact worthless because their particular premise of the total throwing open of education on all levels, of total integration of education on all levels, is not a paedagogically well-founded standpoint. It cannot be, it is impossible; nowhere in the world is there any indication that such an approach is a paedagogically responsible one in the kind of circumstances in which we are living. It is blatantly a politically motivated point of departure.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with clause 1, I would like to ask your ruling, because you will notice that we in fact have an amendment on this clause, as well as on clause 2. I have to talk about the amendment in clause 2 just to explain what the problem is. The effect of the amendment in clause 2 is to extend the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council to include representatives of the Black universities and Black technikons. In order to include this amendment, which is aimed at including representatives of Black universities and technikons, in clause 2, we also need to move an amendment in clause 1. This in fact deals with the definition of “Minister”. What I would like to know, is whether I can deal with clause 1 now and with clause 2 later on?

The hon. member must move the amendment first. Thereafter he can speak to it.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendment to clause 1, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, if I may just explain, the purpose of this amendment and the amendment on clause 2 is simply to provide for representation of Black universities and Black technikons on the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council.

Order! Since the amendment which the hon. member moved is dependent upon an amendment of which notice has not been given, I am unable to accept it.

That is exactly what I tried to explain, Mr. Chairman. I have a problem and you have a problem, too. So now we both have a problem.

Order! I can solve my problem. I am unable to accept the amendment.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. If you are unable to accept my amendment, I shall come back to this matter when we discuss the next clause. I would like then just to register our strong objection to the establishment of an advisory council for universities and technikons although we believe it to be a vitally important body. We have nothing whatsoever against the concept of the establishment of such an advisory council. In fact, we think that for many, many reasons it is of vital importance that there should be an advisory council to advise the Government, the universities and the technikons on all aspects of tertiary education falling within the ambit of these bodies. However, these is a very, very important principle that we want to emphasize in this connection and that is that such a body should be composed of representatives of all the technikons and universities, Black, Coloured, Indian and White, that they should all be represented on an equal basis and that they should advise the Government and the institutions for tertiary education equally, irrespective of race or colour. We believe that any division at that level is very unfortunate. It is unfortunate in terms of the interests of tertiary education and it is wrong and discriminatory as far as the Black technikons and the universities are concerned. I shall come back to this point again when we discuss clause 2.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask whether in order to overcome a technical problem, it would not with the permission of the Committee be possible, first to consider clause 2 and then clause 1. I think there have been cases of this nature in the past, but perhaps my memory is deceiving me in this regard.

The hon. member may move accordingly, but I just want to point out to him that the amendment his party wants to move, seeks to extend the scope of the Bill in any event, and I shall therefore have to rule it out of order.

If that is the case, Sir, I shall leave it at that. The hon. member for Bryanston has already stated the principle we believe in, and I shall content myself with that.

Mr.

Chairman, the CP will oppose this clause but, as we have already indicated, for reasons other than those of the official Opposition. We find the view of the official Opposition as regards education in South Africa, with one Minister and one department, unacceptable. Nor do we find the view of the hon. the Minister and of hon. members opposite—in terms of this clause—of a nation consisting of Coloureds, Indians and Whites in South Africa, acceptable. We have nothing against the establishment of an advisory council to advise universities and technikons in South Africa, but our standpoint is that advisory councils of this nature should exist separately for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. This also applies to the various Black peoples. We have no objection to the establishment of the various advisory councils in South Africa to liaise with one another, since this is the way in which we think the institutions of the respective population groups should be advised.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that this clause makes no provision whatsoever for advice to the universities or technikons of the population groups concerned. It relates to advice to be given to the Government about the needs of the universities and technikons of the various population groups. In the present constitutional set-up, and in view of present-day realities, there is one Government that has to decide, by way of three different Ministers, on matters pertaining to the universities and technikons of all four population groups. That is why the Government deems it essential, since it must have a complete and overall view in respect of all the universities it is ultimately responsible for, financially and in terms of policy-making, to obtain advice from a body that jointly receives and considers the requirements and requests of all the various institutions of the different population groups. This does not mean that the various institutions cannot put their own unique, separate requirements directly to the Government, as is the case at present. I therefore want to make it very clear that there is a obvious anomaly in the argument of the CP, since they apparently have no objection to one governmental body deciding on the universities of all the population groups, but they do object to that one governmental co-ordinated advice from one body in respect of the universities and technikons of all the population groups. This seems to me to be a completely specious argument.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that although he is held in high esteem by the columnists of a certain section of the Press because of his insight into the problems of South Africa, we must understand one another very clearly. The hon. the Minister’s view of the role this particular advisory council has to play, is different to that of the CP. In our argument with the hon. the Minister, we accept that at present there is one governmental body responsible for certain universities and certain technikons, but our view of the future of South Africa, including these matters, differs vastly from the view of the hon. the Minister. That is why we shall be voting against this clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I have here the identical amendment of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

During the Second Reading debate several hon. members maintained that the members of the advisory council should not be nominated by the Minister. I think I made the standpoint of the Government as to why members of the advisory council eventually have to be nominated by the Minister quite clear. In the first place it is not a representative council of the negotiating bodies, but as far as possible a neutral advisory council. However, as is the case with the existing Universities Advisory Council, the Government has also recognized the desirability of the collective body of the negotiating institutions, namely the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals respectively, nominating members to the council.

The argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban North and probably also by the hon. member Prof. Olivier—I could not hear him all that well—that it is unnecessary for the nominated members of the two interested institutions, namely the Committee of Technikon Principals and the Committee of University Principals, to be elected by the Minister from a panel, is in my opinion a valid argument. This would also mean a change to the existing state of affairs in which the Committee of University Principals nominated two persons who were then summarily nominated to the council by the Minister. That is why I moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, actually I am merely rising to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for moving the amendment. It goes without saying that we shall be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that he is experiencing a problem because he is dealing with four population groups, three Ministers and one Government. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was telling us by implication that we should, as a result, be sympathetically disposed towards him. This is exactly what we would like to do. We want to assist the hon. the Minister in solving this problem. We want to say that if the hon. the Minister accepted our amendment, he would, instead of four population groups, have only one South African nation. In terms of the problem he has with three Ministers, we recommend that there be one Minister of Education in South Africa. I am quite prepared to accept him as the Minister. As far as the one government is concerned, there will always be one government.

Order! What clause is the hon. member discussing now?

Clause 2, Mr. Chairman. You will see that this all has to do with the contents of clause 2.

I again want to make it quite clear that the idea that an advisory council be created to advise the Government on the needs and interests of universities and technikons, is in our opinion a sound step, and good move which is not only in the interest of tertiary education in South Africa, but also in the interests of all the institutions providing tertiary education. This will help the Government give the necessary assistance, both financial and otherwise, to these institutions. However, this advisory body has to be representative of all the universities and all the technikons, irrespective of the racial or colour group for which those institutions have been created. The representatives must also enjoy equal status. If this were to be done, the best interests of education in South Africa would be served. If this were not done, however, the best interests of tertiary education in South Africa would be undermined. If they were to be undermined, the autonomy and the security of South Africa would be undermined, because then good race relations would be undermined at one and the same time.

Mr. Chairman, I now move as an amendment—

Order! I am sorry, but I am unable to accept amendment 5 as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that the CP has no objection to the establishment and composition of the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, though that is from the viewpoint of our politico-philosophical view of Southern Africa.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: Where it is provided here that the advisory body shall consist of a chairman and 12 members, can we assume that the chairman may be a person drawn from the Coloured, the White or the Indian population groups and that the 12 members can also be drawn from these three population groups?

Mr. Chairman, we too seek to improve this clause. We see strongly that the advisory council should be extended to enable it to accomplish certain specific things. At this stage the council will be a body which will advise the Minister on the very vital functions contained in clause 3(1)(a)-(g). On this council representatives of the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals will be represented. In addition there will be eight members with specialized knowledge. At that Council there will be an immensely high level of input concerning the policy and the direction which universities and technikons should take. It would really be a drawing together of all the available knowledge of very many institutions, but the provisions of clause 2 cut off two such institutions. One, in particular, is Vista University, which has been established within the Republic of South Africa, and the other is the Black technikons. We feel that if the advisory council was extended to 14 members and that two members be drawn from the Co-ordinating Council for Technical Education, as indicated in my amendment, we would in fact be making available to that co-ordinating council a vast amount of very high-level input which, as the clause is presently worded, is only going to reach them via official channels through a third party and it will lose much of its impact and momentum compared with when they were present.

Similarly, the third amendment that I move is that one of the members of the eight with specialized knowledge should in fact be nominated by the council of Vista University. Therefore within the perimeters of this legislation we would be introducing into that expertise somebody who would have direct contact and who would be able to report back the inspiration in spirit—indeed—the whole tenor of that discussion and the attitude and direction of that council on a direct basis instead of it being cut off there and not having a direct channel. It would then bring about a situation where there would be far more unanimity and a uniformity of purpose throughout the entire education structure without there having been this fearful integration which is such a difficult point to overcome at this stage from a policy point of view. By drawing from the co-ordinating council and by including in the list of experts a nominated member from Vista University one could accomplish the dissemination of discussions on all the points in clause 3 very effectively by simply linking up existing institutions to this council.

I accordingly move the following amendments—

1. 1. On page 2, in line 30, to omit “twelve” and to substitute “fourteen”.
2. 2. On page 2, after line 38, to insert:
   1. (iii) two shall be nominated by the Co-ordinating Council for Technical Education referred to in section 2 of the Technikons (Education and Training) Act, 1981 (Act No. 27 of 1981); and
3. 3. On page 4, in line 4, after “technikons” to insert:
   , one of whom shall be nominated by the council of the Vista University established by the Vista University Act, 1981 (Act No. 106 of 1981)

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendments 1 to 3 as they seek to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this point? I am not sure in my own mind, when one extends the number of advisers, whether there is a financial provision prohibiting one from doing so. In this particular case the amendments moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town mean that it will be a full-time employee of the State and therefore there will be no additional cost involved in such extension. Would this not possibly be an ameliorating factor to allow the representation to be extended, but not the cost to the State?

The Bill only makes provision for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and not for Blacks. The hon. member’s amendments seek to extend it to the Blacks as well. That is the problem.

That is a pity.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that there are, in fact no restrictions as regards population group membership when it comes to a candidate being nominated as a member of the council. As I already mentioned during the Second Reading debate, it is our intention to nominate people here on the basis of their particular specialized knowledge and stature in the field in which advice has to be given.

There is just one more remark I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, in connection with universities for Blacks having a say in this overall set-up. I should like to remind hon. members that in the discussion in connection with both the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals I have already pointed out that the Government is giving attention to ways in which the principals of universities for Blacks and the principals of technikons for Blacks, which are under the control of the Department of Education and Training, can be linked up with these specific committees. However, I have also pointed out that because these committees, and the advisory council in particular, mainly give advice on the administrative and subsidy systems, which in the case of the autonomous universities differ from those for the Black universities—and this also applies to the technikons—this inclusion cannot simply take place by a single wave of the wand. Cognizance must also be taken of the need for advice owing to the totally different administrative and financing systems as far as those specific technikons and universities for Blacks are concerned. The entire investigation into, and planning in connection with, this matter has not yet been unravelled sufficiently for arrangements to be made in this regard.

I also want to point out to hon. members that if we introduce too much specialized representation here the demands of other groups for specialized representation will naturally also increase. In any case, Vista University is not the only university outside the national States under the control of the Department of Education and Training. Medunsa is also under the control of that department. For that reason I undertake to see to it that this matter is investigated further. It is hoped that by next year we shall be returning to this House with specific proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to act contrary to your ruling. I do believe, however, it would be of interest to point out to the hon. the Minister that the co-ordinating Council for Technical Education which exists at the present time, consists entirely of White members, with the exception of one teaching staff member. There would therefore be ample scope for the incorporation of what I have asked for in my amendment without violating any ideological aspects whatsoever. Those members are also nominated from lists of names of experts submitted to the hon. the Minister. There is, however, only provision for the appointment of one member of the teaching staff of any particular technikon. That means that there still remains a wide range of White experts from whom members could be appointed to that advisory council.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to point out once again to the hon. the Minister that in this clause provision is made that the advisory council referred to in the Bill will be empowered to make representations and give advice to the Minister of Education and Training in respect of Black universities and Black technikons. I should like to say once again that it is both arrogant and cynical to have a provision whereby tertiary educational institutions for Black people are not represented in the body concerned, but that that body nevertheless has the right to make representations to the Government in respect of the interests and needs of the institutions referred to. This follows the pattern which the Government has set in regard to the President’s Council, and which is set out in the new constitutional proposals, namely that the Black community of South Africa is not represented. They have no voice and they cannot express their aspirations and attitudes. They are subject to actions by the Government arising out of representations and advice coming from these particular bodies. I must warn the hon. the Minister that it is seen to be cynical and arrogant. It is rejected with contempt by the Black community. They do not like this sort of thing. It is unfortunate that the Government provides for it also in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the CP is also opposed to this clause. Viewed superficially, these are in fact the kind of powers an advisory council ought to be given. The clause contains seven subdivisions. I think it is set out in terms that are sound enough and broad enough for any advisory council to be able to do its work thoroughly in terms of this clause. However, our experience with the governing party, as far as advisory councils are concerned, has been such that we are very sceptical about this, but that is not all, for experience has taught us that it can very easily happen that an advisory council is established, with the relevant Minister and the Government being in a position to influence that advisory council on the one hand, or give it certain directives, linked to the specific politicol philosophical views of the Government.

I want to make it quite clear that education is a very important element of the life pattern of any specific people. It could happen—and I have no doubt that the Governing Party will do this—that this advisory council could be given directives in terms of which the education of the three groups, which are to constitute the hon. Minister’s South African nation, would be such that the macro-policy and macro-Minister would eventually totally overshadow the micro-policy of the three respective groups with the three micro-Ministers with the broader aspirations the Governing Party has for this new nation.

Clause 3(2) reads as follows—

In this case as well I want to say that our experience of the governing party is such that in terms of this specific subsection the Government can recommend anything to the relevant advisory council. In regard to this provision, I am sceptical about the resulting scientific documents really being scientific. From my knowledge of the governing party, I have a feeling that such an advisory council would systematically be putting forward things, instituting investigations and making recommendations that would, when all is said and done, be of such a political nature that we could simply not accept them. For those reasons we are opposed to the clause.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was very disappointed at what happened in the debate on this matter on Friday. The hon. members for Boksburg and Caledon made the most unsavoury attacks on the person of the hon. member for Sunnyside. I can understand an hon. member disparaging the philosophy of a party or attacking its political statements, but it is repugnant when an hon. member, under the protection of his privilege in this House, launches an offensive personal attack on another hon. member. Members are afforded the protection of this House and they are expected to act reasonably in terms of such protection. Abusing such a privilege is not always merely un-parliamentary, but is objectionable in a system which, for example, in any …

On a point of order: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member for Langlaagte is insinuating that the Chair allowed me to say things which I was not allowed to say when I was addressing this House on Friday. [Interjections.] Is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that? I deduce from his speech that he is insinuating that you, as Speaker, did not maintain order in this House.

