announced that he had in terms of Rule 24(4) placed the Borders of Particular States Extension Amendment Bill [B 44—86 (GA)] on the Order Paper of the House for Second Reading.

laid upon the Table the Second Report of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills, dated 20 August 1986, to Mr Speaker, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills, dated 20 August 1986, as follows:

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education and Development Aid, dated 20 August 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout gave quite an interesting summary of the history and the course of the legislation relating to motor vehicle accidents.

†The hon member also made mention of the fact that complete consensus had been reached in the standing committee after some thirty amendments had been effected to the Bill. I was delighted to hear that all the opposition parties in this House were supporting this measure.

The hon member put certain questions to me in relation to a special court or tribunal. I am glad to be able to say that we are already giving attention to the possibility of such a tribunal. I shall, however, refer to it again later. From time to time—perhaps next year already, I presume—such a tribunal will be in session. We may, however, wish to bring about certain amendments to the relevant legislation again next year. We must first wait and see, however, how it is going to operate in practice. This is definitely not the final word on this matter yet as certain experiments will still have to be carried out and, as I have said, we find ourselves here in a completely new situation. Be that as it may, I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout for his contribution. It was clear that he had made a thorough study of this particular matter.

*The hon member for De Kuilen also referred to special courts. Incidentally, he is also the chairman of the standing committee concerned. We wish to thank him for the patience and tact which he displayed, as well as for the superb way in which he dealt with matters on the standing committee. From among the members of all political parties in this Parliament I have only heard praise for the way in which the hon member for De Kuilen acquits himself of his task.

The hon member also pointed out that the final word in this case has not yet been spoken.

The hon member for Brakpan put a whole series of questions to me. With reference to clause 6(l)(a) the hon member requested clarification of what would happen if the token of identity were to be lost in an accident, especially if the vehicle concerned were destroyed by fire. Of course the regulations make provision for such contingencies. It has been provided that if the identity of the owner or driver is known, such a claim will be dealt with in terms of the provisions of clause 6(l)(a)(ii). It therefore means that a claim will be referred to a specifically nominated agent to deal with.

The hon member wishes to know who would be responsible for the administration of a claim occurring precisely at midnight, involving a motor vehicle on which no token of identity is displayed. There have been such cases, but very few. It is highly unlikely that an accident would occur precisely at midnight and that the token of identity would be lost. Such claims would be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines contained in regulation 7.

Because of the small number of claims which fall into this category, it is not envisaged that it would disturb the pattern of claim references, nor that any claimants or agents would be detrimentally affected. Nor is it envisaged that an agent would object if a claim were referred to him for administration instead of another agent because he would receive his administration fee in any case. It should be borne in mind that every claim means R450 for the company. Consequently I do not foresee any problems in this regard.

The hon member for Brakpan said that the requirements contained in regulation 7(2)(b)(i), namely that a claimant must institute proceedings within 14 days, are unreasonable. The hon member said 14 days was unreasonable.

The period of 14 days is unreasonable, but it is said that one should hand in a sworn statement within 14 days after taking cognisance of the facts. May I ask the hon the Minister what it means in respect of a two-month old baby or a person who was not present at the accident?

The provision seeks to expedite the settlement of claims in that the agent is informed in good time of the circumstances which gave rise to the claim. It enables him to make the necessary inquiries while the particulars are still fresh, and in so doing he can save costs in the form of legal and assessment costs. I wish to give the assurance that it will not be possible for non-compliance with this requirement to influence the liability for payment of the claim or its prescription.

There will be a case, such as the one to which the hon member referred, of a baby who is unable to act, but then this provision is not applicable. The intention of the provision is merely to expedite the administration of matters in normal cases. It should be borne in mind that we are dealing here with regulations and that it has nothing to do with the statutory provision. What we are dealing with here is regulations which can be made after consultation with the law societies.

The hon member also referred to the use of the words “gebeurtenis” and “voorval” which occur in clause 9 in the Afrikaans text. The Government Law Adviser was consulted, and he observed that the legality of the clause is not influenced by the use of two words. We nevertheless take cognisance of the hon member’s observation and if we find that it creates a problem, we shall take a look at it next year, when an opportunity for amendments presents itself.

The hon member for Brakpan is of the opinion that it would appear from clause 10(c) that members of the Forces will not receive compensation. I am referring to members of the SA Police, the Railway Police and the Permanent Force. When a member of one of the Services is being conveyed, during the course of his duty, in a vehicle which belongs to his employer, and a claim arises from the driving of such vehicle, such a claim must be served on the claimant’s employer. If another vehicle is responsible for the claim, the agent who issued the token of identity displayed on the vehicle must be held accountable. If the other vehicle does not display a token, but is the property of one of the Services, the claim will still be instituted against the said agent in accordance with the provisions of clause 6(l)(a)(ii). This matter is therefore completely covered.

The hon member also made mention of the use of the words “opskort” and “gestuit” in the Afrikaans text. This aspect has been taken up with the Government Law Advisers, who have indicated that the two words denote two different concepts, and are therefore legally correct.

I noticed that the hon member referred on a number of occasions to the provisions of the regulations which have been formulated in connection with the Bill. The draft regulations were made available to the law societies for study with a view to discussion with their members in order to elucidate the Bill in full. Apparently the hon member got hold of them and that is why he was quite right in asking these questions. However it does not affect…

But surely he himself is a lawyer.

Yes, he is. Nor did I say that he was a bad lawyer.

Then why did you say he “got hold of them”?

I know where that hon member was educated, and there is nothing wrong with his education. If all the hon members of the CP had attended the same school as that hon member, they would have been much better “boys”. [Interjections.]

Listen, Hendrik, they chased you out of the class. [Interjections.]

Yes, they chased me out of the class, but his father was the principal of that school and he knew his son was going to become a member of the CP; that is why he chased me out of the class. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Primrose requested that the advisory committee for which the Bill makes provision, should be established as soon as possible. I wish to thank the hon member for Primrose for his contribution and I give him the assurance that the appointment of this committee will enjoy my urgent attention as soon as the legislation has been promulgated.

The hon member also asked whether motor vehicle licensing fees are also going to be introduced by way of a levy on fuel. The problem with introducing a levy on fuel is firstly that this matter does not fall under my jurisdiction. It falls under the jurisdiction of another department. We do have a problem however: We are trying to get away from permits on lorries, but we would also like the lorry owners to pay for the wear and tear on roads. We therefore wish to impose an additional levy on his diesel fuel. On the other hand the person having a diesel motor car, should pay less for his licence than does the owner of a diesel lorry. The thought is nevertheless a very practical one and we are looking into it. I shall discuss it with our sister department in order to establish whether it is practicable.

†The hon member for Durban Point made certain allegations which I cannot refute. There are cases in which the claimant received 50% and the attorney 50%. That is so. There are, however, certain reasons for that. That is why I appeal to the hon the Minister of Justice for the establishment of a special court.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

We are busy working on that and I think it is a very sound proposal. That special court can save us money.

The hon member also referred to certain attorneys’ fees and certain doctors’ fees.

*Actually it is only members of Parliament who are working for rock-bottom salaries! [Interjections.] That is indeed the case. If one sees how much work a member of Parliament does today, and one takes a look at the remuneration which he receives in comparison with other professions, then I must say it is an honourable profession to be a member of the House of Assembly today. One does not work fixed hours, but continually, night and day, and one must always be prepared to meet one’s voters and to explain matters. There are after all people who ask unreasonable fees, but that does not fall under my portfolio.

†The hon member for Durban Point said the standing committee was a rubber stamp.

No, not that it was a rubber stamp but was treated like one.

Yes. In any case I want to tell the hon member what happened. With the old system we had to increase the disc price by nearly 50% and we felt that it was not the right time to do it, especially in the prevailing financial climate. However, I think the situation has now been rectified. I think everything will be all right and the sky will be clear after this afternoon once this Bill has been agreed to.

The hon member for South Coast said the hon member for Bezuidenhout was against special courts in the standing committee.

No, that is not true.

I do not know whether that is so but the hon member for South Coast said that the hon member for Bezuidenhout was against the special courts.

I said they had to come under the Department of Justice.

However, a good politician has the privilege of changing his mind. I think the hon member was against it in the beginning.

No, I am very much in favour of it.

The hon member for South Coast also referred to special courts and he said they would be more effective and save the public money. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution and the other points he raised.

The hon member for Hillbrow also referred to the discs which expired on 30 April and the consternation there was. In the present circumstances I think the new system is the best thing we could have done. I do not want to waste more time. I think it is a very good piece of legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister is obviously in favour of special MVA courts and the standing committee was unanimously in favour of it. May I appeal to the hon the Minister to let us go into Committee to amend the Bill before us so as to provide for MVA special courts.

I would like to co-operate with the hon member but I do not think that is the correct thing to do at the moment. The hon the Minister of Justice is soon to make an announcement in this regard. The matter of special courts is being investigated at the moment. The hon member referred yesterday to the other special courts that we have and I can assure him that I will not rest until we do have a special court. The hon member must leave the matter in my hands and wait to see what happens. I know it is essential that we have a special court. At the moment we are wasting time and money and we cannot be effective without a special court that specialises in these matters.

Mr Chairman, may I put a further question to the hon the Minister? Would he consider an amendment to clause 14 to extend the prescriptive period from two years to three years?

We have also discussed that and I think a period of two years is ample time. However, we are reasonable. One could for example have a situation where a person is medically affected—he could for example become lame—only four years after the accident by which time the matter is already closed. We have had such instances and then we reopen the case. So I do not think it is necessary to have a period of three years. I feel that we should retain the period of two years and if we find that it does not work in practice we can reconsider it at a later stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

During my Budget Speech earlier this year I announced that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and I had approved in principle that the practical aspects of the transfer of the South African Railway Police Force to the South African Police be investigated. The investigation has now been completed, and both of us are in favour of the transfer.

The investigation has revealed that such a transfer is desirable because the functions and rank structures of both police forces, as prescribed by law, are similar. Overlapping will be eliminated and manpower utilised more effectively. The two Forces will function better under one banner. Amalgamation of the police forces is in accordance with the Government’s policy of rationalisation.

The Bill makes provision for the dissolution of the South African Railways Police Force and for the transfer of members of the said Force to the South African Police. A comprehensive motivation is included in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. Hon members are aware that the Transport Services are obliged to compete in the open market with other carriers, and maintaining its own police force creates an additional financial burden which adversely affects equal competition.