Order! Is the hon. member for Langlaagte reflecting on the Chair?

Not in the least, Sir. I am simply saying that the hon. members for Boksburg and Caledon made a personal attack on the hon. member for Sunnyside. It was not necessarily un-parliamentary. But one nevertheless finds it utterly repugnant. I am asking that when an hon. member is speaking under the protection of this House, he should use such protection in a reasonable manner and in such a way that he does not offend other hon. members personally. In my opinion it was highly unfortunate that those hon. members saw fit to make such a personal attack on another hon. member in connection with a political statement he had made. I shall leave those hon. members at that. I think they will have to ask themselves, with regard to exactly what they did on Friday, in what way it benefitted them and whether it was in the interests of this House to attack another hon. member of this House on such a personal level.

As far as tourism is concerned, we now find that a new statutory body is to be established in which the functions of the tourism branch of the department as well as the functions of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board are to be combined in a new body. The establishment of this board is to be welcomed generally. The importance of tourism to the Republic of South Africa has been totally underestimated up to now. Tourism can be instrumental in the development of regions which are underdeveloped at present and in making the as yet unavailable attractions of those regions accessible to tourists. Not only should tourism be promoted on a country-wide basis but I believe that this task should also be tackled selectively on a regional basis. Since the day in 1841 when Thomas Cook hired the first train and charged 500 people one shilling each to take a trip from Manchester to a private park in Lochborough to have lunch there, tourism has developed into the second largest industry in the world. In 1982 world tourism assumed even greater proportions. 305 million tourists all over the world spent 106,1 billion dollars. For example, a country like Portugal with 9 million inhabitants coped with 18 million tourists. Majorca, a country of 650 000 inhabitants, coped with 12 million tourists. So it is very clear that we are able to receive far more tourists in our country and we must organize ourselves to receive them. I believe, as I have already said, that we can do a great deal more in this regard on a regional basis, but there must be co-ordination. Consequently I believe that a regional board ought to be established on a voluntary basis in a region, a board on which the owners and representatives of hotels, holiday flats, caravan parks, holiday farms, boarding houses, restaurants, tour bus operators, rent-a-car operators, nature reserves, fishing harbours, airports, publicity associations and holiday rondavels can co-operate in order to advertise a region and to lay down standards, to arrange transport and accommodation and to make things easier for tourists.

Our country lends itself to open-air living and if we created the necessary facilities for this, overseas tourists would be keen to make use of such facilities. Many tourists would prefer to spend a holiday in a hut or even in a flat rather than to be accommodated in an hotel. Regional boards would be able to plan in such a way that tourism would not be of a seasonal nature. In this connection I have in mind particularly a region such as the Natal South Coast where tourism is of a seasonal nature year after year. One finds that there are empty hotels and other unutilized holiday resorts. It is possible to bring about a major improvement in this connection. Tourism is the one industry which can benefit all population groups to the largest extent. It does not call for huge capital investment and requires no more than a normal infrastructure.

I want to address an appeal to the SABC to be circumspect in their reports of terrorist attacks on our borders. It is difficult for overseas tourists to draw a distinction between Southern Africa and South Africa and many people are put off by the so-called terrorists in Southern Africa or South Africa that the world then hears so much about. A country facing the same problem is South West Africa. I think South West Africa suffers to a large extent from information which is not always sufficiently accurate. We do not think that the SABC is in any way doing this deliberately, but it is true that one is not always sufficiently mindful of the sensitivity of people overseas, and then they may be deterred from coming to this country.

It surprises one that more has not been done about the development of tourism in recent years. It appears to one that tourism has been operated solely as a subdivision of the department for a very long time.

Some of our hon. friends here objected to the representation of certain people or bodies on the board. To that I can only say: A man who is running an hotel successfully, can only be a great asset to such a board.

And his colour?

The hon. member must not bother me with the colour issue now; I am dealing with an entirely different matter. I shall come to that in a moment.

What is important is that we should regard tourism as an industry which can readily be expanded in this country and which can operate in all the facets and the strata of our population. This is very essential.

Having said all these nice things, I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister now has to hold out the prospect of Coloureds and Indians being appointed to the board. If politicizing the board were the only issue here, I would be able to see his point, but I do not believe the hon. the Minister can advance the argument that because Asians and Coloureds, as tourists, use the facilities available to tourists in South Africa, recognition should be given to them. If that is the argument the hon. the Minister wishes to use, I must tell him that he cannot exclude the Blacks from the board. I am not advocating that he should appoint Blacks to the board; my contention is that it is not necessary for any of the non-White groups to be represented on the board. If, however, one takes the argument to its logical conclusion, there is proof that the Black population use international and five star hotels ten times more than Indians and Coloureds do, and for that reason I can only see the hon. the Minister’s attempt to involve the Coloureds and the Indians as a political gesture. I certainly cannot hold it against the hon. the Minister for having to operate within the political philosophy of the Government, a philosophy he himself has helped to create, but unfortunately, because of this gesture, I am unable to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this legislation represents an important milestone in the tourism industry in South Africa. The legislation is going to make a considerable contribution to the promotion of tourism and the expansion of tourist activities in various fields. It will also, I believe, create a framework within which health co-operation can take place between the public and private sectors in the field of tourism.

During the debate we have listened to various contributions in respect of tourism. It seems to me as if this is a subject about which various hon. members feel they can make a contribution. There was a very wide-ranging discussion. We discussed taxis, visas, hotels, charter flights, tour guides and relations with the neighbouring states. In the nature of the matter it is evident that a very wide series of subjects has been covered in the course of the discussion. Perhaps tourism is one of those handy pegs on which one can hang a great many speeches. I want to assure hon. members that many of the constructive suggestions made here, the proposals that have been put forward and some of the interesting contributions will be conveyed to the new board for further investigation and consideration. I am therefore not going to reply to all hon. members and further discuss all the matters raised here. I should like to confine myself to the aspects which are directly concerned with the legislation and to questions asked by hon. members.

Perhaps I should emphasize at the outset that the tourist industry in South Africa is a matter for the private sector. It is not the State that operates the tourist industry, but the private sector. It is in the hands of the private sector and it is right that it should remain in their hands. The Government must eliminate restrictions on the tourist industry as far as possible and it is responsible for international promotion and advertisement. This is being done outstandingly well by Sa-tour. Moreover, the Government must assist with the co-ordination of activities internally and abroad. In this regard there is close liaison and consultation of organizations like Fedhasa, Asata, bus operators, travel agents and travel organizations, the Caravan and Camping Board and various other bodies that are actively involved in tourism. The Government does not run tourism. It is so often expected of the Government to attract more tourists to a specific area, but tourists are not like water that one can divert from a furrow. Tourism varies according to demand and supply, the existing facilities, the promotion of a specific area and the initiative displayed by the private sector in a specific region. Last but not least, tourism also depends on the cost of the product offered.

As various hon. members have pointed out, there is no doubt that South Africa offers the tourism industry tremendous potential. I could mention several examples, but I just want to mention one example of how the tourist industry has grown over the years. I refer to the question of caravans. In this regard it is interesting to note that last year 10 000 caravans were manufactured and sold in South Africa. More than 6 000 of these caravans were sold to people who were purchasing a caravan for the first time. The total number of caravan, owners in South Africa is calculated at more than 120 000, and every year more than 500 000 people use caravans for their holidays and visit the more than 700 caravan parks in which alto gether 67 000 sites suitable for caravans are available. This gives some indication of how the private sector is able to utilize and expand the opportunity offered by South Africa by displaying initiative. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, Durban North, Turffontein and others have referred to the potential for tourism in South Africa. They are right when they say that this could be further developed to the great benefit of everyone in the country. Often when tourism is discussed, we think only in terms of foreign tourists. However, the fact remains that the foreign tourist follows the trail of the domestic tourist. The domestic tourist first has to blaze the trail before foreign visitors, too, go that way. Therefore the roll of local authorities, chambers of commerce and regional development boards is important in creating the facilities for the domestic tourist and thereby eventually promoting foreign tourism to the respective regions. I believe that apart from the organizations such as the local authorities and other bodies to which I have referred, it is also important that we in South Africa should become more tourism oriented. Many regions still regard the tourist as something of a disturber of the peace. In any event, he is not regarded as an asset to be cherished by the community.

Accordingly as far as these general aspects are concerned, I want to thank hon. members for very interesting and constructive contributions. Before turning to questions asked by hon. members, I want to deal with the only false note sounded in this debate. In their speeches, the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Sunnyside made a very positive contribution, but nevertheless tried to use this legislation for political purposes. It is notable how the CP is still constantly changing direction. The attitude and reaction of the CP is once again a clear example of how that party is moving further away from NP policy, NP policy that helped to make them and that supported them over the years. [Interjections.] It is becoming clearer that if there has been any departure from policy, it has not been on the part of the NP. Those hon. members are systematically disengaging themselves from aspects of NP policy that they have supported over the years, that they have identified with and that they have defended from platform to platform. During the discussion of the Manpower Vote we heard how those hon. members dissociated themselves from Black trade unions, how they made it an objective of their policy to re-introduce job reservation and reject the principle of free association. I wonder whether the hon. member for Kuruman, who is their chief spokesman on sport, and other hon. members of the CP still recognize the autonomy of sporting bodies. I doubt it. I wonder whether those hon. members are still in favour of merit representation for South African teams. The hon. member need only give an indication, but it is obvious that in that sphere as well they are dissociating themselves from policies of the NP that they have associated themselves with over a long period. In education we have heard in the recent debates how those hon. members are moving further away from the NP on that front as well. Now they are rejecting the principle that in respect of affairs that also affect the interests of the other population groups it is only right and fair that members of those population groups should also have the opportunity to serve on those bodies and councils and decide together on matters affecting their interests.

Are the Coloureds a people (“volk”)?

That hon. member has not been here for very long. Time and again in this House Mr. Vorster, the former Prime Minister, stated and defended the principle that in councils of this nature there was a need to obtain inputs from the other groups as well. It was not many years ago that Mr. Vorster was defending and explaining here the concept that it was necessary to appoint members of the other population groups to the Wage Board, for example, as well: nor was this confined to the Wage Board—it included the Housing Council, the Group Areas Board and the Council for the Promotion of Small Business.

I now want to ask those hon. members something. If they are going to dissociate themselves from this legislation from now on, and if they adopt the standpoint that members of other population groups should not serve on this Council, do they then stand by the same principles with regard to the Wage Board? Will they adopt the same standpoint with regard to the Wage Board, the Housing Council, etc.? You see, Mr. Chairman, if they want to be consistent…

We shall be consistent.

Very well, I accept the word of the hon. member for Rissik. If, then, they are to be consistent, those hon. members must concede that the NP policy they have gone along with for years, they have supported and that they have defended, is a policy that they are now dissociating themselves from.

Because the NP deviated from its course and decided to introduce a mixed Government in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Those hon. members travel around in this country and try to tell the voters that it is the NP that has abandoned its declared policy … [Interjections.]

Order!

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the reverse is true. The departure from policy was on the part of hon. members of the CP, not this side. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg is a medical practitioner. As a medical practitioner he also exercise his functions in terms of the codes of conduct of the medical profession. The hon. member knows full well that there are not only whites in the S.A. Medical Council and in the S.A. Medical Association.

In terms of the policy of separate development…

No, wait a moment. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is always so easy to try and escape when it affects one’s own situation. We ask what is the principle that causes hon. members of the CP to vote against this legislation.

It is mixed government.

After all, tourism is not an activity that is practised by Whites only, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Surely the tourism industry includes many people of colour.

Black people also travel.

Blacks too, yes.

Why, then, is there not a Black person as well in this board of yours?

Mr. Speaker, the legislation in question does not impose any restriction with respect to population groups.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to anticipate my argument. However, I shall reply to his question.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister going to undertake to appoint Black people to this board as well? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member in that regard in a moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members should just exercise a little patience. I am going to reply to the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put the same question to me. The fact is that tourism is not, after all, an activity pursued exclusively by Whites. To a large extent the infrastructure for tourism, the employees in the tourism industry, include Brown people, Black people and Asians. Moreover, many thousands of people of the other population groups travel through South Africa, people who also need facilities, people whose interests also have to be looked after. Moreover, there are several entrepreneurs in the hotel industry and in other branches of the industry that are members of all these population groups. The aims of tourism are surely very clearly set out in this legislation. Those hon. members need only go and read it again. It includes the whole spectrum of tourism. It includes foreign visitors, domestic travellers and the promotion of tourism in general. Then, too, there is the promotion of the interests of the traveller, as well as those of the developer, the entrepreneur, the man who offers services and facilities. Accordingly it is fitting that consideration be given—and here I come to the reply to the question by the hon. member for Rissik—to the appointment of Coloureds, Asians and Whites, where necessary, and—if there should be a need for it—Black people, too, to that board. I shall also explain and motivate this further.

At the moment there is consultation with the TBVC countries, through the multilateral technical committees, concerning the possibility of liaison and the co-ordination of tourist activities among these independent States. After all, that liaison and that co-ordination does not cover the whole spectrum of tourism. Surely there are important tourist attractions in our national States as well. Therefore there is a wide field, as regards the interests of Black people, too, that cannot be covered by way of this liaison via the multilateral technical committee. Therefore, if there should appear to be a need to serve the remaining part of the Republic of South Africa in such a way that Black people, too, should serve on that board, then I shall give the matter favourable consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall give the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question at the end of my speech. However, I first wish to complete my argument. I believe that I have now told the hon. member for Rissik very clearly that this legislation embodies no restrictions with regard to population groups. As far as the interests of Black people are affected—Black people who also form part of the tourist activities in South Africa—then consideration can be given to appointing Black people. I have given a clear reply to the question. I now just wish to complete my argument. I want to say that the opportunism of the hon. members clearly shows that that party is not merely moving away from the NP; it is also moving towards the HNP. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, that is very clear.

We are moving towards victory. [Interjections.]

In fact it is not a matter of principles, but an effort to narrow the gap between then and the HNP. [Interjections.] The hon. members are now concerned about the possibility that people of colour should also be able to serve on this new tourism board, but in 1977 the Hotels Amendment Bill was introduced in this House and I looked up what the then Minister had to say on that occasion. Just before that legislation came up, there was a division in the House and the following names appeared: Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Hoon, J. H.; Barnard, S. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Treumicht, A. P.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.—they were all present in the House. On that day the hon. the Minister in question said (Hansard, 5 May 1977, col. 6947)—

Of course, to look after the food. [Interjections.]