Furthermore, it is essential that the Transport Services should operate under the same conditions as other carriers. The transfer of the South African Railways Police Force to the South African Police will obviate the Transport Services being accused of discrimination when action is taken against offenders contravening the provisions of the Road Transport Act.

As was previously indicated, members of the South African Railways Police Force will not be worse off as a result of their transfer. In respect of certain service conditions it is true that they will not be retaining those service conditions after their transfer, but their overall service package will be better than that of their present dispensation.

Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the dissolution of the SA Railways Police Force and the transfer of its members to the SA Police. I would like at the start to quote from a booklet that was sent to every member of the SA Railways Police Force because this tells its history in a very short period. I quote:

As spokesman for this side of the House, I want to say that we agree with that particular statement.

Clause 1 of the Bill makes it absolutely clear that this is mandatory, and whether members of the South African Railways Police wish it or not, they will automatically be transferred to the South African Police. We on this side of the House will support the Bill because it will be far better in principle to have one police force, irrespective of functions, throughout South Africa. It will eliminate overlapping because it will be possible to create sections in the South African Police to cover any highly specialised duties for the South African Transport Services, for example, countering the hijacking of aircraft at airports.

There is, however, another principle which must be taken into consideration. We are dealing with people who have emotions, ideas and different outlooks. Although many, and I would say most, will be better off financially as a result of the transfer, certain benefits which accrued to the South African Railways Police because they were part of the South African Transport Services will be lost while certain benefits which the South African Police have attained will not be made available to the new members who come in from the South African Railways Police Force. It is really my intention to ensure that the South African Railways Police shall be happy and contented on transfer, and shall then form an integral part of the new South African Police Force.

The reasons given by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech to another House are valid, particularly where he mentions that the South African Railways Police, in having to carry out their functions in terms of the various road transportation Acts were accused of discrimination on behalf of the SATS where police action was taken against private carriers who were not carrying goods in terms of the permits that had been issued to them. Fortunately it is a recommendation of the National Transport Commission study group on transport policy that permits shall cease in the very near future. The financial benefits accruing to members of the Railway Police on transfer will be substantially better because danger pay is now added. I should like to give some comparisons to show that although the basic salary has not increased markedly they will benefit. For instance, a constable in the South African Railway Police who earns R5 500 per annum will get R5 721 when he goes over to the SA Police, but he will also receive R1 695 in danger pay which brings his total pay package up to R7 416 per annum. I want to emphasise this point. It is not the salary scale which gives him the increase; for the most part in the lower ranks it is the danger pay which makes the difference. A warrant officer who earns R19 440 per annum in the Railway Police will only get R19 746 when he joins the SA Police, but he receives R1 335 danger pay, bringing his total salary to R21 081 per annum. In the higher ranks the discrepancy becomes much greater. A brigadier who earns R36 450 per annum in the Railway Police will receive R43 446 plus danger pay of R1 335 and therefore his final pay will be R44 781 per annum.

The same applies as far as the danger pay and the increase in salaries of Coloureds and Indians are concerned. However, when it comes to the Blacks who are being transferred, I regret to say that the danger pay in the case of a constable is no longer R1 695 dropping down to R1 335, but is R927. So it will be seen that although the basic pay remains almost the same on transfer, there will be this extra danger pay. However, the danger pay for Blacks is only R927 while for the other groups it varies from R1 335 to R1 695. Surely this is discrimination. Is a Black constable not in greater danger because he has a house in a Black township which can more easily be attacked either with a petrol bomb or other explosives? Surely the danger pay should be increased so as to be the same as that for the other races. I hope the hon the Minister will appeal to the hon the Minister of Law and Order to see that this is changed.

However, the problems lie in the additional benefits and are to be found in three particular clauses of this Bill. The conditions of service are dealt with in clause 2(1), the pension arrangements in clause 3, and loan agreements in terms of housing schemes in clause 8.

During the SATS Budget Debate I drew the attention of the hon the Minister to the fact that the SATS had recognised trade unions registered under the Labour Relations Act of 1956. In addition, under the Conditions of Employment (SATS) Act of 1983, “trade union” means an organisation representative of employees which in terms of the regulations is officially recognised by the Minister as a trade union. I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the rise of trade unions particularly during the past 10 years. This rise has been stimulated by the fact that Blacks can now form their own trade unions. In the case of the SATS I would like to say, and I am happy to say, that multiracial trade unions have existed for a long, long time.

Such a trade union in the SATS is the South African Railways Police Staff Association which ceases to exist as soon as we pass this legislation. This is the most remarkable body that I know of in that it is a trade union for policemen.

You are speaking to the wrong Minister. You should speak to the Minister of Law and Order.

I know that. I asked him to be present but he is not here.

The standing committee met on Thursday, 24 July 1986. The following departmental officials, whom I want to thank for their co-operation, were present: Dr Moolman, the Deputy General Manager; Gen P M du Plessis, the Deputy Commissioner; Mr P J Fourie, the Assistant Director; Mr D M Butler, Assistant General Manager (Staff) and Adv A L Malherbe, the Chief Law Adviser. In addition the South African Police were represented by Gen I J M van Niekerk, and I want to thank them for the contribution they made, despite the fact that there were vast differences of opinion. It will be seen, however, that only management was represented. There were no trade union officials represented.

There is a basic principle in the law of South Africa, namely audi alteram partem. This means “let both sides be heard”, and I moved the following resolution in that standing committee:

I want hon members to listen to those specific words “with regard to the attitudes of the members” of the Police Force. I say without hesitation that management cannot speak for labour.

The purpose was to ascertain the attitudes of the members of the Railway Police. The head of the South African Railway Police or the head of any other police force cannot speak for them, particularly when they have a trade union of their own.

The minutes show that the committee divided and the motion was negatived. As far as the House of Assembly representation was concerned, only two members voted for the trade union to be heard. All hon members on the opposite side of the House voted against it. They did not want a trade union to appear before the standing committee to give evidence. Whatever the reason may have been—even if they had been wrong in the evidence they gave—they should have been given the opportunity to be heard.

The members of the House of Representatives were unanimously against it, and the members of the House of Delegates voted 3 to 2 against. It is absolutely ironic that I should have to stand up in this House and the standing committee and plead on behalf of that trade union, for that is what the South African Police Staff Association is and has been. Hon members on the other side of this House and some in the other Houses proclaim themselves to be the upholders of the labour movement while my party, the PFP, is castigated as representing full-blown, bloated capitalism. That is where hon members are all completely wrong. My constituency is Bezuidenhout where most of the voters are either white collar or blue collar workers, and it is my duty to look after their interests.

When I proposed that a commission should be appointed to investigate the establishment of an industrial council for the SATS, the hon the Minister at first said: “That will be the day!” I am proud of the hon the Minister who, after deeper consideration and for the sake of industrial peace in the SATS, had second thoughts, and appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Wiehahn. Dr Wiehahn has one trade union representative and one management representative to help him consider the establishment of an industrial council. As that could happen, I think the hon the Minister must listen to what I have to say now.

Once again I appeal to the hon the Minister on behalf of the trade unionists. What I intend saying now represents, inter alia, some of the requests which they are purported to have made at the final meeting which they held with Mr D M Butler, the Assistant General Manager (Staff). Unfortunately, Mr Butler was powerless to do anything because the Bill as a whole had already been agreed to. We in this House have the power to change the Bill, even at this stage and, for the sake of the future combined SA Police Force, I appeal to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon the Minister of Law and Order to show just a little bit of sympathy. Although the trade union asked for a larger number of concessions, I want to limit my appeal to only two of their requests.

I should like to tell the hon the Minister a story. The story is told that many years ago Cohen had a general dealer’s business in some country town. There was a bank in that town, and I am not certain if the name of the bank manager was Schoeman or Le Grange but it was one of the two. Cohen had had very great business difficulties for the simple reason that there was drought, there were floods, there was no Land Bank and the farmers needed credit. There were also no big co-operatives to help him. He went to the bank manager and said: “You have just returned a cheque of mine and I must have a larger overdraft”. As he was saying that, somebody rushed in and said: “Mr Cohen, your house was burning but we have just managed to put the fire out”. Cohen said to the bank manager: “Mr Schoeman, please, you must give me an overdraft. I cannot continue and the farmers will all go bankrupt”. Somebody rushed in a couple of minutes later and said: “They have just held up your assistant and stolen the last two pounds out of the till”. Cohen then pleaded with the bank manager to help him. The bank manager looked at him and eventually said: “Mr Cohen, I will tell you what I will do with you. I have one ordinary eye and one glass eye. For 20 years nobody has ever been able to guess which is the real eye and which is the glass eye. If you can guess I will give you an overdraft.” Cohen then looked at the bank manager for about three or four minutes, then turned around and said: “The right eye is definitely the glass eye”. The bank manager asked “How did you guess?” He answered: “It was the only one which showed just a little bit of sympathy”. [Interjections.]

Hendrik, that is a coincidence.

That is what I should like to convey to the hon the Minister. Show just a little bit of sympathy.

He is a Nat; he has two glass eyes. [Interjections.]

Clause 2(1) states:

The retirement age in the SA Police is 60. However, section 6(5) of the Government Services Pension Act, 1973 allows a policeman who joined the SA Police Force before a certain date to retire at 55, 58 or 60. I am not going to deal in detail with the particular section. Hon members can look it up in Butterworths. All I am asking for is that SA Railway policemen who join the SA Police should be treated equally as if they had joined the SA Police at that particular date which is a date in 1966. If a Railway policeman joined the SA Railways Police Force before that date he should not be discriminated against but should also be entitled to the same benefits.

One clause which created difficulty was clause 8, which deals with the question of housing. The Police housing scheme limits loans to R50 000, and such loans, when these policemen are taken over by the SA Police Force, will have to be taken over by a building society before one year has elapsed. This is going to entail difficulties for certain members. I was told by the management that the SA Police Force will handle these cases sympathetically. In cases in which such loans exceed R50 000—because the Sats loans can go much higher—the Sats will make arrangements for such excess for a further period of four years. That means arrangements will be made for a period of five years in all. There is, however, a sting in the tail since the proviso makes sure that they will pay 2% extra in the second year, 4% extra in the third year, 6% extra in the fourth year, and 8% extra in the fifth year. This means that in the fourth year they will be paying 12% interest in total.