In the Hotel Board …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I do not wish to reply to a question now. The hon. member is seeking to get away from a remark he should preferably not have made. The fact is that he should guard his tongue. On an afternoon when the vast majority of those hon. members were present in this House, an amending Bill was passed here which provided that members of the non-White population groups could also serve on the Hotel Board as board members. The legislation we are dealing with now brings the Hotel Board, Satour and the Tourism Division of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism together in one new board. The principle that was already accepted in 1977 is therefore simply being applied to the new board.

The fact is that this attitude adopted by the CP shows the unreality of their political philosophy. They are trying to sell the voters an illusion. It is an escapist ideology. The reality in South Africa—and this is the point—involves a diversity, but also a communality. Reality in South Africa involves a diversity but also a communality, and the NP recognizes and deals with both these facets. The policy of the NP is not an escapist policy.

It is a policy of capitulation.

The policy has been spelt out repeatedly in this House and elsewhere, viz. that the concepts of separateness and communality express the policy of the NP.

What is still separate?

The separation lies in the fact that “own” community councils, “own” local authorities and “own” national and independent States, viz. their own political institutions, are being established for the Black ethnic groups.

And for the Whites?

As far as the Coloured and Asian population groups are concerned, the policy followed by the NP over the years has not been a homeland policy but one of “own” communities, “own” local authorities and “own” voters rolls by means of which “own” representatives are elected for an “own” chamber. The policy is being expended in such a way as to make it possible to have joint decision-making on matters of common concern. I do not wish to debate that aspect now. Those hon. members will still be afforded sufficient opportunity to debate the constitutional proposals. However, the fact is that separateness cannot be seen in isolation from communality. In the NP these two concepts represent the two sides of the coin as far as our policy is concerned. One cannot have the one without the other. Both give expression to the reality of our existence. Moreover, it is just as removed from reality only to emphasize what is common and to scale down and ignore the diversity, as the official Opposition does. It is just as removed from reality only to harp on the diversity and separation and to make out that communality does not exist. Communality is a reality in South Africa that we cannot deny. We cannot ignore it.

There are many examples that could be mentioned in many fields to explain this communality. Perhaps the economic sphere is the most obvious example. The economic unit we have in Southern Africa is not divisible. We are striving to distribute economic activities on a more geographic basis so that geographically speaking, a better economic balance is achieved, but the economic unit of Southern Africa is indivisible.

The same applies in respect of our security services. The security of South Africa is a task that White, Black, Brown and Asian must contribute towards. I could continue in this vein. The fact is that the areas of communality are going to increase. They are not going to become fewer. Liaison, contact and consultation are going to increase.

And therefore, more capitulation.

In the economic, security, defence and religious spheres there is going to be more liaison. The area of common interest is growing. In so far as this process develops out of the orderliness of the diversity and separateness of South Africa, it is right and to be welcomed. [Interjections.] The hon. member can throw up his hands if he wishes. Communality in South Africa is a reality that he can try to escape from, but he will not escape. Both he and his party will have to deal with that issue; if they do not, then they are putting before South Africa and its voters an illusion, the politics of escape. [Interjections.]

The question is not whether there should be communality. Communality exists and will exist in the future. The question is this: On what basis does this communality take place and what is it based on? The NP says that it must be based on and regulated by the diversity and separation of ethnic and population groups. I just wish to repeat that to the hon. member: The NP states that the communality in South Africa must be based on and regulated by the diversity and separateness of ethnic and population groups. That is where we differ from hon. members of the PFP. They do say that the communality exists, but they say that we must draw a line through this diversity. The position of the CP is just as far from reality, viz. their clinging to separation as if total separateness, absolute compartmentalism, is a possibility in this country. Their unreal ideology reminds one of the escapist religion preached in religious circles, particularly in the Middel Ages. The followers were enjoined to follow a policy of “touch not; taste not; and handle not”—a total escape, a withdrawal from the world. We cannot withdraw from this world. Even if the world is not always easy and even if the challenges that the world poses are not always attractive, one thing is certain and that is that the politics of escape offer no solution. [Interjections.] The unreality of the political philosophy and approach of those hon. members is obvious when we debate this Tourism Board.

Let us discuss the Tourism Board for a moment. The hon. members say that people of various population groups, people of colour, are not to sit around a table in one and the same board and make decisions about tourism together. However, the hon. member for Rissik says that they are not unfair and unreasonable and that these people must be afforded the opportunity to make decisions on tourism as well. Therefore we ought to give what we demand for ourselves, to the Coloured, the Asian and every Black population group as well. In other words, there must be at least be a White, a Coloured, an Asian and various Black tourism boards. [Interjections.] Let us go further. Has the hon. member ever considered the fact that in this country tourists use the same aircraft? They are conveyed on the same railway lines; they travel on the same roads; they all see and enjoy the same sea, the same scenic beauty and the same sun. [Interjections.] What will the hon. members do now in regard to each of these tourism boards when the tourists begin to travel? After all, there will surely be a need to consult with one another as tourists move from one area of jurisdiction to another. Surely they have to co-ordinate these things. Immediately after these four, five or six boards have been established, there will be a need to create an umbrella tourism board to which each of these tourism boards will be able to appoint representatives. Then, apart from the four or five tourism boards, we shall also have a tourism liaison board, and—lo and behold—once again we shall all be sitting together around a table to decide on matters of common concern, precisely as we are proposing here. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the CP are practising escapist politics and this is very obvious in this Bill.

I should now like to deal, in the short time at my disposal, with certain questions put to me.

Why are you not continuing to deal with us?

But I have just dealt with the standpoint of the hon. members. I am still coming to the positive contribution of the hon. member for Langlaagte.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked a number of questions regarding tour guides. He complained that no training courses are offered by any of the training colleges. That is not true. Pretoria Technikon as well as Wits Technikon offer extensive one-year certificate courses for tour guides. In Pretoria the course is supported quite well, while in Johannesburg, I must admit, there is less interest. This course can be offered by any technikon if there is sufficient interest. We are also, through the Tourism branch of my department at the moment discussing the possibility of introducing such courses through the Technikon RSA so that it will also be available in the form of a corresponding course. The hon. member also welcomed the fact that responsibility for the Tour Guides Act will be transferred to the new board. When the Bill was being drafted, this aspect was unfortunately not included. I have an amendment on the Order Paper, to which the hon. member referred, providing for the seat of the Registrar of Tour Guides to be transferred to the Tourist Board. For the information of the House, I should like to explain that the Tour Guides Act was introduced to improve the standard of tour guides and to contribute to the professionalism amongst the guides. It is estimated that between 300 and 350 people in South Africa act as guides, some on a full-time and others on a part-time basis. Let there be no mistake about it, Sir, there are some excellent guides who are a credit to this country. However, there are also a number of them who are not really a credit to their profession, and it was to these that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred. The Tour Guides Act provides that guides must be registered by the registrar. In regard to this question of registration, I want to point out that the registrar conducts a personal interview with the prospective tour guides during which certain questions are put to the applicant and certain matters are discussed. This takes place in regard to every applicant so that the registrar can satisfy himself in regard to the capabilities of the applicant and so that the registrar can establish whether such applicant complies in all respects with the requirements that have been laid down. In cases where the registrar is uncertain in regard to the capabilities of the applicant he consults the advisory committee appointed for this purpose. Up to the present approximately 250 potential tour guides have applied and 50 guides have already been registered. I have been informed by the registrar that a large number of the remaining applicants will be finalized within the next two months.

In regard to the comment by the hon. member that the amendment contained in the schedules now suddenly provides for tourism to cover South Africans as tourists as well, I want to point out that the hon. member is not correct. It is not correct that South Africans are presently not recognized as tourists when they spend holidays within the country. The responsibility for the promotion of domestic tourism rests at present with the Tourism Branch of my department and will now in terms of this legislation be transferred to the proposed new board.

The hon. member also referred to the issue of air fares. This matter forms the subject of continuous discussions. A representative of the S.A. Transport Services from S.A. Airways is serving on the board of Sa-tour at the moment and we also envisage that such a member will probably serve on the new board. However, this is a complex subject and I want to advise the hon. member to take this up with the appropriate Minister under the appropriate Vote.

I have, but it has not helped.

Well, Sir, I can only say that this is a complex problem. South Africa is, of course, a long-haul destination. It is expensive to come to this country. We have a limited number of people making use of the regular flights to South Africa and there is a great possibility that any major charter flights may reduce the number of passengers making use of the existing airline facilities. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that any decision that will result in more tourists coming to South Africa will be welcomed by my department and will also most certainly be welcomed by the new board.

In regard to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Problems experienced by Tour Operators in South Africa, I want to say that this is a matter which does not fall under my department. The matter will be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and he will no doubt deal with the question of that report.

The hon. member also posed the question as to whether we are only interested in the upper-class tourist or whether we are interested in mass tourism. It has never been the idea to cater only for the rich tourist or to attract only the upper-class tourist to South Africa. There is of course a natural selection process in respect of fares. Once again I want to say that South Africa is not a cheap destination. Both S.A. Airways and the accommodation industry have to watch their tariffs very carefully because South Africa is no longer a cheap destination. However, in regard to the type of hotel used by the tourist, I can tell the hon. member that visitors to South Africa do not stay in five star hotels only. They stay in one-and two-star hotels as well as in four-and five-star establishments. While 30% stay at five-star hotels, 23% make use of four-star hotels, 28% of the visitors stay in three-star hotels, 14% in two-star hotels and 7% use the facilities of one-star hotels.

Several hon. members referred to the question of funds. The hon. member for Caledon referred to the R15 million spent by the Government through my department on tourism. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout too referred to funds. I want to point out that the amount made available to Sa-tour during the current financial year is 38% more than the original grant for the previous year. This is quite a substantial increase if one takes into consideration the present economic conditions. This, of course, will enable Satour, among other things, again to publish and place full-colour advertisements in leading magazines and newspapers in its market areas. The R15 million made available to Satour is not the only money made available for tourism.

*The hon. member for Caledon pointed out that we were not spending a little as is generally indicated. It is not only the money made available to Satour that is spent on the promotion of tourism to South Africa and within South Africa. The S.A. Airways spend millions of rand to sell tickets but in doing so they are in fact selling South Africa as a touring destination, too. Apart from the S.A. Airways, there is also the travel agency industry which, through its international affiliations, promotes South Africa and spends a great deal to attract tourists to South Africa. Internally, too, large amounts are spent by local authorities that provide facilities, the provincial administrations, the National Parks Board and various other institutions. Therefore if we take the total package of what is spent, including what is spent by the authorities at the local, provincial and central levels, the amount in question is far more than the general amount of R15 million which people are so fond of referring to as the only amount spent on tourism in South Africa.

†I do not know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to score a few points, but he also referred to my speech and said that I already had the powers to include restaurants and other accommodation facilities for quality control. That, however, is not the case. The Hotel Board has the power at present to apply quality control only in respect of hotels. The paragraph to which the hon. member referred only gives the board authority to assist with restaurant standards and more particularly with regard to training of staff as provided for in section 4E of the Hotels Act. Nowhere in the Act is there provision for the registration of restaurants or for requirements to be enforced in respect of restaurants or other facilities.

The hon. member also referred to visas of tourists to South Africa.

*In this regard I want to point out to the hon. member that in fact our department has never once received any complaint in this regard. It is my impression—if the hon. member has other details at his disposal, he is welcome to submit them to me—that our missions throughout the world react very quickly in regard to the issue of visas to tourists. Of course, there are cases which must be referred to South Africa and then it takes longer, but in general we do not take second place to any other country in the world as regards the issue of visas. The hon. member should travel to a few countries and try and get his visas in South Africa by going from consulate to consulate or from embassy to embassy, and then wait and realize how long this can take. I do not think South Africa is behind in this regard; I believe that our departments, diplomatic missions and consulates try to render an outstanding service in that regard.

The hon. member for Sunnyside put a number of questions to me to which I want to react. The hon. member made a constructive contribution except for his slip with regard to politics. However, I have dealt with that.

However, the hon. member did say in a somewhat unreasonable way that if I said that rationalization led to good administration, I should stipulate what poor administration had occurred in Satour or the Hotel Board. When I said that rationalization would lead to better administration, I certainly did not thereby cast a reflection on the existing management of Satour or the Hotel Board. Indeed, in my speech I mentioned the outstanding work done by these organizations. But there is always room for improvement. One can even improve on the best. I do not know whether the hon. member’s party feels that improvement is not possible, but we are of the opinion that there is always room for improvement. I believe that the rationalization that is taking place here by way of the co-ordination of functions, the elimination of duplication and the merging and rationalization of administration will certainly contribute towards better administration, without detracting from the outstanding work done in the past by all three of these bodies.

Greater efficiency.

Yes, greater efficiency and better administration. I do not want to argue further about the terminology.

The hon. member referred to statistics. He is quite right that there is a need for statistics. At the moment we are negotiating with the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning to see whether we cannot streamline the provision of statistical data to a greater extent. This will enable us to obtain more up-to-date statistics, thus enabling us to make more rapid decisions about our activities in the field of tourism. At the moment the board is giving attention to the collection of statistics over a wide field and I take cognizance of the hon. member’s remarks in this regard.

The hon. member again inquired about the position of officials of the department under the new dispensation. I want to give the hon. member and any member of the Public Service who may be affected by this new dispensation, the assurance that their position is being made absolutely safe by the legislation. A public servant can be seconded to the new board at his own request and if he is seconded for an unlimited period, this does not detract in the least from his rights and privileges as a public servant. He will retain exactly the same rights that he has at present and will not be worse off in any respect. Indeed, I believe that in many cases it will be to his benefit. The hon. member can therefore rest assured that as far as the public servants are concerned, the position is being dealt with to their full satisfaction. It is for the official to choose whether he wishes to be seconded. If, after a period, he feels that he wants to return to the department, to a different branch, he need only make the request that he does not want to be seconded any longer and he will be re-transferred back. Therefore his position will remain exactly as it is now, and it is being made absolutely secure.

Thank you very much for that assurance.

The hon. member also asked what would now become of the funds of Satour and what would happen when the new board was established. The answer is in fact embodied in clause 12(1) of the Bill, which provides that all assets and liabilities of, inter alia, Satour and the Hotel Board, will be transferred to the new board so that it can be established. We hope that this will happen as soon as possible, probably on 1 October this year.

The hon. member also asked about the chairman of the board. The chairman will occupy this post on a part-time basis. We shall negotiate with the chairman with regard to the time he will have to spend on the board. He will preferably be an independent person, viz. not a public servant. He will have the necessary power to occupy that post. The hon. member also referred to the provincial administrations. It is true that the provincial administrations render a major service in the field of tourism by way of the facilities they make available across a wide spectrum. There is on-going liaison with the four provincial administrations. Hon. members are aware that at the moment an investigation by the provinces themselves is in progress concerning the shift in functions that may take place in regard to provincial matters. In fact, a greater degree of co-ordination of activities between the local level, the provincial level and also the Tourism Board will be welcomed in future. I think that I have now dealt with the questions asked by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also pointed out that tourism could make a considerable contribution towards regional development. I concede that. That is why it is a condition that there must be a representative of the tourism industry on each of the regional development advisory committees functioning in the eight regions. In the nature of the matter one cannot make these bodies too large, because that would detract from their functioning. There can be further mutual co-ordination of tourism in a specific region. In fact, in my Second Reading speech I expressed the thought that it would be as well if the fragmented industry would get its own house in order and perhaps try to bring about greater co-ordination of activities in the regional context as well.

Various other hon. members, for example the hon. members for Turffontein, Boksburg and Bezuidenhout, thanked the members of the Board of Satour and the Hotel Board for the service they have rendered and the staff of the Hotel Board, Satour and the tourism division of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism for the outstanding service they have rendered over many years. I should like to associate myself with these hon. members. In many respects pioneering work was done and we do not always take congizance of the tremendous progress that has been made in the field of tourism in South Africa. We must not use the number of foreign visitors as the sole criterion of the growth that has taken place in South Africa. There has also been phenomenal growth in the hotel industry. There has been expansion of our restaurant activities. There are the new parks and boards that have been established—all attesting to the tremendous progress and growth in the field of tourism.

I believe that the Tourism Board will contribute towards lending this movement further momentum, towards developing South Africa, by way of increased co-operation between the public and private sectors, into a first-rate tourist destination.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon. F. J. le Roux, J. C. B. Schoeman, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Mr. L. M. Theunissen, Dr. A. P. Treurnicht and Messrs. C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. H. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe and J. J. B. van Zyl) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is twofold.

Firstly, it is being proposed that certain designations in the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, be amended to bring them into line with the new designations created as a result of the rationalization of Government departments, and to replace obsolete terms.

Secondly, the Bill is aimed at rectifying certain anomalies and shortcomings in the Act as well as improving the administration of the Act and the institutions affected by it.

Among the obsolete terms that are being replaced are “junior secondary schools” and “senior secondary schools”, as well as “nursery schools”. There is no longer any justification for the existence of junior and secondary schools because the staff scales, the grading of salary scales and the requirements for the appointment of staff at the two categories of school are now identical.

The curricula of junior secondary schools, which go up to Std. 7, are gradually being extended to Std. 10.

In fact, the word “secondary school” instead of “junior” and “senior” secondary school, as well as the more acceptable term “pre-primary school” instead of “nursery school”, are already contained in the Indian Education Act, 1965, so it is desirable that the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, be amended accordingly.

Provision is being made for these amendments in clauses 1, 2 and 3.

There is no provision in the Act at the moment in terms of which private schools registered with the provincial departments of education may provide education to Coloured children. In spite of this, Coloured children are being admitted to these schools, and this state of affairs has been accepted by educational authorities. The amendment proposed in clause 4 is aimed at rectifying the anomaly by exempting private schools registered with any other department of education from registration in terms of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963.

†In terms of section 16 of the principal Act any person (other than an officer as defined in the Public Service Act, 1957) occupying a full-time post in a school for Coloureds shall be guilty of misconduct if he inter alia is a member of a party-political organization or takes an active part in partypolitical matters.

However, in practice teachers and staff have since 1967 been allowed to become members of party-political organizations provided they do not make use of their position in the department to promote or prejudice the interests of a political party.

The purpose of the amendment proposed in clause 5 is to confirm the de facto position and to bring the political rights of the persons concerned into line with those of teachers and staff in the service of other education departments.

The department is now in a position to institute courses and conduct examinations at all the institutions under its control, which was not the case when section 21(4) of the Act was enacted. The provisions of this section are, therefore, redundant and the deletion thereof is proposed in clause 6 of the Bill.

At present the requirement of compulsory school attendance can only be met by attendance at a State or State-aided school. It is essential that attendance at a private school registered in terms of the Act should also be accepted as compliance with the requirements of compulsory school attendance, and the amendment proposed in clause 8 of the Bill will make this possible.

*The Bill also contains proposals aimed at improving the administration of the Act and the regulations made in terms of it. In this connection I want to refer to clause 9, in which it is proposed that the Director-General may delegate his powers, and clause 10, in which it is proposed, inter alia, that regulations as to any fees or allowances payable to any person may be made with retrospective effect.

In clause 7, it is being proposed that the power to inspect educational institutions and accessories be extended. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure more effective control over those educational institutions and accessories which fall under the department.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. I should just like to comment on a few of the clauses in the Bill. Firstly, I want to refer to clause 4, which brings the legal position in terms of this legislation into line with the situation in practice in the sense that Coloured children have in fact been allowed to attend private schools registered with other education departments. Strictly speaking, this has been done in contravention of the provisions of this Act. Here we are also concerned, of course, with cases of Coloured children who have been allowed by way of permits to attend predominantly White private schools. Clause 4 puts this matter to rights as far as the legal position is concerned. We are entirely in favour of this and we accordingly support it.

Then there is clause 5, which deals with the misconduct of teachers. In this connection I was somewhat surprised when to hon. the Minister said in his speech—

†The last part may be correct, but I am not sure whether the first part is correct, viz. that, as the hon. the Minister said, we are confirming the de facto position, because he did say earlier on—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for dinner, I was drawing the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 5, in terms of which certain political activities on the part of a teacher at a Coloured school will be regarded as misconduct. In this connection the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in his speech that all we were really doing here was to confirm the status quo, the de facto position. Certain restrictions are now being laid down, although these are not too stringent. In this connection I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the restrictions laid down in this clause are perhaps a little too wide and comprehensive. I do not want to start an argument about it, but I believe that it would naturally be necessary to take action in a case where a teacher used his position as teacher to promote the interests of a political party. In my opinion, however, participation by a teacher in his private capacity in the activities of a political party, in drawing up a political pamphlet, for example—which is mentioned here—or even in presiding at a particular meeting, really does not constitute conduct which must necessarily be prohibited. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede to me that active participation in politics occurs on a very large scale among White teachers, although within certain limits, of course. For example, they may not be nominated as candidates, but they nevertheless participate as members of branches of political parties, etc. In the NP this must surely be a factor which cannot be underestimated.

In clause 7, the powers of inspection of the department are being extended to buildings or institutions used in connection with schools. In this connection I just want to make the point that it is justified for the department to have powers of inspection over such institutions, buildings, etc., in which public money is involved. In fact, this is the way it should be. It is absolutely necessary that this should be the case. The department must be able to ensure that in cases where State funds are used, the correct course is followed. However, I want to add that this is where the powers of inspection of the department should end. In other words, I believe that the clause as it reads at the moment is too wide. It refers to any hostel, teachers’ quarters, school clinic and so on, in connection with any particular school. It is quite possible that such quarters, hostels and clinics may be financed in full by a local parent community, charitable organization or church. I do not think it would be right for the department to have powers of inspection under those circumstances, where no public money is involved. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede this point to me. During the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment in this connection which is printed in my name on the Order Paper.

In clause 10, further powers are being granted with regard to the making of regulations. In this connection I just want to comment briefly on the power which is being granted for regulating the expulsion of school children from a particular school. It is correct that the Minister should be given the power to make such regulations. The expulsion of a child from a school is a serious matter. It is a good thing that the Minister should lay down certain guidelines and conditions. My personal standpoint is that there has been a tendency in schools in the White community in the past—it may not be so bad in the Coloured community—to expel children on insufficient grounds. Action has been taken against them, not on the basis of sound educational principles, but in the interests of the good name of their school. In other words, a child has been expelled in order to preserve the good name of that school, rather than to serve education in general. I think this is a very dangerous principle and it is something one should guard against. It is a matter which I have very strong personal feelings about.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a few general remarks about Coloured education. They may not have a direct bearing on the Bill, but I think you will allow me, since this is a fairly wide Bill, to make a few remarks about it. Earlier this session, during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, we talked about the question of platoon classes in Coloured education. The hon. the Minister indicated that progress had been made to such an extent that platoon classes had been abolished in Indian schools. However, he indicated that similar progress had not yet been made in respect of the Coloured schools. He did announce, though that it had been ascertained that providing the accommodation required in order to eliminate platoon classes entirely would cost R20 million at this stage. In other words, to make up the full backlog with regard to accommodation would cost R20 million. To me personally this actually came as a pleasant surprise. I had thought that the position was such that it might cost more to put that situation right, certainly to do so within a short period of time. What I found disappointing, however, was that the hon. the Minister said that he could only obtain R5 million at this stage, after having discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that according to my information, the Coloured community, and certainly organizations such as the Cape Professional Teachers’ Association, had been under the impression that that R20 million could be made available now in order to wipe out that backlog within the coming year or so. Therefore they were very disappointed to learn that only R5 million was going to be made available now. This means that the present position will continue for another few years. I need not point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister the major problem created by these platoon classes. They make impossible demands on the teaching staff as well as the children. For example, the number of school hours per capita which are lost in the course of one year as a result of the platoon system has an extremely damaging effect on education in the Coloured community. I believe that one of the top priorities of the authorities at this stage should be to eliminate this platoon system, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will use his influence to try to obtain the necessary funds so that something can be done to get rid of that system, within a year or at least within a shorter period than has been envisaged up to now. I may just mention the fact, too, that this platoon system and the backlog in school accommodation were very clearly identified as a factor by the committee of inquiry into the low pass rate during the 1981 school year. That committee made it quite clear that this was one of the aspects which had caused such a large number of school children to fail the matriculation examination of that year. This makes it even more necessary to give urgent attention to the matter. One also hopes sincerely that the Government will take action with regard to the other recommendations made in that report as well.

The final point I want to make in connection with education generally in the Coloured community is the question of the late payment of Coloured teachers. You will remember, Sir, that I placed a question on the Question Paper earlier this session in connection with the number of Coloured teachers at Coloured schools who had received their salaries after the due date. I wanted to know how many of them had not received their salaries at the end of the month, as is normally the case. If my memory does not fail me, the reply was 25 cases. According to my information, this is a hopeless under-estimation of the true situation. In reply to a later question, the hon. the Minister also conceded that it was very difficult to ascertain exactly how many people had received their salaries late in any particular month, and that a fairly considerable number of inquiries had been received by the department with regard to this matter from January to April. More often than not, the reason was that the application forms and other documentation in respect of those particular teachers had not been properly completed. To solve such an administrative problem, I submit, requires nothing more than a telephone call. This really is a matter to which urgent attention should be given. Such a practice should no longer exist in Coloured schools in this country. It is something which one can simply no longer tolerate. If there is anything which is calculated to undermine the morale of the teachers at those schools, then it is action of this kind. I cannot think of anything which would more seriously undermine their morale. You yourself know, Sir, how people live today. Everyone has financial responsibilities. There are insurance premiums, flat rentals, instalments on hire purchase and so on that have to be paid. There are a great many financial obligations which have to be fulfilled on a monthly basis and on a specific day of the month. If my salary is paid five days late, I am in trouble. How much more this would apply to persons who find themselves in that position! I really think this is a situation which cannot be tolerated. Teachers are not so well paid that they have big bank balances, and I think that one really cannot allow a situation where these people are penalized because certain documents have not been properly completed. Often this does not happen as a result of their own actions, but because of the failure of a secretary at the school or principal or even a departmental regional office or head office to make the necessary arrangements. I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his urgent attention to this matter as well, so that we may receive a better report in connection with this situation and the people affected by it during the next parliamentary session.

With these words we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has mentioned a number of matters which are not really relevant under this legislation. However, I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to him in this connection.

The hon. member referred to clause 5 of the Bill, dealing with the political activities of Coloured teachers. The hon. member argued, inter alia, that one could not really blame a Coloured teacher for participating in a political party and perhaps being responsible for the drawing up of a writing either to promote the interests of his own political party or to prejudice those of another one. In the first place, I want to point out to the hon. member than an attempt is being made in terms of this legislation to bring the position into line with what is happening in respect of White education today. A Coloured teacher is no more being prevented from belonging to a political party than a White teacher, nor is he being prevented from playing a certain role in a political party, because if he can be a member of a political party, he can certainly serve on the executive committee as well.

But he may not be the chairman.

If the hon. member would examine the proposed section 16(gA), he would see that the teacher is not allowed to make use of his position in the department to promote or prejudice the interests of any political party or to preside or speak at any public political meeting. Surely the same applies to White teachers, as far as I know. If such a teacher resigns and wishes to seek nomination within a political party, he can put his signature to a political writing, and I do not believe that a man who is a member of the teaching profession should be entitled to say that he has circulated a pamphlet against the hon. member’s party, for example, and has put his signature to it. As I have said, it seems to me that the proposed paragraph (gA) is in line with the position which we have in White education today. No Coloured teacher is being prevented from exercising his normal democratic right; therefore he may participate in a political party. I think that in this respect the hon. member is really raising a false alarm if he is suggesting that the Coloured teacher will find himself in an inferior position compared to the White teacher in this respect. The proposed paragraph (g) deals with his position if he happens to be an office-bearer, officer or member of an unlawful organization, and the hon. member for Green Point cannot have any objection to that.

Nevertheless, we on this side of the House welcome the attitude of the official Opposition to the legislation. I think that they have certainly applied the same criteria as I have with regard to the legislation. In the first place, one asks oneself whether the legislation is administratively justified. In my opinion, there are many provisions which can be advanced as proof of the fact that the legislation is indeed justified from an administrative point of view.

In the second place, one asks oneself whether it serves to improve the administration of Coloured education generally. When one examines the latest report which has been made available to us, one notices that tremendous progress is undoubtedly being made in respect of Coloured education in South Africa. I do not want to tire the House with figures; these have been mentioned in a previous debate. However, the hon. member must bear this in mind when he complains about things such as the fact that the teachers do not receive their salaries on the due date. A crash programme has been followed in South Africa in recent years in order to expedite as far as possible the creation of educational facilities and the making available of education to the Coloured community. Since the ’seventies, compulsory education for the Coloureds has been greatly extended, so much so that there is a shortage of teachers, and this also explains the platoon classes which still have to be used in Coloured education today, because there is an enormous increase in the number of Coloured children who have to receive education. There are other hon. members on this side of the House who may furnish the figures. It is precisely because the Government is as far as possible providing the Coloured child with educational facilities, which are equal to those of the White child in South Africa. Therefore one may expect that the teething problems will still be experienced, but that the problems will gradually be ironed out, because in my opinion, the progress that has been made in this field is truly phenomenal.

The other criterion which one can certainly use is the factor which I have already mentioned, namely equal educational facilities. One has only to look at the availability of more and more teachers. What we are doing for the Coloured child today is exactly what we are doing for the White child. In this connection the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members on the other side of the House cannot fault us.

I am glad that with this legislation we are correcting the position with regard to private schools. In practice, Coloured children are already being allowed to attend the private school of their choice. When one looks at clause 4, one sees the registration of private schools is now becoming superfluous.