On behalf of the trade union, however, I must lodge a special plea on behalf of those women who served with distinction in the SA Railways Police Force and who are now going to be left carrying a baby which they cannot afford. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton appears to be surprised, Sir. [Interjections.]

Illegitimate baby!

Yes, but this baby is going to be legitimate once it becomes part of the SA Police Force. The mother will, however, have to live in sin. [Interjections.] In the Sats female employees can get housing loans. This is so in the case of every female employee, irrespective of whether her husband is an employee of the Sats or not. Upon being transferred to the SA Police Force such a policewoman cannot get a housing loan unless she is married to a policeman. This means that while she is single she can get a housing loan but when she marries an outsider she loses her right to such a loan.

Just imagine! [Interjections.]

Sir, the Government is really very interested in people living in sin. [Interjections.] There are in all about twelve policewomen in the SA Railways Police Force and who have housing loans who are married to husbands who are not employees of the Sats. They are being compelled by an Act of this House to forfeit this benefit. Some will be compelled to resign or to seek other jobs in the Sats, if they have the necessary qualifications. In all seriousness, Sir, I even put this matter to the management of the Sats two weeks ago. I told them that I was going to move two particular amendments to this Bill—amendments which already appear in my name on the Order Paper.

What is at stake here is a principle that a benefit given should not be lost when a compulsory transfer has been effected. All my efforts to say this in the standing committee were pooh-poohed by management who told me it was not possible to accede to my request. I asked for an investigation to be carried out in relation to these twelve women but so far nothing has been done about it.

I have placed two amendments on the Order Paper, and at the appropriate time, in terms of the Rules of this House, I am going to ask that the House go into Committee in order to discuss those two amendments. I appeal to the hon the Minister personally, as I have done once before, to accept these two amendments for the sake of the members of the SA Railways Police Force Staff Association which, upon the passing of this legislation, will cease to exist. I ask the hon the Minister please to show us his usual consideration.

In conclusion, Sir, let me wish the new SA Police Force well. It will now have between 6 000 and 7 000 more members. Soon, I hope, the present state of emergency will be lifted and the police officers of the combined force will be able to get on with the real job for which they were founded. To the SA Railways Police Force I convey my congratulations on a job well done, and my good wishes to all its members for the future. To that amazing trade union—a trade union of policemen, which is probably unique in the Western World—I want to bid a fond farewell. I want to say they have fulfilled their task with distinction. With its passing I trust the hon the Minister will show his respect for the good work they have always done, and that he will show his good grace to all the police officers leaving his care by accepting the two amendments I hope to move in their name, although they appear in my name as MP for Bezuidenhout.

Mr Speaker, throughout his speech the hon member for Bezuidenhout levelled a lot of criticism at this Bill. One was therefore actually quite glad to hear at the end of his speech that the hon member is in fact supporting the Bill.

The hon member did propose in the standing committee that we should hear further evidence, and that we should hear that evidence from the Railways Police themselves. He made the point that both sides should be heard. Surely, however, the hon member had the opportunity during the standing committee meetings of listening to the SA Police. He also had the opportunity to listen to the head of the SA Railways Police. He contends that it is most unusual for management to speak for labour.

*I now want to ask the hon member what the head of the Railways Police and the SA Police is in that case. Naturally the management of Sats was present at the meetings of the standing committee. They made a good contribution, too! The questions were put mainly to the SA Police and the Railways Police, however. They were the people who were affected by this, after all. The questions were also put to Mr Butler, the head…

You know that is not true.

Of course it is true! I said the questions were put mainly to these gentlemen who were involved in this. How can the hon member say it was only the management that furnished the replies on behalf of the workers?

The hon member will also recall that it was put very clearly in the standing committee that the management of Sats also had the opportunity to speak to the Railways Police. If the hon member thinks it is so wrong for the Railways Police to be transferred to the SA Police, however, why does he not oppose the legislation?

They are two different principles.

No, Sir. If the hon member feels so strongly that they were ignored, that the 7 000 SA Railways Policemen were ignored in this connection, I want to ask the hon member why he is not opposing this legislation, since he feels so strongly that it is not in their best interests. The hon member moved two amendments and I want to agree with him on one point. I think that is the question of the “danger pay”.

†Sir, I think it is completely wrong that there should be such a wide discrepancy between what the White policeman and the Black policeman gets. I hope that disparity, that discrepancy, will be eradicated. I think the hon the Minister was quite correct when he stated that matter should be addressed to the Minister concerned.

I asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order to be present.

Very well, Sir, I am pleased the hon member raised that point, since it is definitely unfair and can be rectified. The hon member moved two amendments. I do not want to comment on that, except to say the following: The hon member also had the opportunity in the standing committee to move any further amendments if he wanted to do so. Two tiny little amendments were moved, but at the time there was no question of this motion moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout now. I believe the members of the standing committee were satisfied with the replies they received from the officials concerned in this matter.

†As the hon member quite correctly stated, the South African Railway Police came into existence in 1934. They certainly have built up a very proud record over the past 50 years. They have played a very, very prominent role in security matters, in preventing crime and in protecting the property and lives of people on the property and premises of Sats.

Now you are throwing them to the wolves.

No, there is no good reason why they cannot continue with the job they have done so well in the past. All good citizens will today salute them for their dedication and their devotion to duty. Many of their members played a very, very prominent and a significant role in our security forces during the war years and during other periods of hostilities. They are also well remembered for the great role which many of their members have over the past few decades played on the border and especially inside South Africa during unrest periods such as the present one.

Why has it become necessary and why have we decided to transfer the Railways Police to the SA Police? Policing is mainly the function of the State. To have more than one police force fulfilling in general the same function and having the same objective in mind must obviously lead to overlapping and the duplication of services.

*The manpower of two forces can be utilised much more effectively once they are united. All security officers fulfil basically the same functions and that is why one can say there should be an amalgamation between those who have the same functions and objectives.

Naturally internal security is the Republic’s first priority. There must be order in the country and our laws must be upheld. When offences occur, or there are claims that offences have occurred, they must be investigated and the culprits must appear in court. After all, general function of the Police is to prevent crime.

The Railways Police complied with all these requirements and functions and duties. Their functions and instructions are carried out scrupulously and that is how they have done things. The Railways Police did this very important work for us under the jurisdiction of the SA Transport Services and at airports. One can expect them to continue to do this work and exercise this important duty after amalgamation, because of the good knowledge and background they have acquired through the years.

The background against which the two forces are to be combined, is there. In the present circumstances I think it is much more necessary for us to combine these two forces. The Railways Police have already performed some of those functions to a great extent.

I want to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout for making certain quotations to show that the Railways Police will not be worse off now that they are being transferred to the SA Police than they were under the old dispensation. It is obvious, when all the benefits are seen as a package, that there are considerable advantages in their rather falling under the SA Police than staying where they were. The hon member for Bezuidenhout made the request that the men be permitted to retire at the age of 55, 58 or 60, as the SA Police do.

Only a certain group!

Yes, only a certain group. That is quite correct; there are some of those people who asked to be allowed to do so. I think it would be wrong, however, to permit that at this stage for the simple reason that it would make additional demands on the Railways’ pension fund.

It is only a small number!

No, it is not as small a number as the hon member for Bezuidenhout says it is.

How many people are involved?

It is not the overwhelming majority!

Of course it is not the overwhelming majority, but if the people are going to get the opportunity to join the SA Police and get new benefits, they cannot expect to enjoy exactly the same benefits in their new position.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member also said there were others who preferred to remain as they were. One should rather compromise, therefore. The people who concluded a contract with the SA Railways Police should stick to the original service conditions under which they joined the Railways Police. In the end I do not think that will have as great an influence as that hon member maintains.

You would be surprised!

The general benefits of such a transferred policeman would be more and better than those he had had previously. To create the impression now that there would be great dissatisfaction, is not, in my opinion, a reflection of the true situation. I want to tell the hon member there is already proof that the Railways Policemen who said they would resign were prepared to withdraw their resignations. The argument of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is not as valid as he thought, therefore.

It is not the first time the Railways Policemen have heard that they were going to be transferred to the SA Police. This matter has been under discussion for the past year or so. In his Budget speech earlier this year, the hon the Minister said that would be the result. It was a Cabinet decision. All these men had the opportunity to say whether they were really so dissatisfied.

I did so, but no one wanted to listen.

The standing committee did not decide that the people were not dissatisfied.

The Cabinet decided that.

What the standing committee decided was that it did not need any further evidence from the staff association. It was an almost unanimous decision, since we thought the evidence before us would be sufficient to make a decision. That is why I think the arguments of the hon member for Bezuidenhout are not very strong, not very sound, and he will find that the co-operation with and the transfer of these people to the SA Police will take place without let or hindrance and that one will have a much more effective force in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, both the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon member for De Kuilen elaborated on the history, and the establishment in 1934, of the South African Railways Police, and I am not going to respond to this aspect of what they said.

The CP supports the Bill which makes provision for the transfer of the SA Railways Police Force to the South African Police. At this stage the transfer is a timely and essential consolidation of the SA Police Force. For many years now the SA Railways Police Force has, in its own right, been a well-trained, loyal and indispensable component of the SA Transport Services. The role which the SA Railways Police Force has played over a period of many, many years in the legal setup in South Africa is wellknown, and over the years South Africans have greatly appreciated the work done by them.

Today the CP would also like to pay tribute to the SA Railways policemen who have, for many years now, furnished an excellent service, formed part of the South African security forces, maintained law and order and assisted in maintaining internal security and combating crime.

Today one can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the SA Police Force is the best-trained police force in the world. It has the best equipment—better equipment than that which any similar force in the world could desire—for combating crime and terrorism in South Africa. The SA Railways Police Force can confidently link up with such a force because these Railways policemen have the outstanding qualities required of members of the SA Police.

In South Africa it is vital for the strength of the SA Police to be drastically and speedily extended. The composition of our population being what it is, it is desirable, in fact essential, for the staff complement of the SA Police to be extended to at least 80 000 members, and I think that is the aim the hon the Minister of Law and Order has set himself. The addition of the more than 7 000 members of the SA Railways Police Force to the SA Police is therefore a very welcome extension and consolidation of the SA Police, bearing in mind the violent onslaughts being made on the maintenance of law and order and the internal security of the Republic of South Africa, and also bearing in mind the fact that the SA Railways Police Force is well-equipped and trained to counter the terrorist onslaught against our country and its people. For that reason we welcome the affiliation with the SA Railways Police Force.