I may mention another example of the way in which Coloured education is being brought into line with that of Whites. Clause 1 introduces a change in respect of nursery schools. There are not many nursery schools for Coloureds in South Africa. They are all supported by the State. As far as I know, the change of the designation of “nursery school” into “pre-primary school” will bring the position exactly into line with that applicable to White children. The change with regard to primary schools is clear. Junior secondary schools are also being abolished. Those amendments are absolutely necessary and in accordance with what we are doing to bring about equal education for Coloureds and Whites.

I believe that all the other clauses are sound and correct. The powers given to the Director-General to delegate his functions and powers are essential.

Finally, I just want to say that as far as Coloured education is concerned, this party may be very proud of its record. Because we are needing the Coloured people more and more in our economy and because they will increasingly have to supplement the manpower shortage, we know that these changes will help to enable the Coloured people to play a greater role in the economic life of South Africa in future. This will mean that they will be better prepared for the professional world, the business world and the agricultural world. It will be of great benefit to them. This legislation is not controversial, and I hope that all the political parties in this House, and not only the official Opposition, will support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for De Kuilen mentioned the fact that the political activities of the staff of Coloured schools were being regulated by this Bill and were to a large extent being brought into line with the situation of the Whites. I fully agree with this, and I also support the other positive changes proposed in this Bill. I shall come back briefly to the subject of the teacher in politics at a later stage.

This Bill promotes Coloured education in general. It is fully in accordance with the CP’s policy, which advocates that other population groups should be given full and equal education on the basis of separateness, alongside one another, in separate spheres, each within its own geographical territory in its own group areas. It recognizes the existence of the identity of groups other than the Whites. Even though the hon. member for Johannesburg West says that there is no such thing as a White people—it says so in his Hansard—we say that there is in fact an identifiable White people, just as there are identifiable Coloured and Indian peoples in addition to the White people.

I also want to state that we reject the statement made by the hon. member for Ge-zina, who said in this House today that we begrudged other population groups their opportunities and that we regarded ourselves as a group which was superior to others. This is simply a ridiculous statement. Those hon. members have not examined the educational policy of the CP. Please allow me—here it is—briefly to indicate to hon. members those points which have a bearing on this matter. It says—

Then, in paragraph 2—

Then, in paragraph 4—

Surely this is quite clear; it is reasonable; it is just and it is meaningful.

Except for certain changes to definitions, such as the replacement of the term “Coloured Affairs” by “Internal Affairs”, this legislation is concerned primarily with the establishment of pre-primary schools for children who are older than 3 years, but have not yet attained the age of compulsory school attendance. Therefore it makes provision for pre-school education, which becomes particularly important in the provision of pre-school education at an ordinary school during the year in which the child attains the age at which school attendance becomes compulsory. Then, with regard to primary schools, Std. V as the final standard is replaced by a standard determined by the Director-General. In respect of secondary schools, the old distinction between junior and senior schools is being removed. Then the provision of education to Coloureds for reward, except in State schools and in private schools in respect of which authorization has been granted by registration by the State or the provinces, is prohibited. This is a very important provision to ensure that education provided to Coloured persons will be subject to control and of the accepted standard. This is a benefit which we sincerely wish these people to enjoy, just as we demand it for our own children, but it continues to be our standpoint that it should be provided on a parallel basis in their own areas, as is in fact provided for in this legislation. Then we agree with the statement made by a person such as Prof. Van der Berg at the recent meeting of the Cape Provincial Professional Teacher’s Association, and I quote his words in Die Vaderland of 17 June—

This is what we would like these people to have, so that they may uplift their own people in their own areas within the sphere of their own education.

In terms of clause 5, the staff and officials of any school are prohibited from participating in or being office-bearers of any organization which has been declared an unlawful organization. I believe that this is right and proper. I believe that it applies equally to all the members of staff at White schools. Furthermore, this clause also prohibits teachers from abusing their position in the department in order to promote or prejudice the interests of any political party. They are also prohibited from presiding or speaking at any public political meeting or drawing up or distributing pamphlets or writings for any political party. From this it may be inferred—this is probably the position—that staff members may not seek nomination as candidates for a political party. I believe this is quite logical and just as acceptable as it is in the case of the White staff.

As far as I can see, however, this measure does not prohibit active participation by a single member of the school staff in the organization of a single legal political party. Nor does it prohibit a single member of staff from pursuing and promoting the aims and objectives of a single legal political party.

As I said at the beginning—and the hon. member for De Kuilen agreed with me—this corresponds in broad outline with the position of members of staff at White schools, where the factual position at the moment is that more and more members of staff at White schools are actively and wholeheartedly supporting the ideals of the CP. In fact, this is precisely where the CP is making its breakthrough in South African politics. Hon. members should visit the schools in their own constituencies. The vast majority of teachers and children support the CP of South Africa. [Interjections.]

However, to come back to the legislation which is before us, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this measure also introduces compulsory education in so far as the facilities for it are available. This is in line with our standpoint that we wish others to have the same educational facilities and standards as those which we demand for ourselves. Failure to attend school where the facilities are in fact available is being made punishable, just as it is in the case of White schools. Provision is also being made for an increased fine in order to adjust the amount to the present value of the rand.

Furthermore provision is being made in this legislation for official inspection of all school facilities, such as school hostels, clinics, accessories, etc., which is necessary to ensure proper maintenance and administration. A further amendment in this connection is the fact that pupils who are found guilty of misconduct cannot only be suspended, but can in fact be expelled from State schools or State-aided schools.

In our opinion, this legislation brings about an improvement in the present system, an improvement in Coloured education generally, which this population group may rightly be proud of in future. Therefore we on this side of the House want to give our wholehearted support to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Pietersburg, and I also thank him for his support of this Bill.

I must tell the hon. member for Pietersburg, though, that he made two statements which I found very interesting and on which I cannot agree with him tonight. He said that the majority of our teachers and pupils supported the CP. I want the hon. member for Pietersburg to realize, Mr. Speaker, that he is very much mistaken. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietersburg, as well as the hon. member for Kuruman, tried to establish a branch of the CP in Paarl about a year ago. The interesting thing is that a few lecturers and a few teachers turned up at that founders’ meeting. A committee was elected, but the next day they all resigned. [Interjections.] This does not surprise me at all, for when they realized what it was all about, they could not help seeing through the deception of the CP.

The hon. member for Pietersburg made a second interesting statement. He quoted from the manifesto of the CP. A large part of that manifesto is actually a copy of the NP’s manifesto on education.

It says nothing about power-sharing.

Very well, it says nothing about power-sharing. Now the hon. member for Pietersburg quoted from that booklet in connection with the interstate council which is supposed to take decisions on educational matters. I should very much like to know from the hon. member for Pietersburg whether that inter-state council which has to control education will be a mixed council. Will the members of that council share power on that council?

Read Die Patriot.

I also want to know who is going to appoint the members of that council.

You will not be here to see that. [Interjections.]

I want to assure the hon. member for Rissik that I shall be in this House long after he has left.

Do not be so sure.

Generally speaking, the hon. member for Pietersburg supported the Bill, and I thank him for doing so.

Sir, I was 12 years old when Dr. D. F. Malan made his election manifesto speech in Paarl in 1948. The Paarl town hall was packed that night and it is interesting that the audience included quite a number of Coloured people.

You were still playing at marbles then.

That does not matter. I was there because I was interested. [Interjections.] Dr. Malan gave a great deal of attention on that occasion to the NP’s view of the solution to the Coloured problem in South Africa. He emphasized the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured population in South Africa. He laid particular emphasis on the role which education would have to play in the upliftment of the Coloured people. I find it very interesting that we should now have legislation before the House of Assembly, 35 years later, in which the process which was envisaged in 1948 is being taken one step further.

I cannot omit to devote some attention on this occasion to the progress that has been made in Coloured education over this period of 35 years and in particular to the progress which has been made over the past 20 years since the principal Act which regulates this whole matter was passed in 1963. The hon. member for De Kuilen said that I would quote a few figures. I shall take great pleasure in doing so, because it will put the whole situation in perspective. At the same time, however, it also shows that the development which has taken place has placed a much greater responsibility on the Coloured population and the Coloured teachers today. In 1963, for example, there were 1 743 Coloured schools in South Africa, most of them in the Cape Province, of course. Of these, only 366 were really State schools. The other 1 377 were State-aided schools. These were schools that had been established and were supported by churches and religious denominations, but the staff of which was actually provided by the State. One of the most interesting developments is the material change which has come about over these 20 years in the ratio of State schools to State-aided schools. The number of State schools has more than doubled, to 821 out of a total of 1 995, while State-aided schools have come to represent a much small percentage of the total number of schools. This is a very gratifying development. From the nature of the case, churches, religious denominations and so on cannot really do justice to the development and modernization of Coloured schools or the provision of facilities for them.

The most interesting development, in my opinion, is in respect of numbers. I believe that hon. members will be interested to learn that the number of Coloured children in primary schools and high schools has just about doubled over this period of 20 years, from 386 000 to 760 000. It sounds frightening. The number of Coloured school children has doubled. The most interesting and significant factor in this connection is that generally speaking, our Coloured children progress to a much more advanced level of education at school today. As far as Coloured pupils in the primary classes are concerned, there has been an increase from 330 000 to 550 000 over this period. This represents an increase of 60%, or approximately 3% a year. As far as high-school children are concerned, there has been an increase in numbers from 60 000 to more than 100 000. This represents an increase of 300%, or more than 10% a year. In respect of Std. 10 pupils alone—the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to this—there has been an increase over this period of 20 years from 1 500 to the more than 10 000 a year which we have today. More then anything this proves the progress which has been made with Coloured education.

The hon. member for De Kuilen referred to compulsory Coloured education. It is very interesting to note that a start was made in 1974 with the introduction of compulsory school attendance for all 7-year-olds. This culminated in the introduction of compulsory school attendance for pupils of 16 years in 1980.

Allow me to give hon. members another indication of the progress that has already been made. The hon. member for De Kuilen also referred to pre-primary education. In 1965, no such thing existed, and today there are more than 8 000 Coloured children in pre-primary classes. In respect of pupils in Sub A, there has been an increase from just over 80 000 to 100 000, i.e. an increase of only 25% over a period of 20 years. This proves quite clearly that the very lowest class was almost fully utilized 20 years ago. Everyone was at school.

From these figures which I have just quoted, a fact emerges which I find very interesting. On the one hand, the numbers of our Coloured population, and especially our Coloured children, have to a very large extent stabilized. They have stabilized as a result of a definite rise in the standards of living, as a result of effective information services and especially as a result of the availability of family planning services. On the other hand, however, these figures also indicate dramatically improved levels of training. The hon. member for De Kuilen referred at the end of his speech to the need for us to go out of our way to make the best possible use of our Coloured population, which is our labour force with the best potential in the country. When one thinks of the attention that is being given to differentiation of educational opportunities, i.e. differentiated education, in the field of Coloured education as well, we have reason to be very grateful for this. One has only to think, too, of the opportunities which are being created for post-school education. There are 4 000 Coloured student teachers at the moment who are being trained in this direction.

However, there is a further point which strikes me in considering Coloured education. Development means greater responsibility, and in the long run it cannot be expected that the Whites should remain in control of Coloured education. I think this is the best success story of all in the emancipation of Coloured education over the past 20 years. One should take cognizance of the fact that the Director of Education is a Coloured person today. Similarly, half the Deputy Directors and the Assistant-Directors of Education are Coloured people. Six of the eight chief inspectors are Coloured people today, and so are 44 of the school inspectors. But this is not all: There are only 2 190 White teachers in the entire Department of Coloured Education today. The Coloured people have indeed fully utilized the opportunity of meeting their own educational needs. If ever there was an example of the desire to serve finding expression among the Coloured people, we have witnessed it here, where they have been prepared to devote their strength and energy to their own people.

I want to make a final point. Specific reference is made in the legislation to the question of compulsory school attendance. One of the hon. members—I think it was the hon. member for Green Point—referred to the question of the platoon system. I have the greatest sympathy with those 13 people employed by the education department who have to ensure that the Coloured children do in fact attend school. When they find a young boy or girl walking down the road, the argument can so easily be used that they attend the second shift at school. If there is one thing which is absolutely necessary—and in this connection I fully agree with the hon. member for Green Point—it is the elimination of this platoon system, which has in fact been announced, so that we may ensure in that way that the Coloured child does go to school. There is also a great responsibility resting on the employer of Coloured people—and especially Coloured youths—to ensure that the child goes to school as he should. I believe that we should give serious attention to imposing a heavier fine on employers who employ young Coloured boys and girls while they should still be at school.

I am convinced that enormous progress has been made in respect of Coloured education, and therefore I very gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl will excuse me if I do not follow directly upon the latter part of his speech but I would like to touch upon a part of it—of which I think he is very proud—and that concerns the improvements in Coloured education over the last 20 years. The number of students have virtually doubled and, in particular, this applies to those in the secondary schools. There is no doubt about it that there has been a very substantial improvement in the quality of education and the number of Coloured children who are going through the secondary schools. He also mentioned a point made in 1948 by the late Dr. Malan who emphasized the role of teachers and, particularly in relation to this debate, the role of Coloured teachers. There is no doubt that they have improved their status but it is rather unfortunate that it has taken so long for it to come to the surface.

The hon. member for Green Point also took issue over the question of platoon schools and the salaries of teachers which are not paid on time. This is, of course, deplorable. It was indicated during the budget speech that the platoon school system was virtually finished and, as a result of the shortage of funds, there was likely to be a delay in this regard. Certainly, we on these benches would hope that if there is to be any delay at all it will be absolutely minimal. It is appreciated that the platoon school system whilst better than no education at all—considerably better in fact—is deplorable and should, if possible, be avoided at all costs. Certainly I do believe that this question of the late payment of salaries is demoralizing and quite frankly should not be necessary. If it is at all humanly possible to improve the position by getting rid of a few computers and appointing a few clerks to put the matter right by manual means then perhaps that is what we should do.

The hon. member for Pietersburg raised a point of great interest and that is that we have people who are identifiable as Whites or as Coloureds and so forth. Of course, to a very large extent, this is true. However, regrettably there are a number of these people—a very substantial number—who are very much borderline cases. In handling aspects related to this portfolio it is regrettable—I say it is regrettable because it is in fact the case—that many of these people approach me asking for assistance. As far as people in these categories are concerned, the private schools are serving an enormously useful purpose. I know that the hon. member for Pietersburg is not an unkind person. In fact, I know him to be a very kind person. On occasion I have spoken to many hon. members of the CP and I do not believe them to be unkind in any way. However, from the experience that I have had I can assure them that particularly with regard to what I may call the borderline cases, the private schools are serving a most admirable purpose indeed. One has these divided families. Some members of the family are obviously Coloured and some are as White as makes no difference in appearance, behaviour and way of living. These people do, I believe, find some solace as far as their situation if concerned in the private schools. In so far as we in Natal are concerned, we like to think that we have taken the lead in this regard because some years ago we encouraged the private schools, if that was their wish, to admit these children. At that time when I was a member of the Natal Executive Committee, we experienced tremendous problems with various State departments in this connection. Eventually, however, they saw the light and, as is so often the case in Natal, they allowed us to do our own thing—to exercise a little local option, if you like! Fortunately, since then, the Government has come to realize—even though it does not wish formally to acknowledge the fact—that local option has a great deal to commend it. In terms of these proposals a properly registered private school even in the other provinces, can admit these children. This is a very good thing and we are happy to see it. I should, however, like to put one question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this connection. When I left the province there was some sort of restriction on the use of provincial funds to assist anyone in this connection. I am not referring here to State-aided schools only. I am talking about other schools as well. Is there any sort of curb on private schools receiving assistance in any form from the province if they do in fact admit Coloured or other pupils to their schools? I feel that whilst local option in this regard is important because nobody would want to force schools either to admit or not to admit Coloured pupils, in the event of these schools being placed in the position of acting in a humanitarian manner, they should not be prejudiced financially.