Although the CP welcomes the affiliation of the SA Railways Police Force with the SA Police Force, we would not, in the process, like the members of the SA Railways Police Force to be worse off as far as their overall conditions of services are concerned, for example rent, living conditions, residential rights, pension benefits and other rights and benefits.

In the last paragraph of his second reading speech the hon the Minister said:

In this regard I also just want to refer to the question of the SA Transport Services Act in regard to which it was, briefly speaking, agreed that when the Railways Police disbanded at some or other stage, as is now to be the case, five years would be added to a policeman’s years of service. I just want to ask what is now going to happen as far as this is concerned. It does not appear to me as if provision is being made for this. Reference has also been made to the question of members of the Police Force who, in terms of the pension legislation relating to them, retire at the age of 55, 58 or 60 years of age, and the question is whether members of the SA Railways Police, if they are now to be regarded as new members, will also enjoy this privilege.

I should perhaps just like to mention, too, that one is aware that certain travelling facilities will no longer be available for the Railways Police Force either. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to look into this situation.

I now want to refer to clause 7. After further consideration, it seems to me as if the period of 12 months does not grant sufficient protection, and I think 24 months would be more reasonable. I want to ask the hon the Minister to substitute “24 months” for “12 months” in clause 7.

In clause 8 provision is made for the protection of loan agreements in terms of the SATS housing scheme. We are of the opinion that one should also grant additional protection to loans of less than R50 000, similar to that for the more expensive housing, because it is specifically the poorer Railways policeman who also have to be protected. I think the hon the Minister will give attention to these two clauses.

There is also another matter I should like to speak about, a very important matter as far as I am concerned. It is of particularly great importance to us in this party since ours is the only party in this Parliament conducting an all-out fight for the interests of the White man. [Interjections.]

Now you are talking nonsense!

On a previous occasion I referred to certain letters written by the department of the hon the Minister, pointing to certain discrimination taking place against Whites. On two occasions the hon the Minister denied the existence of such letters. He and I had a discussion, a private discussion which, of course, I do not want to repeat. I just want to tell him that today I have another letter here, a circular in which a passage is quoted from a circular of the Commissioner of the SA Railways Police.

Probably from Rajbansi!

No, it was not from Mr Rajbansi; it was from the Commissioner of the Railways Police.

This circular deals with a policy matter, and that is why I am mentioning it. It does not deal with an administrative situation; it is a policy matter that is involved; in other words, the instruction came from the political head of that department, the Minister.

Probably Rajbansi.

The hon the Minister must be aware of it, and I think he is. He must therefore also accept responsibility for the policy that is implemented.

I find it strange how the SA Transport Services, in general, is striving, as they put it, to rid themselves of supernumerary staff. Suddenly in South Africa there are too many Whites in the Railways, the SA Transport Services. Already 52 000 or more have been dismissed. There was a time when there were not enough Whites to be trained as stokers. It was said then that the Black coalmen could only work in the shunting yards. Now they have more than 168 000 White unemployed in South Africa, but still there are no people in this country who can be employed and trained as stokers. What is the result? Those Black coalmen who were supposed to work in the shunting yards are now stokers on the main-line express trains and other passenger train sections in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I travel with them regularly between De Aar and Kimberley. At the time there were no White men in South Africa to do the work and today there are more than 100 000 White unemployed, but none of them has been employed by the Transport Services. The Transport Services is getting rid of White people. That is why they also adopt the policy that employees should retire from the Transport Services at the age of 60. Here is another case. People are told that no organisation, the SA Railways Police Force in particular, can afford to employ incompetent workers, particularly not in the present economic climate. Here there was a further reference to the economic climate.

At the outset I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to incompetent people not being employed by the SA Transport Services. Of course those employees should not be incompetent in their job situation. I shall point out to hon members at a later stage, however, that there are only certain categories of people in South Africa who are incompetent. [Interjections.]

There are more things said in this letter. I want to make it clear that it is not a question of my attacking any official; I am dealing with the hon the Minister because what is involved here is a policy of the Transport Services of which he is the political head, the one who has to issue the instructions. If he did not give the instructions, he should talk to his people and they should not do such things.

The letter goes on to state:

The letter also states:

It is stated that the expression “inefficiency” is used in Act 16 of 1983, but that the expression is not defined. I think the hon the Minister should investigate this matter. The relevant official defines the word “inefficiency” as meaning “inability on the part of the employee to properly carry out the work”. [Interjections.]

Hon members must remember that these circulars are now being distributed to all the area commanders. Mention is made of the people who have socio-economic problems, those with less serious personality defects and also those of a low intelligence. Today I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether those who determine whether people have a low IQ or not are really capable of testing the IQs of such people.

As long as it is not the CP it is all right.

I am now talking to people who have an IQ. [Interjections.] I am asking whether these people are really competent to test the IQs of those people and whether this is, in fact, done to determine whether the people concerned are of low intelligence. My second question is: What does the department regard as low intelligence?

The CP.

With what quotient are we dealing? [Interjections.] That hon member of the PFP is free to make jokes about this.

Do you want all the CP members to leave the Police?

That is typical of his hostility to the Whites.

I am not dealing with his people now. [Interjections.]

Nor his supporters; I am now dealing with the White people. [Interjections.] It goes further.

If the CP members were to leave, there would be nothing left of the Police.

Since it is stated that people with less serious personality defects are unfit for their jobs, does this imply that those with psychological or psychiatric maladies are not included in this? The question is then: Are they fit for their jobs?

Send that circular to Blacks. [Interjections.]

The essence or gist of this exercise is that the services of a member of the Force who is incompetent should be terminated. I reiterate, however: If he has less serious psychological or psychiatric defects, he is incompetent, but if he has serious psychological or psychiatrict defects, according to this report, he is a competent person.

It is also said that in future—

The onus is now on the officer commanding the relevant area, and my question is: Is the person concerned competent to make this judgment? Now the onus does not rest with the Commissioner who is the commander, but with the area officer. He must now determine what the relevant person’s IQ is and what his competence, adaptability, talents, etc, are.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member of the NP could well exercise some patience.

This process of searching with a fine-tooth comb to weed out incompetence is now spreading to all the areas in the country. It is also stated—note this carefully:

[Interjections.] It is only applicable to White members. By implication, therefore, any incompetent Coloured person, Black person or Indian may simply remain in the Force. It does not matter how mentally disturbed he is; it does not matter how low his intelligence is. Throughout the country, however, a search is being conducted with a fine-tooth comb to find all the “incompetent” members of this Force, but take note:

That is the policy that the Minister and his Government applies to a White man in the employ of the SA Transport Services. The policy is: Get rid of the… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is now quoting from a letter. He has not told us, however, where that letter originated or by whom it was signed. Has the hon member indicated which official is involved?

I shall repeat what I said, Mr Speaker. I said that I had in my possession a circular containing a quotation from a letter received from the Commissioner of the SA Railways Police, and I said that because it involved matters of policy…

Order! What is the date of the letter?

Mr Speaker, according to the letterhead it is quoted from information, the Commissioner, ref A24/10, dated 7 November 1985.

Order! Does the letter relate specifically to the Railways Police?

Yes, Sir. It reads:

It is a letter from the Commissioner of the SA Railways Police. The point I therefore want to make relates to how people are now being treated. In conclusion there is just one thing I want to add.

Order! I just wanted to make absolutely sure that it related to members of the Force.

Yes, it relates solely to the SA Railways Police Force.

Only to the Whites.

It relates solely to the Whites.

[Inaudible.]

I trust that the members of the SA Railways Police—I am now talking about the White people in the Force—who are now going to the SA Police will find a better home there than the one they have at present.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for De Aar actually started well. [Interjections.] He put the SA Railways Police in the correct light, and expressed appreciation for the work they have done. He paid tribute to that group of people. But that was not enough; he then approached this matter from another angle which in actual fact had nothing to do with this Bill.

Why not? [Interjections.]

We are discussing a Bill which makes it possible to transfer the SA Railways Police to the SA Police. [Interjections.] In actual fact it has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions of employment regarding which a circular was written a year ago, although the hon member will receive a reply on this matter in due course; as a matter of fact, he has already received one. [Interjections.] I do not want to assess whether what the hon member for De Aar said was correct or incorrect…

You do not care.

No, of course I care! [Interjections.] I very definitely care, but my caring concerns the value of a person, and I attach a high value to the Whites I represent in this House. [Interjections.] But those hon members want to create the impression that it is only they who represent the interests of the Whites, and that all other hon members in this House do not do so. [Interjections]

Order!

I think those hon members must take a closer look at themselves and at the performance they give, because they often make me ashamed to think that there are such Whites. [Interjections.]

I want to continue with the discussion of the Bill in front of us. I can understand that initially some members of the Railways Police felt a little reluctant and perhaps a little afraid. I can also understand that initially there were people who wondered whether or not they were going to lose out. That is only human. This is a natural feeling one has when one’s career is at stake.

But I believe that this Bill will contribute towards eliminating all doubts and uncertainty, and that this transfer is and will be in the general interests of everyone. I believe that this total package which is being offered to the Railways Police, will be acceptable to everyone, because we have been informed that everyone will benefit. I believe this is the basis on which this transfer will take place: No one must lose; everyone must benefit.

The first question one asks oneself is why it became essential and desirable for the SA Railways Police to be transferred to the SA Police Force. In order to gain clarity on this, a very thorough investigation was made, and a comprehensive, very clear information document was published, which was circulated among the members of the Police Force. It was given to them to read. They could solve problem questions themselves. In order to explain the transfer members of the board travelled around the country, addressed people and explained these matters to them further. Consequently the transfer results from a thorough investigation.

The activities and rank structures of both Police Forces are so similar that it really became essential to amalgamate them. There is such a great degree of overlapping of activities that this step is actually nothing more than a logical consequence. It is a more effective utilisation of manpower. It is clear that these two forces can function better if they are under a single banner. To amalgamate these two forces is, after all, in accordance with the Government’s policy of rationalisation.

There is also another very important reason for this, which has already been mentioned, but I want it placed on record again. The SATS must compete on the open market as a haulier and because the Railways Police are legally authorised to take action against offenders, the consequence of this is that it is said of them that they discriminate against the people competing against them. Consequently to compete on an equal footing with other hauliers, it is essential for the SATS to have to work under the same conditions as other organisations. In addition a separate Police Force causes an additional financial burden for them, which can be eliminated by this legislation. [Interjections.]