As far as the Bill in general is concerned, we in this party are very happy to support it. We feel it is very obviously a valid and genuine effort to bring the Coloured schools in so far as their nomenclature is concerned into line with the White schools and in so far as their classes and so forth are concerned as well. Their position will be the same as that which prevails in the White community. Therefore we are very happy to accept that aspect.

I now proceed to the political participation scene. Here again in the White schools it has been permitted over many years for the educational staff to participate in party politics provided they do not abuse their position by using it for political ends. Here again it is a question of bringing matters into line so that in the Coloured community they may do the same. I think this is only right and proper, and we are very happy to support this concept.

A point which does perturb me a little—I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give me an answer in this connection—is that clause 8 seems to diminish the imperative of compulsory school education in that it stipulates certain conditions which are not applicable in the principal Act. I am not quite sure why one has to have the proviso inserted which does not appear in the principal Act. In the same clause the fines are updated. Obviously I can support that because those fines were established a number of years ago, and I think that one has to ensure that selfish parents—there are such people in all communities—must not be allowed to think of themselves before the teaching of their children.

Finally in respect of clause 10 there is one aspect again that I cannot quite understand, and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will give an explanation. I notice that the fees or allowances payable can be made retrospective to 1964. That is an awfully long time ago. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister like to give an indication as to why it is necessary to make this particular clause retrospective to that date?

We in these benches believe that the Bill is a very distinct improvement on the principal Act and therefore we are very happy to support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for Green Point, De Kuilen, Pietersburg, Paarl and Umbilo very sincerely for their participation in this debate and for the contributions they made. It is very clear to me that the hon. members made a very thorough study of Coloured education in particular. I also want to thank the various parties for pledging their support to this Bill. It is, of course, a thorough piece of legislation and I do not think they had any option but to support it.

The main object of the amendments embodied in this Bill is to bring the practices and also the designations in the Education Directorate of the Department of Internal Affairs into fine with the practices and designations which exist in the other education departments in South Africa. The hon. members went a little further and discussed the subject rather widely. In particular I should like to mention the hon. members for De Kuilen and Paarl, who emphasized the progress that had been made in Coloured education. The hon. member for Paarl emphasized the value of education in particular. He even took us back to the days of the late Dr. Malan, when Dr. Malan spoke about the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds and placed the emphasis on education. One is of course grateful to be able to look back over all these years this evening and say that good and thorough progress has been made in this sphere. This was confirmed by the statistics which the hon. member for Paarl furnished here. Apart from the statistics, there is what we can see every day, children happily established in schools, the goodwill which exists and the fine attitude which prevails in schools, and the wonderful work which is being done by the approximately 30 000 teachers in the various schools. Personally, I have very great appreciation for these things. It is really a privilege to visit these schools and to be received there. One cannot help noticing the friendliness with which this is always done. I have very great appreciation for the work which is being done by the teachers in the various schools, sometimes under very great pressure.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I should like to quote a few figures. In 1980 there were 749 000 children attending school, while last year there were already 755 000 children attending school. In 1980 we had 27 700 teachers in our employ, while the figure this year is 31 900. In this connection I should like to mention the approximately 2 000 Whites who are helping us in the various schools. I want to thank them for the exceptional way in which they are doing this work in the various schools. During the 1980-’81 financial year we had an amount of R178 million available for Coloured education, which did not include capital works. During the 1983-’84 financial year an amount of R418 million was appropriated for education. During the 1980-’81 financial year we had R28 million for capital works, while we spent R76 million on capital works during the past financial year. Since 1980 we have constructed 27 senior secondary schools, six junior secondary schools and 19 primary schools. Since 1980 we have succeeded in providing 3 794 additional classrooms. This testifies to the tremendous progress that has been made. During the next five years we want to construct 157 new primary schools and 46 new senior secondary schools. Alterations are in progress at 97 schools, while 24 new hostels are to be built at various schools. Consequently there is thorough planning at the Department of Internal Affairs and its Education Directorate. We are fully aware of the needs which exist.

The hon. members for Green Point, Umbilo and Paarl referred to double-shift classes. I want to say at once that this is a bad system that has severe disadvantages. However, I wish to agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that we should rather have double-shift classes than no education at all. This year we have already discussed the matter with a political party that came to see us. We have also discussed the matter with the executive committee of the CPO. We are in the process of phasing out double-shift classes. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out quite correctly during the discussion of the Vote that if we had R20 million, we could get rid of double-shift classes. With that the hon. the Minister had in mind that we could provide mobile classrooms. Even if we did have the R20 million at our disposal this year, it would have been impossible to spend it. However, the hon. the Minister has succeeded in obtaining R5 million from the hon. the Minister of Finance. We shall use this amount during the present year to introduce mobile classrooms at schools where a crisis exists and at which there are a great many double-shift classes.

I wish to emphasize here this evening that these classrooms are of an excellent quality, although they are merely of a temporary nature. Communities must ask for them, and when this is done, they will be provided. I believe that they could meet a very, very great need in the process of eliminating the double-shift classes. I want to repeat that communities must ask for them, and I can mention that we have already received applications from communities for up to 20 of these classrooms. In 1979 there was double-shift instruction in 1 783 classes at 545 schools. In 1983 there was double-shift instruction in only 1 462 classes. I want to assure hon. members that as far as the department is concerned, we should like to do away with this system entirely. We shall employ funds placed at our disposal by the Treasury and proceed with the ordinary normal building programme of the department in order to meet these needs.

The hon. member for Green Point also referred to clause 5, as did the hon. member for De Kuilen. They gave a very clear elucidation of the participation of the teacher in active politics. All that we are now doing here is to bring the position here into line with the position which exists in regard to the other population groups. The Coloured teacher is already participating in politics. Actually, the Act as it reads at present prohibits him from doing so. Now we are making this adjustment, nevertheless it is still expected from all teachers, regardless of what population group they are members of, to participate in politics in a responsible way. I believe that the Coloured teacher will also do so in a responsible way. I believe that misconduct in this sphere will be restricted to an absolute minimum.

The hon. member for Green Point also dealt with clause 7, namely the powers of inspection. I am aware that there is an amendment in this connection printed in the name of the hon. member on the Order Paper. What the hon. member’s amendment amounts to is that only those hostels, teachers’ quarters, school clinic or other accessories established, erected, maintained or used in connection with a State school or a State-aided school may be inspected. It is not the intention to extend the power of inspection to hostels on which no State funds are expended. For that reason I have no objection to the hon. member’s amendment. I consulted the Government law advisers, and if the hon. member—I think he has in the meantime been given the new wording—is prepared to amend the wording of his amendment as the Government law advisers want it to be, I am prepared to accept the amendment when we get to the Committee Stage.

The hon. member also discussed clause 10, dealing with the expulsion of school children. He said that in the past action had been taken too readily when the name of the school was involved. For that reason a child was too easily expelled from school. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is not our intention at all. We wish to provide every child with an education and we wish to ensure that every child is able to acquire an education. We have rules which have to be complied with, and we shall always take the educational requirements into consideration.

I have already referred to the fine contributions made by the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for De Kuilen.

The hon. member for Pietersburg, inter alia, discussed full-fledged education. I want to tell the hon. member that it is the intention of the department that Coloured education should be absolutely full-fledged education, equal to the education of the other population groups. We dare not provide inferior education or inferior educational opportunities or facilities, and in fact I believe that it is very clearly apparent from the statistics to which I have already referred that we are intent on providing that full-fledged education.

In addition, we have introduced compulsory education. The hon. member for Paarl referred to this, as well as the hon. member for Pietersburg. We have problems in connection with the application of this policy because we do not have adequate accommodation. We have appointed school-visiting officials to investigate cases of children who do not attend school, and I am happy to say that in this respect we have already achieved relatively great success.

The hon. member for Pietersburg placed emphasis on the Coloured teacher who serves his own people. I want to refer with great praise and appreciation this evening to Coloured teachers who are performing this task in an absolutely masterly fashion. The hon. member for Umbilo also emphasized the development and progress that has taken place in the sphere of Coloured education. He asked me whether there would be any obstructions or hindrances in the case of private schools; whether any restrictions would be placed on the various provinces. I am speaking under correction. I do not think that I can really speak on behalf of the provincial administrations. However, I do not think that this will be the case. Furthermore, the hon. member asked questions in connection with clauses 8 and 10, to which, I think, we shall reply more fully because we shall go into the questions which he put and then provide him with the answers. I extend my sincere thanks once again to all the hon. members who participated in the debate.

Questions agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the copy of the amendment which he intends moving. I have received it, and I am quite satisfied with it. It contains precisely what I intended to move by way of my own amendment.

I therefore wish to indicate in advance that we on this side of the House will support the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment, when he moves it.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I may have missed his reply when the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke earlier, but I did ask him during the Second Reading debate if he could give the reason for back-dating this to 1964. I would appreciate an answer on why it has to be back-dated to 1964.

Mr. Chairman, this is the date on which the principal Act came into operation. Since we are at present amending the principal Act, we are simply using the date on which the principal Act came into operation, viz. 1 April 1964.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To enable Masters of the Supreme Court to render a more efficient service, the Administration of Estates Act, Act 66 of 1965, was reviewed and certain amendments are now being proposed. It has become apparent in practice that certain requirements relating to the submission of documentation to a Master can be done away with and that certain duties imposed on Masters can be simplified without detracting from an effective liquidation process. The intention is to alleviate the task of Masters and executors and to reduce costs as far as possible.

Allow me to refer to just a few clauses in a Bill which in its entirety illustrates this approach. It is, for instance, suggested in clause 2 that accounts only be submitted to the Master in case of a dispute regarding the correctness thereof.

The amendment in clause 3 will alleviate the task of the Minister and prevent unnecessary delays as, in future, the onus will in such cases not be on the Master to request the relevant proof.

In clause 4 the Master is given the authority to appoint a person as executor in the relevant instances should he deem such person to be fit and proper to be executor of the estate. He will only convene a meeting if he deems it necessary or expedient.

In clause 6 provision is made that an inventory only be submitted to the Master if the executor is ordered thereto by the Master or if he was required by the Master to find security in terms of the Act. Such an amendment is possible because the executor must in any event submit a liquidation and distribution account, supported by vouchers, to the Master.

Clause 7 warrants a more detailed explanation. As it is the primary function of an executor generally to act in the interest of the heirs to an estate, it is suggested in clause 7 that the requirement in section 28(1) that the permission of the Master should be obtained before an executor may open a savings account in the name of the estate or place moneys belonging to the estate on interest-bearing deposit, be deleted. It is also made clear that the account referred to in subsection (1)(a) must be a cheque account. Subsection (3) prohibits an executor from transferring any account opened in the name of the estate from any office or branch to any other office or branch. In clause 7(b) provision is made that notice only be given to the Master if the executor has notified the Master of the office or branch of the banking institution or building society with which he has opened an account.

*A few of the other amendments require further elucidation. Hon. members will note that I am moving rapidly through the Bill now. This brings me to the amendment of section 34, which is of fairly general importance. This section deals with the liquidation of insolvent deceased estates. This section was criticized in the past because it did not clearly set out how the estate should be liquidated. In addition, the fact that different procedures exist depending upon whether the value of the estate is more than or less than R5 000, in some cases causes delays. In clause 10 the section is consequently being rewritten with the following premises—these are important—in mind: Firstly, provision is being made for only one procedure regardless of whether the value of the assets of the estate amounts to more or less than R5 000. Secondly, the way in which assets in the estate are to be realized is being specifically prescribed. Thirdly, the further administration is the same as that of the ordinary deceased estate. Fourthly, the distribution of the proceeds of the estate is the same as in the case of an insolvent estate. The realization of assets is being left to the executor, with notice to the creditors and review by the Master in the event of a creditor objecting to the proposed sale. In general the interests of the creditors are better served and they are kept informed of developments at all times.

This brings me to the point at which I wish to refer hon. members to other clauses in the Bill, with efficiency, economy and effectiveness as basic premise. I come now the section 91. This section provides that the Master shall cause a list to be published every year in September in the Gazette of all claimable amounts of R20 or more in the guardians’ fund which have remained unclaimed for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years. This section imposes a tremendous burden of work on the Master. In clause 21 this amount is being increased from R20 to R100, the number of publications required is being reduced, and the moneys that have to be paid into the guardians’ fund in terms of section 93(3)(a) are being excluded from the provisions of the section.

Section 93 deals with the moneys held by a person carrying on business in the Republic which is not his property and which have remained unclaimed by the rightful owners for a period of five years or more. Such a person must cause to be published in the Gazette separate statements in respect of all amounts from R1 to R20 and from R20 or more held by him. According to the amendment contained in clause 22, he shall only publish one statement of all amounts of R1 of more that were held by him. The proposed amendment to section 91 ought to alleviate the task of the Master considerably. The amount of R20 was laid down as long ago as 1965, and an increase to R100 appears to be justified. The number of publications specified by this amendment appears to be entirely sufficient to enable any person to become aware of money in the guardians’ fund which is due to him, and since the moneys specified in section 93 are already being published in the Gazette, it is unnecessary duplication of work if the Master has to publish this information again. If the public were to know how much money is lying unclaimed in the guardians’ fund, they would take a very close look at this provision.

In the Bill provision is also being made for certain amounts of money to be increased, all with a view to efficiency and expeditiousness and at the same time in order to keep abreast of the inflation rate.

Finally, I should like to point out that a further number of proposals for the amendment of the Act have been received from interested parties. These proposals are at present being examined and consequently we shall probably have to deal with this legislation again in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that the question of the handling of estates is notoriously connected with delays. One finds that very many people complain that it takes an interminable time before an estate is finally wound up.

The hon. the Minister set a fairly good example this evening, which I hope will be followed in the administration of estates generally, in that he certainly expedited the introductory explanation of this Bill. I intend to follow that example.

We welcome this Bill because it is a measure which is designed to make things work quicker and to cut out unnecessary red tape. For that reason alone one should support this measure, and we will do so.