With reference to this I also want to put the second point. Because the transfer is now an obligation, the question is whether the policeman is going to be worse off. As I have just indicated, a thorough investigation has made and they have put forward a salary package which in any case would place them in a better position than they have enjoyed thus far. The brochure or information document covers the entire spectrum. It makes very interesting reading and enables one to draw comparisons easily, as other hon members have already done. To a great extent this contributed to eliminating all possible doubts and giving these people certainty and peace of mind. This information document which deals with all aspects of conditions of employment undoubtedly made a contribution towards making the transfer acceptable and giving the people peace of mind.

The brochure deals with the salaries, allowances, risk allowances, those persons who are servicing in Walvis Bay, guard unit allowances, language allowances, housing, pensions, sick fund, medical services, service bonuses, sick leave, clothing and uniform allowances, free passes and concessions, travel and accommodation costs and virtually every aspect imaginable. The negotiations also resuited in discussions being held with the staff associations and in this way they were also afforded the opportunity to make their inputs.

Before I change the subject, I just want to say that it is true, as the hon member for Bezuidenhout, who moved an amendment, also said, that there were certain things which might be difficult to accept. I am thinking for example of the matter of travel privileges which were raised a while ago. It is true that certain travel privileges are now being forfeited, but we must not discuss these more minor aspects in isolation because we will then wrest them out of context. One must view this transfer as a total package. It is true that there are people who are now going to lose their free travel facilities, for example. But they are getting better pension benefits instead. There are also other benefits which will greatly improve their position. When we take all this into consideration, the total package is to the advantage of those persons who have an interest in it.

A lucky packet!

No, it is not a lucky packet, Sir. It amounts to a total package, which these people inspected, and the vast majority were quite satisfied with it. After all it is not possible to make separate legal provision for those eight or nine women who are being adversely affected as a result of the housing subsidy they are losing. We cannot introduce legislation for only eight or nine people.

You are not married to one of them!

That is simply not possible, Sir. I also feel that it will be possible to eliminate many of the minor problems which may crop up in future administratively.

In conclusion just the following, Sir, I want sincerely to congratulate those persons who were involved in these negotiations on the way in which they performed their task. I also congratulate them on the thoroughness with which they did their work, as well as the openhearted way in which they did so.

The SA Railways Police Force built up a wonderful tradition over a period of more than half a century. I believe every hon member in this House is proud of the standard they achieved in that period of more than 50 years. May they take those traditions with them into this new dispensation, and may they also have a very happy future under the banner of the SA Police Force. That is what we wish them. South Africa is proud of its Police Force, and we are proud of the work they do. We are also grateful for the sacrifices they made. This did not pass unnoticed. We wish them everything of the best for the future, and I also thank the hon the Minister for submitting the piece of legislation under discussion here.

Mr Speaker, I obviously agree with the comments made by the hon member for Kempton Park regarding the SA Railways Police and the work they have done over the years for the SATS as well as for the country. That was why it was so important that the standing committee had to look at two basic issues. One was the advisability of transferring to another force an established force which was doing a good job. Secondly, the question had to be answered in relation to what the effect would be on the over 7 000 employees of the SA Railways Police being transferred to the SA Police Force. I believe it was common cause what the attitude of the standing committee was towards these two issues. The standing committee was ad idem in relation to the first of these two issues. The committee held that it was advisable and desirable, for various reasons, to effect the transfer of the SA Railways Police to the SA Police Force.

One of the motivations for such a step was unfortunately an unhappy one because the Railways Police—or a section of them—were being used to do the job which road transportation inspectors used to do when there were sufficient numbers of them to do it. That work involved the control of road transportation, the stopping of vehicles, examining goods, detaining vehicles and confiscating certain goods. They were seen then to be agents of one of the competitors for road transportation while they were at the same time performing police duties in hammering the opposition to the force which they served. This was one of the issues that gave rise to a great deal of criticism. I believe, however, that issue was not the major one. It was limited to one industry, to a specific sphere of activity, namely, road transportation. Nevertheless, it was one that received publicity and that did tarnish the name of the Railways Police as a whole.

That strengthened and perhaps gave greater emphasis to the rationalisation which I believe was correct in principle. Apart from this “isolated island of criticism”, as one may call it, the mere fact that one had two forces, both carrying out similar tasks with a similar objective, namely, the prevention of crime made it logical that the services should be rationalised and the two forces combined. This would also have the effect of reducing overheads by eliminating unnecessary duplication. I think, therefore, that all of us on the standing committee were in agreement with the principle of the transfer of the Railways Police to the SA Police.

That then left us with the crucial issue—the duty of the standing committee and this Parliament towards the 7 000 men whose work, employment conditions and futures were affected by this. In this regard—I must mention this—the hon member for Kempton Park said, “Hulle is almal tevrede.” That is not correct, Mr Speaker. We should not generalise like that. One might say that the large majority are satisfied but not all are satisfied. I want to ask the hon member for De Kuilen and the hon member for Kempton Park how many Railway policemen have they spoken to personally over the past three months. [Interjections.] I want to know how many Railway policemen they have spoken to personally and listened to their views on this transfer.

They do not speak; they only listen to PW.

Just hold your fingers up, Myburgh.

You only need one hand!

I cannot even remember how many!

He cannot remember! Mr Speaker, some of us have talked to the people affected. [Interjections.] I only asked how many. I have only talked to about a dozen or 15, but they are stationed in various parts of South Africa and they are in various grades. I have found that among the older members in particular there is unhappiness. There is a great deal of unhappiness among the older members of the Railway Police. I also found that “consultation” did take place. Consultation took place in the normal Nationalist Party Government format. They were approached and told what would happen and what the new conditions would be, and they were allowed to ask questions on matters which were not clear. Then they were asked if it was clear to them and they said “yes”. They were asked if they had any other questions and they said “no”. It was then taken that consultation had taken place and that all of them were happy. They were obviously not asked to vote. I asked all those whom I spoke to whether they had been particularly asked if they were happy. They answered that they had not been asked that question. They were told what the changes would be not whether it made them happy! I accept that. It is just that I do not like being told things in a different form from what they are.

You must oppose the Bill if it is wrong.

I accept that the vast majority of the people accept the transfer and that only a small minority are unhappy. They are unhappy in certain specific fields which have already largely been mentioned in the debate, and therefore I am not going to go into all of them. There are advantages and disadvantages. The overall package is to the advantage to the Railway Police. It is in their favour. The older men are not happy, because they believe it is not in their favour. Those who are nearing retirement and who have been in the force for a long time believe that it is not to their benefit.

It is the same in the public service.

However, I found among a number of younger men unhappiness about specific aspects. One of these is housing. They are unhappy that one year has been given them to convert a SATS loan into a bond and obtain the money from a building society through the Police scheme. In the standing committee I moved an amendment to extend that and to add after the words “or twelve months”:

That amendment was accepted by the standing committee and included in the Bill and I particularly quote because it is germane to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I ask him in this debate, where we are now transferring 7 000 people to another service and another department, to look with sympathy at any problems that arise with people who have houses under the SATS schemes and who have difficulty in transferring their loans to their new scheme. I also ask him to view with sympathy any additional period which may be necessary as the exigiencies of the service may necessitate if he is approached in this regard. I ask him to give that instruction to those who deal with housing in the SATS—that if any of these people have difficulty in replacing their Railway housing within a year, to use that additional provision we put into the Bill with sympathy and in the interests of those people.

There are various other fields where benefits will be lost, particularly the one that has been mentioned of the free passes on the railways which disappear, but overall I am satisfied and the committee was satisfied and I think the House is satisfied that the total package is to the benefit of the Railway Police.

There is one field where I think there will be problems, and that is in regard to promotions where the grades and the notches of the people transferred and those of the SA Police do not correspond. I think we are going to have difficulties there; we are going to have complaints on both sides and both ways, and I think a great deal of diplomacy and tact and possibly a review will be required to eliminate the discrepancies in the salary scales and periods it takes to reach the point of promotion in the two services. Where these differ, they can be brought closer together. However, these are difficulties or disadvantages that are worth accepting to balance out some of the advantages. Where there may be difficulty with seniority in some cases, there will now be a greater opportunity in a larger force of 44 000—bringing it now to over 50 000—for promotion than there is in a smaller force of 7 000.

There are, however, certain specialists in the Railways Police. I am referring to airport security control and the special unit that deals with hijackings. These are people who have been trained specifically in a particular task. The equivalent does not exist in the SA Police. Just as a policeman who has received training in fingerprinting does not have an equivalent in the Railways Police so some of the Railways Police training is unique to the needs of that force.

Let me take for example the policemen who are specially trained to deal with crime on commuter trains. They will not normally qualify for the promotion opportunities in the broader field of the SA Police. Again I think that some flexibility will be required to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged by being transferred to a new force which I would not say would look down upon but may not take as seriously the tasks for which those people have been specially trained.

Having said all that I agree with the hon member for Bezuidenhout with regard to the 12 women. I regret that the hon member for Kempton Park should talk with contempt about seven or eight women. Even if there was just one woman who was disadvantaged I believe it is our duty to speak on her behalf and not say that we cannot make a law for only seven or eight women. I am not asking that a law be made for seven or eight persons; I am asking that where a dozen persons are disadvantaged we should look for some way to overcome that disadvantage. I do not believe we should make a special law for them but we are sympathetic towards them and we raise the issue with the object of overcoming the difficulties. I can see that the hon member is a male chauvinist. He reckons women should not own homes and be breadwinners but that their husbands should provide a home. If they have to provide the home, however, we should not worry about them. No, do not worry about that. They should not adopt that sort of attitude. I like women. [Interjections.] They are a very essential element of the human race and of society, so I support the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

So, Mr Speaker, all I ask for is that the hon Minister consults with his colleague where this affects him. May I say that I am surprised that we only have the “giver away” here today; the “receiver” is not here. I would have thought that either the hon the Minister of Law and Order or his deputy would have been here to receive them and to say thank you, but we only have the hon the Minister of Transport Services here who is willing to give them away and nobody to receive them.

Where is Louis the lover?

In his absence, I would like to say on behalf of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, as one who is serving on both standing committees, that we will guard their interests in the Law and Order Standing Committee and we will hold the hon the Minister of Law and Order responsible if he does not show sympathy and understanding for the many problems that are likely to arise. We will therefore vote for this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we are really astonished to see how concerned the Progs are about the Railways policemen. It is they who are usually unable to say anything good about a policeman, but they come here today and praise the Railways Police. That is really very transparent. Like the hon member for Durban Point, for example, I too have spoken to the Railways Police and their chiefs. I have spoken to Major General P M du Plessis, the chief of the South African Police in the SA Transport Services, and I wish to point out that the position has been thrashed out thoroughly with the police staff association.

Why was this document that we all have before us—U Toekoms na Inskakeling by die SA Polisie—placed in the hands of every SA Railways policeman? After the inquiry had begun on 3 December 1985, and when there had been reference to a possible amalgamation of the SA Railways Police Force and the SA Police, the following words were put clearly to each and every member of the SA Railways Police Force:

The document comprises 60 pages, and the discussions took place. The concluding paragraph is very illuminating:

Why, then, do we want more clarity on the matter?

I have just received from Major General Du Plessis the figures relating to the transfer. He writes to me that the authorised establishment of the SA Railways Police is 7 132. At present it is approximately 6 800. The present establishment of the SA Police is approximately 49 000. This means that by amalgamating these two forces, we are going to have a mighty force of much more than 50 000. The hon the Minister of Law and Order envisages increasing the number to more than 70 000.

My constituency, Rosettenville, extends to almost the centre of Johannesburg, close to the present John Vorster Square. There are many cul-de-sacs and in the centre city there are railway lines, with sidelines, running through the centre of the city, specifically in the factory area.

I have the problem in this regard that a fence has been erected and this fence separates the SA Police from the Railways Police. On the one side one has the branch lines, and on the other, the city’s streets which come to a dead end against that railway line. The problem is that fence is regularly cut, and then people cross by the railway lines.

I do not wish to relate anything gruesome at this point, but every Friday, or on many Fridays, usually at six o’clock in the evenings—I have heard this from those factory people and the managers—murder is committed on that railway line. The body is then dragged through the fence and placed on the railway line. The problem is that a train only comes past once a week. Therefore I do not know how this amalgamation of the SA Railways Police Force and the SA Police is going to solve this matter.

I approached the Transport Services and asked them to erect a barbed wire fence so that if they observed something there again, those people will not be able to get through. But believe me, time and again that fence, too, is cut, barbs and all. It is difficult to find a solution for this. Nevertheless I do think that much of the overlapping that used to exist between the SA Police and the SA Railways Police can now be eliminated.

Reference has been made to certain historical facts, but the hon member for South Coast provided me with very interesting information this morning of which I previously been unaware. He told me that in Cape Town harbour, not far from this Parliamentary building, the first bosun and four constables had to maintain law and order as far back as 1867. In 1913 the first chief inspector was appointed in Johannesburg and in 1916 legislation was introduced to authorise the Governor General to appoint people to protect railway property. In this way the Force grew until 1933, when the Railways Police were organised, and in 1936 the SAR made a start with its first training. The women about whom the hon member for Durban Point was so concerned, entered the Force in 1972, with the same rank and responsibilities as the men.

I just want to say at this point that I made inquiries about what members of the SA Railways Police Force have had to deal with in the course of a year. 170 people were fatally injured on SATS property, and in each case the Railways Police had to investigate. There were 434 incidents of robbery; 677 incidents of theft; 88 incidents of pick-pocketing; and 45 cases of rape, while 297 people were taken into custody owing to theft. Within the course of three months, goods to the value of R95 000 were stolen, but goods to the value of R65 000 were recovered. 28 999 crimes were investigated and in 19 446 cases, charges were laid. Of those prosecutions, 96% were successful.

At this point I wish to pay tribute, because they are not only the guardians of internal security, but also the upholders of law and order. Their task is to trace criminals; to arrest undesirable persons at our ports of entry; to confiscate undesirable articles and equipment and prohibited reading matter; to protect passengers on trains and aircraft; to protect our key points; and to ensure the safe passage of oil products from our pumping stations as well as the protection of that equipment. They must also counter onslaughts on the security of the State. In the operational area they accompany convoys; they patrol stations and railway lines; baggage is searched at airports; armoured vehicles at airports are controlled by them; goods yards are guarded; unguarded consignments are guarded at stations; and teams of detectives prevent theft from goods wagons.

At this point I should like to tell an anecdote from the time I was a reporter for Die Transvaler. One day I arrived at the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg. A turkey was standing before the magistrate with a string around its leg. The turkey was gobbling. When I enquired: “Where does that turkey come from?”, I was told that turkey sometimes used to sleep in the cells of that magistrate’s court. The turkey was subsequently taken to the Johannesburg fort where he also had to spend some nights. It was then taken to the police cells at Fordsburg, and eventually the turkey was conveyed from the fort to the police cells. I was given the interesting information that the turkey was the only living witness of a theft that had taken place aboard a train.

The railway people will also be able to relate how, with a view to getting their hands on the cargo, gangs get onto the goods trains at night when it is going slowly up an incline. The gangs then get on top of the wagons and go from wagon to wagon. At every railway crossing there is a truck and they throw the goods off there. In this particular case that turkey had been thrown off together with a whole case full of turkeys and parcels. The turkey was the only witness in that case. [Interjections.] One finds interesting stories that can be told in this regard.

Order! Were they looking for an interpreter for the turkey? [Interjections.]

There were regardings and extensions on this long railway line. There were lines which had been covered by driftsand. However the Police Force were thorough and were the protectors of their own goods in the SATS as well as the personal possessions of all of us. We hope that history will show that what Parliament is doing today is an outstanding step as far as the guardians are concerned, and also for the future of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, like the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Law and Order is not here today because I believe that he should have heard some of the issues that are the subject of this debate and that he should have taken part in this debate. Of course, as the hon member for Durban Point indicated, he is the person who is going to be responsible for the administration of this branch of the Police Force in future.

Although this step of consolidating the SA Railways Police Force with the SA Police Force is probably unavoidable from a number of points of view, I would like to refer to some potentially negative effects that may result from this merger, although I sincerely hope that they will not materialise.

The transfer of the SA Railways Police Force to the command of the SA Police Force may result in less attention being given to the traditional job of the SA Railways Police Force, which is, of course, the protection of SATS property and particularly—and this is a matter which I am particularly concerned about—the protection of the passengers and staff on the trains and stations of the SATS. Hon members will know that I have raised the issue of the safety of passengers in the past by way of questions as well as referring to it during debates.

I am sad to note that the position in this regard has not improved, Mr Speaker; on the contrary, the situation is growing worse—in the present circumstances particularly. Under the present economic difficulties more people are being forced to make use of public transport. Whether that be bus transport or train transport, the fact is they are being forced to make use of public transport to an increasing degree because fewer and fewer people can afford to travel by car. Now, Mr Speaker, I believe that this trend may in many ways be a positive one and may turn out to have some beneficial effect not only for the SATS but also for the national economy, but then it is of the most cardinal importance that the safety of people using public transport, and in this case train transport, should not be undermined and should be considered a very high priority.

Unfortunately present economic difficulties also bring about greater unemployment, and inevitably, as the trends always are, there is also a higher rate of crime. This of course will manifest itself also on trains and railway stations too. Hon members will recall, Mr Speaker, that replies to questions that I have asked the hon the Minister in the past have indicated the nature and extent of crime taking place on passenger trains and on railway stations. Not only is it a matter of people losing money because they are robbed, because their possessions are being stolen; not only are they subjected to petty assault but in fact people are actually murdered on railway stations; in the odd case women are even raped. So the situation is indeed very serious and, as I have indicated, Mr Speaker, the indications are that the situation is not abating; in fact it is becoming worse.

About two years ago, hon members will recall, there was in fact a very strong protest from some of the staff associations of the SATS, particularly in the Western Cape area, where a number of staff members of the SATS were subjected to very serious assaults. If my memory serves me correctly, I think two of them were actually murdered. Two of them were actually killed on duty, which is a very desperate and a very tragic state of affairs, something which I believe requires the most serious attention of the Government and of the responsible ministry.

I have asked the hon the Minister to give his attention to this problem in the past and I have suggested specifically that when it comes to passenger trains there should at all times be at least one policeman on patrol duty on every suburban station and at least one policeman on duty on every train carrying passengers, not only in suburban areas but on long distance trains as well.

The response from the hon the Minister at the time was that this simply could not be afforded, that there was not enough staff and that it would cost too much money. That sort of argument may have had some validity but I must say that I honestly believe that this answer is simply not good enough any more. [Interjections.] It is not only the hon the Minister responsible for this debate who should hear this; the hon the Minister of Law and Order should hear it as well. [Interjections.] It is simply not good enough that a matter of this nature is being neglected.

I believe that train passengers have a right to some attention to their safety and, if their safety is not provided for, then public transport will suffer and suffer grievously. That can do no one any good.

I recently received a letter from a person who works in my constituency but lives elsewhere—in Fish Hoek—and who travels daily to Woodstock in order to go to work. She complains about her car being broken into time and again while parked in Main Road Woodstock. Of course, the obvious question—which she answers in anticipation—would then be why she does not make use of public transport. She speaks about herself and her colleagues working in the same firm when she says: “The reason we all drive to work is that we feel unsafe catching the train at Woodstock station which I am sure you will agree is not a safe place for a woman on her own.”

That is only the case since trains have been opened. [Interjections.]

There is no question about it. It is a very lonely, desolate place and it is in fact a very difficult place for one to be on one’s own, particularly a woman, and I believe this lady has every reason to complain. [Interjections.] I must tell you that I had nothing to tell her.

There used to be a Railway Police post at Woodstock station a couple of years ago which has now been closed down because of rationalisation or for some other reason. The fact is that a situation has been created where that station is being used less and less and I want to tell you that this is not the first complaint I have had in this regard. I have had a number of complaints from people who are desperately unhappy. I have been to the place to see what it looks like and I can assure you that it is a very desolate and lonely place and certainly not a place I would recommend to people to go and wait on their own for a train at any time of the day, and certainly not in the evening.

A great difference can be made by simply having only one policeman on duty at a station like that at all times. I really believe that is not too much to ask. Just one policeman would create a feeling of security in the minds of those people and would serve as a preventive measure against the harassment of passengers and the harassment of staff. I really believe that this is not too much to ask.