I should like to make just a few very brief points. Firstly, one of the things which I believe we have to look at still is the question of the personnel in the offices of the Master, and in particular to put their salary scales on such a basis that we attract the necessary people to do this work. I must tell hon. members that the task of examining an estate account and of looking at some of the intricate details which arise therefrom in determining whether there are duties payable or not, is not a matter one can just hand to a clerk. One therefore needs skilled people. I believe one needs to look at the salary scales of the people in the Master’s Office in comparison with those of people holding similar responsible positions elsewhere. I should like to make that appeal to the hon. the Minister, who I think will actually support me, to have the Commission for Administration look at these matters.

The second point is that I believe that the Bill should not be left as it is now. Once we have passed this and we have a new Act we should review it periodically because there are still many things which can be done in order to expedite matters. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the same way as I appealed to him some time back, that we should have a periodical review of this matter and keep it constantly on our minds so that we can see to it that we try to expedite the handling of estates as far as we possibly can.

The other matter to which I think we should draw attention is that sometimes the delays are not caused by the Master or the executor but by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. There should be a greater degree of liaison between the assessment of income tax which can delay a matter and the question of the estate duty to ensure that these things are expedited. That appeal I again make to the hon. the Minister so that he can see that the necessary liaison comes about.

I do not intend to go through the provisions of the Bill and explain them. They are all there. It is not the function of the Opposition to express its agreement with every provision as it is. I just want to highlight a couple of things in respect of which we might perhaps make further improvements.

Firstly, when it comes to the question of vouchers, what I find interesting is that in terms of the proposed new section 34(11) we accept a pay cheque as a voucher for a payment, but not in every respect. One of the things that does delay estates is having to get the receipts and the vouchers. I think in every case an account together with a pay cheque should be regarded as an adequate voucher. This would in fact expedite the matter. It is a very small thing but one that causes executors a tremendous amount of trouble. We have done it in one respect here. I welcome it and I hope the hon. the Minister will do it in regard to others.

The other matter upon which I should like to touch, is the question as to who should actually decide who an executor of an estate should be when no one has been appointed under a will. Whereas I accept the argument that the hon. the Minister has advanced, namely that very often the Master knows who the heirs want and that therefore he does not have to go through the formality of a meeting, I want to caution against the appointment of people who are purely professional administrators, executors, trustees or whatever one wants to call them, as executors of estates in terms of this provision without reference to the heirs in the estate. I believe this power should only be exercised when the Master has been informed by all the interested parties that they want a particular person to act as executor, otherwise we will have the same unholy scramble as we have with insolvent estates. I certainly would not like to see that develop in regard to these estates.

There is a last point I want to make. The proposed amendment to section 102 makes provision for another offence in respect of executors. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that whereas we do not oppose the inclusion of section 47 here, I think the principle should be that it should only be an offence if there is something which approaches dishonesty on the part of the executor, and not where it is merely a question of, say, delay or neglect. In terms of this proposed amendment a breach of section 47 will constitute an offence. What I am saying, is that if an executor commits an act which involves a degree of dishonesty, it should be an offence, but if it is merely a question of delay or neglect, it should not be an offence. I think that is how we should approach this matter in the future.

As I have said, I do not intend to traverse the provisions of the Bill. It is an improvement and it has our support. We hope that the hon. the Minister will introduce further amendments next year in another Bill to make it even easier and quicker to wind up deceased estates.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville and his party for the support they have given this measure. I also agree with several of the remarks made in this regard by the hon. member for Yeoville.

As the hon. the Minister pointed out, this amending Bill is calculated to improve the practical implementation of the Administration of Estates Act in various respects. These amendments are chiefly of an administrative nature and accordingly there is no reason why they should be contentious. The amendments are also calculated to streamline the whole liquidation process, relieve the work-load on the Masters’ offices and reduce costs. It is considered that all this can be achieved without in any way sacrificing efficiency as regards the liquidation of estates. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has remarked that this Bill is of such a nature that it will not be possible to regard it as the final word, and that we shall quite probably have to review some of these amendments from time to time. Accordingly I want to take this opportunity to mention a few of these provisions which I think ought to be reconsidered. Although one welcomes these amendments as far as they go, nevertheless concern is being expressed in side-bar circles about certain aspects of these proposed amendments.

In the first place I want to refer to the proposals in clause 3 that are concerned with the furnishing of a death notice. What the amendment amounts to is that in future the onus will be on the person furnishing the death notice to furnish evidence of the death in all instances. This will now be a standard requirement which will have to be complied with automatically, and not only when the Master specifically requires it. However, the question is whether one should not already consider going a little further with regard to the amendment proposed here. I hasten to tell the hon. the Minister that I do not intend proposing any amendments at this stage with regard to any of my remarks. I do think, however, that we should take this opportunity to refer the hon. the Minister to certain aspects of this matter which will possibly mean that it will have to be reconsidered later. I just want to put it to the hon. the Minister and his department for their consideration that one should perhaps consider stipulating that a death notice should be a sworn statement or at least be signed before witnesses.

Perhaps we do not always realize it, but the death notice is a very important document. It is one of the most important documents in the whole liquidation process. It is particularly important when, at a later stage, the transfer of immovable property comes into question. It is then required by the Registrar of Deeds as one of the pieces of evidence he requires as proof of the death of the deceased. It also has to serve as proof of the identity of the deceased’s children who are entitled to obtain transfer of the property, particularly, in cases where the deceased, say, died intestate or where he made over his land to his children without mentioning their names. The death notice then serves as conclusive evidence as regards the identity of those who would obtain transfer of that property.

In practice, experience teaches us that the information on the death notice is not always reliable. Often it is defective and faulty. One can understand this if one bears in mind in what circumstances a death notice is furnished. It is understandable that mistakes can often be made in that regard. One of the provisions of the Act provides that the death notice must be submitted within 14 days by a blood-or other relation of the deceased who is available. Often those people are still in such a state of mind at the time that one can understand that mistakes sometimes slip in, and this can have serious implications and serious consequences when, at some future date, the document has to be used as evidence of who is entitled to transfer.

By way of analogy, such a requirement, viz. signature before witnesses or the making of a death notice on oath, can be justified with reference to other documents in the liquidation process in regard to which witnesses, and sometimes even a sworn statement, are required. Here I refer in particular to the statements by next-of-kin, and estate duty returns. If this can be justified in that regard it is perhaps also justifiable to stipulate this in the case of a death notice.

I now turn to clause 4, which concerns the appointment of executors. In terms of the proposed amendment it will be a matter for the discretion of the Master whether or not to convene a meeting for recommendations relating to the appointment of executors. Here I agree fully with the hon. member for Yeoville that one wonders whether it is entirely safe or desirable to give the Master full discretion in regard to the appointment of executors.

In practice we are concerned that this may lead to malpractice if a Master can simply appoint persons and bodies at will without consulting the next-of-kin or without their approval. After all, it is possible that if he were to act in this way, friction and dissatisfaction could occur among the next-of-kin, and that is certainly undesirable. The question is whether the interested parties, or some of them, will for example have the opportunity to nominate an executor in writing, because in the proposed amendment nothing is said about how the Master has to go about reaching his decisions. I do think it is desirable that there should be some form of stipulation as to the basis on which the Master will do this. For example, in section 19 the procedure is stipulated in cases where more than one person is nominated, but apparently there is no stipulation to the effect that any nominations whatsoever have to be made; in other words, that the Minister can simply decide at will whom he will appoint as executor. It may be that a meeting is extra trouble or an unnecessarily expensive process, but I do think that it is a kind of safety valve to ensure satisfaction among the interested parties if they can at least have the satisfaction of having assisted in the process of the appointment of the executor.

Clause 6 provides that the inventory will only be lodged if the Master requires it. I think that this is a good proposal. It simplifies the procedure and entails the elimination of unnecessary stipulations. There is no doubt about that this will alleviate considerably the work-load of liquidators of estates and the Masters’ offices, once again without necessarily sacrificing efficiency.

The final clause to which I just want to refer briefly is clause 12, which will impose a heavier responsibility on the conveyancer. One can probably regard this provision as an extension of the principle embodied in section 15A of the Registration of Deeds Act that we passed in this House last year. This is exactly the same principle, where in the case of conveyancing, a heavier responsibility is imposed on the conveyancer by virtue of the certificate he has to issue. This is not in operation yet, but in any event the principle was accepted last year and I understand that the necessary regulations are already ready to be promulgated. I take it that this amendment is also aimed at simplifying the liquidation process, but it could nevertheless entail certain implications to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention.

At the moment we have the situation that a very responsible official, namely the Master, has to issue the certificate. Now, that responsibility which rest upon the Master at the moment is being transferred to the conveyancer. Although as it reads at present the Act only requires of the Master that he has to certify that the proposed transfer or registration is in accordance with the liquidation and distribution account, in practice there is a whole series of requirements which the Master sets practitioners before issuing that certificate. Thus a whole, orderly system has developed in accordance with which this provision in the Act is given effect to. We must also assume that there is a good reason or reasons for each of the requirements set by the Master. This is probably aimed at protecting the interests of interested parties and preventing unnecessary complications, disputes and even litigation. Let us look at a few of the requirements set by the Master before he certifies as required by the Act. He asks that evidence be submitted to the effect that the account has been free of objections for the prescribed period that it has lain for examination. He calls for proof of advertisement in the Gazette and in the local newspaper. He calls for proof by way of a certificate issued by the magistrate that no objections have been lodged. He calls for proof that the Master’s fees have been paid and that receipts have been submitted by all creditors.

It is of interest that as far as I have been able to determine, these requirements are nowhere prescribed by regulation. However, it has become standard practice, and these are the requirements that conveyancers have to comply with before receiving certificates from the Master. If this responsibility is now transferred from the Master to the conveyancer, the question inevitably arises as to whether the conveyancer will have to follow a similar procedure to that followed by the Master at present. If so, the question is whether it will be prescribed. In section 15A of the Registration of Deeds Act that we passed last year, it is expressly mentioned that the requirements—the duties of conveyancers—be prescribed by regulation. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of whether it is the intention that these requirements that are set for conveyancers will also be prescribed by regulation, so that the Minister may be sure that a specific system will be followed.

I want to let these few remarks suffice. I think that the proposed amendments are good amendments. I therefore support the Bill, but I expect that it will be necessary for us to reconsider some of these provisions in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that the CP welcomes the fact that the Bill is aimed at amending and supplementing provisions relating to the duties, activities and powers of the Master, the executor, the administrator of estates and the appraiser in such a way that all this will contribute towards establishing a more rounded and better regulated process of liquidation of estates.

All of us know that the Master of South Africa and his staff have a tremendous task. Apart from supervision of the liquidation of deceased estates, the Masters are also entrusted with supervision of insolvent estates, companies under judicial management and in liquidation, and the important responsibility of looking after the interests of minors in our country. Recently the Director-General of the Department of Justice pointed out in his annual report that between 40 000 and 50 000 estates were registered at the various Masters’ Offices in our country every year. The task of supervising this large number of estates is in the hands of a staff of between 300 and 350 persons and we know that it is expected of them to dispose of this task as promptly as possible.

At this stage I want to repeat what I have often said in the past, viz. that due to the fact that many thousands of estates accumulate in our Masters’ Offices every year, tremendous financial losses are suffered by a large number of people. The registration of transfers and bonds is of necessity delayed and this means that literally millions of rands are not paid to heirs or legatees. I hasten to say that we should not simply hold the Masters’ Offices responsible for that, as is so often done. There are many factors that contribute towards this, for example, the liquidators etc. I think we must be fair and admit that this is also due to the fact that there are still many stumbling blocks in our Estate Law. That is why we are so pleased to see that this Bill eliminates many of these hitches by making the procedure prescribed by the Act more streamlined. This is of course greatly welcomed.

I am not going to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by dwelling on virtually every important clause. I just want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we have gone through every clause with a magnifying glass to ensure that what is being done is in the interests of the liquidation of estates in our country. I think the hon. the Minister set us an excellent example when we went through his Second Reading speech with him here. I had to exert myself to keep up with the hon. Minister because at several places he went very fast. We do not object to the various clauses, but I do just wish to refer briefly to three clauses.

In the first place I want to refer to clause 4. Clause 4 envisages amending section 18 of the Administration of Estates Act. The proposed amendment is widely supported because the present system of advertisements and meetings only wastes time. While dealing with section 18 of the Administration of Estates Act I want to take the liberty of anticipating a change which may still occur because the hon. the Minister gave an indication this evening that this Act will be placed under the magnifying glass again in the near future.

I want to refer to the proposed new subsection (3) which reads inter alia, as follows—

Here we are dealing with the so-called small estate. The question now arises as to whether the amount of R15 000 is not merely an arbitrary figure. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a growing feeling among many liquidators of estates and among people who are concerned with this matter in practice, that we should rather link the specification of this amount to a more fixed norm. What we have in mind here is that we should link it to the primary rebate in respect of estate duty. As we know, this amount is at present R50 000. Hon. members may perhaps think that an increase from R15 000 to R50 000 is a considerable jump. However, it is true that nowadays an estate of R50 000 is really a small estate. After all, we know that in any large city in South Africa one could barely buy an unimproved plot for R50 000. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister and the department to take another look at this matter to determine whether we could not, as I have said, link this amount to what I have requested. If we could do so we should in fact be providing that many estates could be disposed of more easily and quickly.

I should now like to turn to clause 11. Here we have the proposal that section 35 of the Administration of Estates Act be amended. Of course we whole-heartedly support the proposed amendment. Here, too, however, I should like once again to put forward an idea, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we should effect an amendment to section 35(12) of the Administration of Estates Act. It concerns the requirement that receipts and acquaintances of creditors and heirs be produced to the Master. Our idea is that that requirement should be deleted and replaced by the requirement that the executor should lodge with the Master a certificate signed personally by him. This will mean that the Master will be relieved of a considerable responsibility. The responsibility of always ensuring that those receipts are submitted gives rise to very considerable delays. I merely put the idea forward so that the hon. the Minister may give consideration to it.

In conclusion I just wish to associate myself with hon. members who have expressed their thanks for the fact that an amendment is now being effected to section 42 of the principal Act. As a lawyer, the hon. the Minister and other hon. members belonging to the legal profession knew that we had to spend many precious hours in the Master’s Office in order to obtain the so-called Master’s endorsement of a transfer or other deed there that had to be registered urgently. Often the estate file had been lost and we were unable to trace the file. In the meantime, no one believes one. Nevertheless, that endorsement has to be effected. [Interjections.]

You can now go back to your practice. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. the Minister has come up with the excellent idea that on the strength of the certificate of the conveyancer, that transfer can pass through the Deeds Office. The responsibility is now that of the conveyancer. When he errs he exposes himself to penal provisions and we know that this matter will not only mean a great deal to attorneys’ clerks but will also help a great deal to expedite the liquidation of estates.