I also want to say that I am rather sceptical about the view that there are not enough police personnel available to provide this minimum safety requirement when one takes into account for what other purposes some policemen are being used. I am referring here specifically to members of the Railway Police. Having travelled by air very regularly for a number of years, I have come to the conclusion that the police complements at our airports are grossly overstaffed. I really believe that. Obviously, police protection at airports is absolutely necessary. Nobody will dispute that. However, does one need five policemen or policewomen to man the X-ray machine where the hand luggage of passengers is being passed through? I have often seen four or in many cases even five policemen hanging around, one clipping the ticket, another passing the luggage through the machine on one side and another receiving it on the other side. Then there are two other policemen who are just hanging around.

Does one need a number of Railway policemen on duty outside airport buildings to attend to minor traffic offences? This happens time and again. [Interjections.] I think this is an inappropriate application of the manpower of the Railway Police and I believe it needs urgent reconsideration.

Furthermore, in view of the state of emergency, when one considers how often Railway Police are being used at roadblocks— these roadblocks are not always that close to Railway property; I have twice seen roadblocks close to our main airport, and there are always a great number of Railway policemen on duty—I feel we are losing perspective. This loss of perspective applies particularly to the Government. When it comes to something which falls within the category of State security and there is some kind of political connotation about it, then all of a sudden they want to smother the whole situation. They then pull in the troops and policemen of every sort to be on duty at all hours of the day and night to try to deal with a problem which they see. Sometimes it is only an imaginary problem.

What are in the meantime being grossly neglected are the very basic requirements for the protection of ordinary people against ordinary crime. In spite of the terrible situation in which we find ourselves today where people are being killed in political violence daily, more people are being killed as a result of ordinary crime. We cannot lose sight of that specific situation. We cannot for some stupid, romantic reason throw in everything we possess when there appears to be some kind of a threat of a political nature and in this regard disregarding the fact that citizens are entitled to normal protective services whether they are provided by the Railway Police or the ordinary police.

I believe that the hon the Minister and the Government have done precious little about the protection of people against common crime. They prefer to concentrate everything on politically related services. They prefer to use policemen of whatever type to enforce restrictions which are very often ridiculous, shortsighted and even undemocratic—very often restrictions on political activity. What is in fact happening is that the Government is indulging its own political paranoia while ordinary people are increasingly being put at the mercy of thieves, robbers and murderers.

Furthermore, I believe that the excessive presence and use of police at airports, while stations and trains are being neglected, casts another interesting reflection on the priorities of the Government. They obviously show great concern for those members of society who can afford to travel by air, but does that same concern apply to that vast section of our population who cannot but make use of public transport in the form of trains? Does that same concern apply to the safety of that section of our population? The answer is very obviously no. I can think of no better proof that we are dealing with a fat cat Government than this kind of demonstration of their twisted priorities.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to convey to his hon colleague who will now be in charge also of the Railway Police Force, to give urgent attention to this. This does require more attention. We cannot claim that we have had any success in the combating of petty and even serious crime on trains and stations over the past few years. Simply because economic circumstances make things difficult we are not justified in neglecting such a basic demand of the South African public. They should be able to travel on and to wait for trains in safety at stations of the SATS. I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will do his best to persuade the new political head of this department to take this matter very seriously and to do something very drastic about this and not to allow a completely chaotic situation to result on railway stations and trains of the SATS.

Mr Speaker, I think that hon members will agree with me that this is not a pleasant occasion for me—relinquishing the police force of the SA Transport Services. During the six years of wholehearted co-operation, we have often been criticised. Because we used the Railways police to implement the permit system, the criticism was that we were using our own police force to protect the SA Transport Services. The time has come, however, for this type of dispensation—however pleasant—to come to an end. For six years I had outstanding co-operation from the staff association of the Railways police. Under the presidency of Major D F Venter, the vice-presidency of Captain E F Boucher, assisted by Sergeant J H Knoetze and the chief secretary, Mr B J S Reynecke, we liaised very closely with one another and we agreed last year that this police force should be transferred to the SA Police.

There are people who have worked many long hours on this. There are some people from the ranks of the SA Railways Police whose names I should like to mention here. There are Colonel P H H Loock, Captain B K J Van Niekerk, Lieutenant E Koen and Brigadier F Kleingeld. They handled this whole matter for us, and in addition drew up two booklets which, once they had appeared, elicited general satisfaction. The titles are, respectively, U toekoms ná inskakeling by die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie and Your future after transfer to the South African Police. After these booklets had appeared, there was general satisfaction. Not everyone can be satisfied, of course, but in general I am satisfied that we have handled the matter correctly.

In the SA Police we had the co-operation of General I J M Van Niekerk. He is sitting here in the gallery. He was present at all times, at all the discussions that took place. He represents General P J Coetzee. We also have Brigadier A F Coetzer and Colonel Smallman, who assisted. Colonel Smallman is a small fellow, and on top of that his surname is “Smallman”. Then, too, there are Colonel Gert van der Merwe, Lieutenant B J Van der Merwe, Colonel A Steyn and Brigadier A Adlam. These are all people who co-operated to finalise this matter. Dr Grové and I are very grateful to them for their co-operation. It is understandable when people say that I am relinquishing a section of my people. Of course, I am not an empire-builder. This will mean that 7 000 of our people will be leaving.

Of course, your name is not Chris Heunis!

We are strengthening the SA Police Force of the hon the Minister of Law and Order by more than 10%. However, this is in the best interests of South Africa, and those people will, furthermore, still be doing police work for the SA Transport Services. Some of them will enjoy benefits to which I shall refer further in a moment.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout has placed two amendments on the Order Paper. I cannot accept either of the two. I was eager to give him my co-operation because his party supported the Bill in the standing committee. All parties actually supported the Bill in the standing committee. There was a positive spirit of co-operation in the standing committee for which I want to thank hon members.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout also referred to Black trade unions. It is not the time now to reply to that. In future we shall pay more attention to that matter. I should like the hon member to tell me whether he is a colonel.

No, I am a major.

Is the rank of colonel higher than that of a major?

No!

All right, we can promote the hon member to the rank of colonel if he wishes—honorary colonel, of course! [Interjections.]

*I only hope that in the new dispensation the SA Police will not deprive me of my honorary colonelship! [Interjections.] However, I believe that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has made such a thorough study of this matter that we would do well to make him an honorary colonel of this new business. [Interjections.] True, I do not accept the hon member’s amendments; that is why I am praising him so highly at this point! [Interjections.]

There are just a few things I want to raise in connection with the hon member’s amendments. The position was that staff of the SA Police who entered the service before 1955 could retire at the age of 55 years. Later this was altered to 58 years, and still later, to 60 years. Now, in one of his amendments, the hon member proposes that we make this retrospective for members of the Railways Police who are transferred to the SA Police. If we were again to agree that people could retire at age 55, then there are 1 153 of our people who, if they wished to, could retire immediately. This would mean that as far as this whole effort is concerned, we would be…

… making it ridiculous.

… paralysing it from the outset.

Quite right, yes!

Then we would have a paper tiger; something which certainly cannot be active, and which cannot do its work. That is why I emphasise the fact that we have studied this entire matter very thoroughly. We found that we could not concede on this point because after all, our people were aware that 60 years was their retiring age. Surely we cannot change this now. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout in this regard.

What his other argument amounts to, is that we must review the issue of housing loans. Members of the SA Railways Police receive a housing loan. The State provides its employees with a housing subsidy. Now we have only nine cases of women whose spouses are not employed by the Public Service; cases which we must, therefore, accommodate. These are cases of people who are unable to continue with the system in terms of which we provide the housing loan. The SATS pension scheme serves inter alia as security in this regard.

What are you going to do about them?

The State only grants the breadwinner a subsidy. These nine cases will be receiving our very sympathetic attention. Members of the SA Railways Police Force who have loans from the SATS are being given one year in which to have their loans taken over by building societies. They will then receive a housing subsidy from the State. For people who have loans of more than R50 000, the housing subsidy is not entirely sufficient to cover the high cost of the loans from building societies. In terms of this Bill they are now getting five years to take over loans. I am now at the same time replying to the hon members for De Aar and Durban Point. In order to encourage them not to delay the takeover, the interest rate they pay on the Transport Services loan will increase every year by 2%.

That is what I said.

That, surely, is an incentive to take over a loan more quickly. With specific reference to what the hon member for Durban Point said, I want to say that if there are people who have problems, we shall consider each individual case.

I want to thank the hon member for De Kuilen once again for his contribution. He asked the hon member for Bezuidenhout why he had not broached these amendments in the standing committee.

I will answer that.

I can answer that, too.

After all, he spent so much time consulting those people!

Yes, he spent so much time consulting. However, after everything had been disposed of, he contacted a few people as an afterthought and they briefed him on this matter. Surely the standing committee has been working on this Bill for months and they did good work, and surely we cannot, at this point, permit one of the hon members to come along afterwards with amendments.

The hon member for De Aar said that he welcomed this legislation. However the hon member hauled out a circular here. He made some political capital out of it and said that this arrangement only applied to Whites.

That is what it says.

That is what is stated there.

What are the true facts? It is expressly stated in this circular that was sent out that:

Every member on the fixed establishment…

Read paragraph 6.1.

Very well. Now the man receives this circular. He knows that there are no Blacks who are permanently employed. That hon member knows that as well as I do. No Black, Coloured or Indian person is permanently employed on our establishment. That is something we wish to rectify by way of parity. [Interjections.] All this circular does is to emphasise this:

[Interjections.] None of these people is permanently employed.

Why do you say so, then?

Why, then, do you write “Whites” there?

This could perhaps be made applicable to the other group. It is pointless, Sir, this hon member wants to make a political football out of everything. [Interjections.] Can the hon member get up and give me the name of a single member of the police force who has been paid off? There is not one. He is making a great fuss about our having paid people off…

You said that there were not going to be any Blacks in the government, and indeed there are none.

Show me one who has been paid off. It is very easy to say something here for the sake of political gain, but in practice that does not hold water. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kempton Park explained the trouble taken to inform our people. He said, quite rightly, that meetings had been held with the officials and with General Du Plessis throughout the country in order to inform our police. I thank the hon member for Kempton Park for having said that. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Durban Point said that he accepted the fact that the vast majority were happy. But then he played a little political game. He referred to a few people who might be unhappy. He then said that the older men were not happy. I should like to indicate to the hon member the salary earned by an older man such as a brigadier.