I am not going to discuss the other clauses in the Bill. We support it whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I can only convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for his enthusiastic support of this measure. I also fully agree with his contention that the reasons for many of the undisposed of and arrear estates are not to be sought in the Master’s Office, but rather in stumbling blocks that are encountered in the Administration of Estates Act. Accordingly this measure is aimed at eliminating some of the existing obstacles. I think that the most important amendments to the Administration of Estates Act can be described as amendments aimed at, on the one hand, increasing the responsibility of the executor, while on the other, relieving the Master of administrative responsibility and checking obligations. The result is a simplified system that could shorten the liquidation process considerably and reduce costs. I want to give a few examples in this regard. There is the fact that it is no longer necessary for the Master to appraise every account submitted by an appraiser; the fact that the Master now has the discretion to appoint executors without holding a meeting; and the fact that in certain circumstances it is no longer necessary to submit an inventory. The opening of an account has also been considerably facilitated. The Master need no longer give permission in every case but need only be notified. There is also the fact that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen referred to, viz. that whereas the certificate had to be given by the Master to the executor who in turn had to give it to the Deeds Office, that procedure has now been shortened and simplified. With regard to the sale of goods, too, it is no longer necessary for the Master to lay down conditions in this regard in every case. This measure will certainly simplify and shorten the process of liquidation and could lead to a saving in costs.

In spite of that I do want to say that this is not a drastic measure. It is not a measure that entails major advantages. Accordingly I wish to express the hope that it is only a first step towards relieving the Master of his duty of investigation entirely and imposing a greater responsibility on the executor in the liquidation of an estate. I therefore welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister that he will take another look at the process of the liquidation of estates, and that in time further amendments will be effected in this regard. I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Schutte will no doubt realize that I have to continue with his train of thought, because everybody has said exactly the same thing. [Interjections.] I should therefore like to say that I support everything he said. I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister and his staff for supplying me with a copy of his Second Reading speech at an early stage. It is nice to have a couple of extra minutes to go through it. I think that this is a procedure which could well be adopted in the House in regard to other legislation as well.

As everybody else has said, the proposed amendments are mostly in order to relieve the Master of his burden and will facilitate and expedite the administration of estates. The shortage of qualified personnel in the Masters’ offices results in a great delay in handling the many facets of the Administration of Estates Act at the level of the officials. Here I should heartily like to support the hon. member for Yeoville in his plea to the hon. the Minister in regard to improving the staff position at the Masters of the Supreme Court both in terms of their numbers and their conditions of service. At the same time I think it is important to mention that all the hon. members who have so far spoken about this legislation have been members of the legal fraternity. They all see it from their side. I think the hon. member Mr. Theunissen almost got to the point of saying it is not only the Masters’ fault, but he did not quite take it far enough because he thought he might hurt his colleagues’ feelings. Apropos of what we have heard tonight, I should just like to say that if I had to choose an attorney to handle an estate—and I have had some experience of estates, having been at the receiving end of the process—I would naturally choose the member who spoke for the shortest time here tonight because he could either have the least knowledge or spend less time talking about it. Perhaps of the previous speakers in this debate the first and the last would be my choice. Certainly, it has become a very handy excuse to blame all the delays on the Master. Every time there is even a hiccup in the attorney’s office and something is forgotten or put aside in favour of someone else, the Master gets the blame. I think that in the case of a relatively simple estate, the average estate—not the larger more complicated ones involving overseas people and things like that—the process is fairly straightforward involving an inventory and a bit of arithmetic to see what is dutiable. There is no reason why we should sit back and take it for granted that the winding up of estates should be a drawn out process, which puts the heirs in a difficult situation for a very long period. That point was also touched on by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. In some cases large sums of money are involved and certainly people are put to a great deal of distress.

Sir, you will have gathered that the NRP will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that in dealing here with legislation that affects every hon. member of this House, we pass over it with such haste. It is true that the matter dealt with by this kind of legislation is as old as humanity itself. Moreover, it affects every one of us at a stage when we are no longer aware of it. It affects our estates. For that reason I do not want to make haste slowly with regard to the discussion of the clauses embodied in the Bill, but it is remarkable that this matter, which is so important to all of us, is being dealt with in such haste, in contrast to certain other Bills that we have discussed over the past few days.

In the first place I want to refer to the remark of the hon. member for Yeoville which the hon. member for Sundays River also commented on, viz. that concerning the appointment of the executor for which provision is made here and concerning the meeting which has had to be convened as a matter of custom, but which will no longer be convened. The view has been expressed that professional executors will now come into being. I take it that in contrast to the situation as regards insolvent estates, the Master will give the same preference as prescribed in the Act in the case of competition for the office of executor at a meeting. The same preference must apply when the Minister appoints a person as executor. I note that the hon. the Minister is nodding in agreement. I assumed that that would be the position.

I just want to comment on certain clauses of the Bill. I want to do so in the same spirit as the hon. member for Sundays River did, viz. I do not wish to propose that the provisions in question be altered now, but that one should take cognizance of this and consider whether they could not perhaps be improved. In the first place I want to refer to clause 6 which deals with the lodging of the inventories. In practice we call it the second inventory. The first inventory is submitted together with the death notice, and the second inventory is submitted, as provided in terms of the present provision, within 30 days after the issue of the letters of executorship. In practice I found that the Master does not insist on the submission of the second inventory except when the estate account is submitted and the assets as specified therein differ from the assets as indicated on the first inventory. In such cases it is customary that the Master asks that a second inventory be submitted. Now, by doing away with the need to submit a second inventory, we are in fact only doing what already applies in practice. In this regard I have a request to make. In terms of the provisions the second inventory has to be submitted within 30 days after the letters of executorship have been issued. I wonder whether it would not be possible for that period to be extended to, say, 45 days or even 60 days. I want to motivate my reason for this request. One must bear in mind that the letters of executorship are issued, after which the executor has to place an advertisement in the Press and in the Gazette in terms of which creditors are asked to prove their claims and debtors to settle their accounts. The executor cannot really form a clear idea of the assets in the estate before the period laid down in the advertisement has expired. What happens in practice? The executor receives the letters of executorship today and it takes him about 10 days before he can have the advertisement placed in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area where the deceased lived. It is only about six weeks after he receives the letters of executorship that the period granted to the debtors to pay their debts, expires. I therefore want to suggest that consideration be given to extending the period required for the submission of the second inventory to 45 days or, if need be, 60 days.

The other clause I want to comment on is clause 7, which concerns the opening of the bank account. Since the banks now pay interest on current accounts, this clause is actually superfluous to some extent because it still refers to the position when there was no interest on cheque accounts, and monies lay fallow in an estate without earning interest and it was therefore a requirement that the executor had to invest those monies in a savings account in the interests of the estate. The provision concerning which I really want to comment on here is that the executor will only submit a report to the Master on where the bank account has been opened when the Master asks for it. I suggest that when he opens a bank account, the executor notifies the Master where the account is being opened. The reason for my request is that in the only case in which I have had to deal with an irregularity in an estate, that irregularity could immediately be detected as soon as I saw the bank account. Therefore, if the Master knows where the bank account is and a complaint is submitted to him in that regard, he can immediately make use of his powers as prescribed and demand a return, but if he does not know where the bank account is, he first has to write to the executor to find out where the account is before he can examine it. I think that this would facilitate control from the Master’s office without in any way increasing the burden resting on the Master because this is a burden that is being placed on the executor and not on the Master.

Finally, I want to refer to clause 13, which replaces section 47 of Act 66 of 1965. I wholeheartedly welcome this clause. I regard it as a very sensible provision, namely that the interested parties agree in writing on how the executor is to distribute the assets, in comparison with the existing provision in terms of which the Master has to issue a direction to the executor. I think that this involves the interested parties in the process of liquidation of the estate to a greater extent and I wholeheartedly welcome it. Like previous speakers before me, I, too, take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support for this Bill. Some hon. members said it in a roundabout way, and others were more brief. But they were all equally effective, and I think everyone stated his case in a way which will cause us to return to this debate, as was done in the past to the debates on estates, to see what fruitful ideas hon. members put forward. It was very clear that what we said was a revelation to some of the former practitioners, and it was very clear that in their time they had a frustrating time obtaining endorsements on a proxy for giving transfer. I am referring here to what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and other hon. members said. It seems to me we are making it possible here for quite a number of members to return to their practices. Depending on their security here, we are perhaps making a contribution in this connection. [Interjections.] As far as the challenge is concerned, we shall leave it at that now, since we have achieved such a tremendous degree of consensus, because challenges have a slight tendency to destroy consensus. [Interjections.]

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for Yeoville. I paid attention to what the hon. member for Yeoville said because in the past he did in fact make a significant and positive contribution in connection with the subject we are going to discuss after this, though probably not tonight. However, the fact remains that the hon. member for Yeoville will have to understand what our philosophy is in connection with the amendments which we effect. Our amendments are in fact aimed at dealing with the personnel situation as well. I just wish to state our premise in general in-connection with the amendments contained in this Bill and others.

When the question of law reform is raised, there are two facets which we think are important and in this connection I should like the House to accept what I say. The first facet is that as far as our positive or substantive law is concerned, which developed from our common law and has been supplemented by the decisions of our courts, we shall deal with this law with the greatest circumspection, and that is why we do so in the majority of cases only after the S.A. Law Commission has had an opportunity to go into the matter thoroughly. They are still the primary initiators of law reform. As far as our process law is concerned, and this includes procedural measures relating to the liquidation of estates—the amendment in this connection—this is also done after thorough consideration and changes as far as this method is concerned are made very sparingly. Before we decide upon amendments in respect of procedure, we have to ask ourselves: Is the manpower which we have at our disposal within the framework of the existing statutory measures being effectively managed, and, secondly, is that manpower being effectively and productively utilized? I should like to report to the House that in respect of the Master’s Offices, we scrutinized this matter very carefully. We have also taken a critical look at ourselves to establish whether our manpower is in fact being utilized effectively and productively. In this connection I have the co-operation of the Justice Directorate, the Director-General and the Masters throughout the entire country in trying—and this has already been proved in the past—to utilize our manpower effectively and productively. Then, however, they must have the instruments with which to do their work, an instrument which is streamlined and adapted to the requirements of the time and which does not sacrifice efficiency. At the same time it is necessary to effect a saving as far as manpower and methods are concerned. I should like to illustrate this in a practical way.

Two years ago we amended section 18(3) in this House, and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen will know what I am talking about because at the time he participated in that debate on the right side in this House. [Interjections.] When we amended that section we increased the number of estates which were able to qualify for an easier and more rapid administration process by raising the amount from R5 000 to R15 000. I want to indicate very briefly that this single change, according to the statistics which we acquired over a period of two months—which two months it is is not important—indicated that we had now caught 100% more estates in that net and had consequently made a more rapid administration process applicable to them.

I also want to refer to clause 6 of the Bill and at the same time reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North in this connection. This is in connection with the inventory situation. There were other hon. members who also discussed this matter. By effecting the amendment to section 27 by means of clause 6, we hope to eliminate almost 19 000 unnecessary inventories annually. The indications are that annually approximately 19 000 documents will no longer be required. That is what we are trying to achieve. Consequently I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we are paying heed to what he said. We have indeed caused the structure of the Master’s Office to be investigated, and certain adjustments are being made. I do not want to say that this adjustment is complete. I think we should offer the people with legal expertise an opportunity to gain a firmer foothold in the Master’s Office, because there is a need in that case. Consequently I am paying heed to the hon. member’s words.

As regards his request that we should establish a better relationship in respect of the Receiver of Revenue, I think that was a very good warning. I think it is a careful attitude which should be maintained and one should not be too over-eager with that friendship, but sometimes the law does not allow one to be reticent with that relationship. I think the hon. member understands what I mean by that. I think that the hon. member also made a contribution in respect of clause 4, which we shall consider.

He wanted to know why we wanted to create another offence in terms of clause 13, an offence of which an executor can be convicted. The reason is obvious. By means of the new section 47, for which clause 13 makes provision, it is now being made possible for property to be sold on the conditions to which the heir agrees, but in respect of minors also on the conditions stated by the Master. Because we are dealing here with minors, it is imperative that we shall maintain strict supervision over this matter in the form of control by the Master, and also by means of a penal sanction. I hope the hon. member accepts it in this spirit.

With reference to clause 12, the hon. member for Sundays River asked whether I would consider making regulations prescribing the procedure which a conveyancer shall adopt. The fact of the matter is that a conveyancer proceeds on the basis of a certified copy of the liquidation and distribution account and the will. He is, after all, a reliable officer. The hon. member will immediately concede that we, as former practitioners, should be the last people to doubt the integrity of the conveyancers prima facie. I think we shall consequently leave it to the prescriptions of the Master, by means of which he can make certain that he receives the case in a specified form. In the second place, it is of course true that he can only act on the basis of specific documents. Those documents are of course also submitted to the Deeds Office, where they can also be scrutinized. I think we should leave it at that.

The hon. member for Sundays River will not take it amiss of me if I do not reply to his arguments in respect of the other clauses now. We shall study his speech, particularly as far as clause 4 is concerned, and if necessary we shall write to him; that is if we agree that it should be amended.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen put forward a very interesting argument that we should preferably link the amount of R15 000 to something else, namely the minimum primary rebate in regard to estate duty. I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not think it would be a better argument to link it to the law of intestate succession which provides that a surviving spouse may inherit R50 000 in the case of an intestate situation. I think this is a far more acceptable situation, particularly if one takes into consideration that section 18(3) may, firstly, be applicable to a situation above R15 000, secondly if the surviving spouse has no creditors, and thirdly, in the case of coheirs and creditors. I am now referring to smaller estates. Consequently I think that the hon. member has a very good point, but I should like to see his argument supported further by additional reference to it. I shall, if he gives his consent, ask the department to have a look at the matter and also at the accompanying argument. Perhaps the hon. member does have a point. The hon. member will pardon me if I do not react to all the other good points which he put forward. Nor do I wish to reply now to the hon. nominated member Mr. Schutte and the hon. member for King William’s Town, because I want to request the Committee Stage of this measure to be disposed of immediately after this stage.

This brings me once again to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, who made a very witty remark on the fact that we are discussing such an important matter at such a late hour. This is a very serious matter and I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that it is not merely a morbid matter. Usually it also brings pleasure to widows and heirs. Consequently we should be able to see the lighter side of this matter as well.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say on this occasion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 10:

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

Clause 10 replaces section 34 of the principal Act. The reference in the proposed new section 34(1) to subsection (11) is obviously wrong. It should in fact have read “subsection (12) of section 35”. The reason for this is that in terms of the proposed new section 34 an obligation is being imposed on an executor to investigate whether an estate is solvent or insolvent. If he should find that an estate is insolvent he has to follow the procedure in terms of section 34. However, if he finds that the estate is solvent, he will follow the normal procedure until he finds that it is insolvent. The normal procedure will therefore apply until he distributes the estate in terms of section 35(12).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has gone through the Bill with a fine toothcomb, just as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen has done, and that he perceived this deficiency and brought it to our attention. I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker. I move—

Agreed to.