A brigadier in our employ received R41 100 per year. Now this brigadier will be earning R50 178 per year. In our employ a lieutenant-general earned R54 300 per year. In the employ of the hon the Minister of Law and Order he will be receiving R63 540 per year. Now the hon member says that the older people are not happy. [Interjections.]

With reference to what the hon member said about being sympathetic towards the nine people with housing loans, I want to say that will be done.

He also said that the total package is to the benefit of a Railway policeman. I am thankful for that. One cannot always keep all the people happy. However, the total package is to the benefit of the SA Railways policeman.

*The hon member for Rosettenville referred to his experience with the fence that was cut and he explained it very nicely. He said that this would be solved because now there is one Force.

Sneering reference was made here to the fact that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, is not present. He is engaged in a matter of the utmost importance this afternoon and he told me that he could not be present. He and I arranged that there would be a big function on 30 September at which the Force would be handed over to him. The entire Force will be invited so that as many members of the Force as possible may be present to say goodbye on that day.

What, then, becomes of the NP’s meetings?

It is difficult to get anything into the head of the hon member for Green Point. He goes and finds out how many people work for 4,4 million people at our airports, and he sees how many people work at our stations for 18 million passengers. When he looks at those proportions he is terribly upset because there are four policemen where the luggage is passed under the X-rays. I was at the airport once when three men ran amuck there and then six more came. That is the kind of place where one can encounter problems. If four policemen with millions of people…

Probably you then simply dealt with the matter yourself.

Order! I want to tell the hon member for Jeppe now that I do not want him to say again that I am not on his side.

Mr Speaker, you are a decent White man, but I am really sorry that you are sometimes on that hon member’s side. He is really a fly in the ointment as far as I am concerned.

Now the hon member for Green Point is asking us to have a policeman on the train. He has not yet travelled by train from Mitchells Plain in the mornings. His problem is that he lives in Green Point. He asks for one policeman on a train with 3 000 people. He must try to move on a train in which there are 3 000 people. One simply cannot move.

Some of the ticket inspectors do not even want to enter the carriages.

The hon member does not even know how many plainclothes people are doing the policing because one cannot use policemen in uniform there.

How many? Tell us.

It is now a better Minister who will deal with this matter. In future one will negotiate with him about this matter, which is discussed every year. I am not unsympathetic. I want the people to travel by train. We must be realistic when we consider how these 7 000 people are distributed across the country. I shall in future continue to co-operate wholeheartedly with the SA Police. They will continue to do the work for us. I think that this is a more realistic dispensation and I am pleased that the matter could be resolved in this way.

As regards the isolated incidents to which the hon member for Durban Point and some of our hon members referred—there are, perhaps, the nine women who have problems with their housing loans; there are only nine—and other instances in which problems have cropped up, our door still stands open with a view to considering these matters on an ad hoc basis.

I am very grateful for the co-operation in regard to the granting of this gift. I am thinking now of Esselen Park—those training facilities at Esselen Park—the fine stone buildings, and the number of times we had parents there at passing-out parades from as farafield as South West and from across the country. All those people are satisfied that the matter is being transferred… [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the fact that the Railways Police are being taken away from the Transport Services is not aimed at making it possible for the rest of the Transport Services to be privatised in due course.

We had an investigation by Dr Wim de Villiers. I told him he should try to get some of it privatised. I do not wish to anticipate the report; it will be available within six weeks to two months. But if you can tell me who is prepared to take over the Railways today, with a R1 000 million deficit on passengers…

Do not relinquish them.

I shall not relinquish them, but I shall not find anyone in the country who is so stupid as to take it over. [Interjections.] Anyone who did that would need his head read. This is something that shows such losses because our people travel at 50% of the cost. There is no such person. But this matter will not be privatised.

Do not let Harry Oppenheimer…

No, it will not be privatised, nor will Harry Oppenheimer buy it. What is more, he does not have that kind of money.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

I have put two amendments on the Order Paper. Although the hon the Minister said that he is not prepared to consider them, I feel that I must go into the details of these two amendments. The first amendment deals with clause 2 of the Bill.

Before I go on to that, I want to say that I do not think the hon the Minister understands how a standing committee functions. One of the rules of a standing committee is that, when one moves an amendment in the standing committee and it is voted down, one cannot bring it before this House. The existing rules therefore have to be considered if one wishes to be able to discuss matters in this House. The hon the Minister is, therefore, wrong when he says that I did not raise the matter in the standing committee. I did raise the matter, but I was afraid that it would be turned down and for that reason I was not prepared to have a vote taken on it. The only matter on which I asked for a vote was that the trade unions should be allowed to give evidence because, as I said before, the law of letting both sides be heard should be applied.

I would now like to deal with the first amendment. Clause 2 of the Bill reads as follows:

That is all the members of the Police Force.

Remember that it says that they are governed by the Government Service Pension Act. The clause then continues:

All that I am asking the hon the Minister is that we should delete the proviso and substitute it with a proviso that reads as follows:

That is the Government Service Pension Act which will only apply to 1 200 policemen, and it will not apply for many years to come because most of them have just about reached the retirement age in any case. The proviso would continue:

I think the hon the Minister is making a very big mistake, because amongst those 1 250 people there is going to be dissatisfaction when they go into the Force and see that they are not entitled to the benefits that the other section of the Force is entitled to. When they joined the SA Railways Police Force initially, they knew that they had to be there until the age of 60, and now that they are being transferred to the other Force, they are entitled to be subject to the same terms and conditions.

The other amendment that I propose, affects only nine people, as the Minister said, and not 12, as I believed. I would like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the Bible story of Lot, which he knows well himself. In effect it says that, if there was one just man in the city, then the city should be saved. Now I ask for nine people to be saved from very great distress, and I ask the hon the Minister to reconsider his decision and let these two amendments go through.

You are not asking for a lot.

Quite right. I am not asking for a lot. All I am asking for is the following:

It is no good his telling me that he will try to do this administratively; he has to put it in the Act itself, so that those nine people know that, when this Bill is passed by this House, they will be looked after and they will be entitled to that.

I again appeal to the hon the Minister that he should not just discard these two amendments but accept them, because we have to look after those particular people.

Mr Speaker, presently the position in the South African Police is that members who joined before 24 June 1955 may retire at the age of 55, those who joined on or before 31 December 1966 at 58 and those who joined subsequent to December 1966, at 60. [Interjections.]

Retirement ages were raised when the South African Police found that it was losing members at a relatively early age to the detriment of the Force. Preplanning and the filling of vacancies are hampered by the different ages of retirement. The proposed amendment will aggravate the problem and therefore cannot be supported. It should furthermore be realised that members of the South African Police who joined subsequent to 1966 are obliged to remain in the Force until the age of 60.

All I am asking is for those who joined before that date…

When they were in our employment, there was an agreement that they would not retire before reaching the age of 60.

But they are in a new Force now!

They were satisfied with the old situation when they were in our employ. Why should we alter it now? [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with the matter of the nine women. The proposed amendment has been considered but it cannot be accepted. There are only nine ladies involved, and to provide for their cases in legislation cannot be justified. Such a concession would create an untenable situation for the Public Service, as subsidised loans are only granted to women employees who are regarded as breadwinners. These cases can, however, be dealt with as a special ad hoc situation, and we shall look at it.

Will you undertake to see to that?

[Inaudible.]

There are only nine women involved.

Well, that is a lot of women.

We will look after them!

But all women who work are breadwinners; it is absurd to say…

Yes, but the hon member for Houghton should tell that to the Public Service.

[Inaudible.]

Question negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr Chairman, I move:

Before delivering the speech I have prepared I should like to say that I am going to depart somewhat from the custom of thanking the hon members of the standing committee on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill. The reason is that I should like to do so on a more personal basis in each House and I shall accordingly convey my special thanks to the hon members in the course of my reply.

†Mr Chairman, in June 1980 the Cabinet requested the Human Sciences Research Council to launch an in-depth investigation into all aspects of education. The main committee of the HSRC investigation into education recommended in its report which was submitted to the Government in July 1981 that a statutory body for certification of qualifications be established.

The Government’s decision on this recommendation is contained in the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the Republic of South Africa, 1983. I quote from the White Paper:

With regard to secondary education, eight education departments plus the Joint Matriculation Board are involved in examination and certification at the final point of withdrawal from secondary education in the Republic of South Africa. Each of these bodies is empowered in terms of the Act to institute courses, conduct examinations and issue certificates.

With the existing system, examination and certification for the school-leaving certificate take place at different points. The fact that the standard of the bodies concerned are coordinated only in respect of the small group of candidates who wish to gain admission to universities, makes it difficult to ensure equal standards in the various school-leaving examinations.

The South African Certification Council Bill has been drawn up to implement the decision of the Government I have referred to. In this regard substantial adjustments were, however, brought about in two respects. Firstly, it was originally envisaged that there would be a single certification council for school and post-school education, technikon education and teacher training. Further consideration has, however, convinced the Government that the particular nature of technikon education and of teacher training necessitates that certification of qualifications in these sectors be handled by two separate certification councils.

In this Bill no provision is thus made for these two sectors. The establishment of a certification council for technikon education is set out in a Bill which has already been finalised by the standing committee, and that for teacher training in a Bill which is still being considered by the standing committee.

Secondly, it was originally planned that the examining bodies would issue certificates on behalf of the Certification Council. After wide consultation the conclusion was, however, reached that it is of particular importance that any perception of a difference in standards regarding education qualifications be eradicated once and for all. Because of this, it was decided that the Certification Council itself would issue certificates.

It has therefore been decided…

Writing different examination papers?

Order! If the hon member wishes to ask a question, he must please do so in the right way.

It has therefore been decided that the object of the South African Certification Council will be to issue certificates representing the same standard of education and examination at a point of withdrawal.

*Sir, it is important, in the light of what I have just said, that the members of the council who will be appointed if the legislation is passed should, by virtue of their educational qualifications and expertise, be fit to perform the functions entrusted to the Certification Council.

It is my considered opinion that a body consisting entirely of experts would best be able to serve the interests of all those in the community with an interest in the council’s activities.

I have already referred to the object of the council and will now deal with its functions. In terms of the provisions of the Bill the Certification Council will be the only body in the Republic responsible for the issuing of certificates to pupils of all population groups at points of withdrawal from the formal school and technical college system. This means that for the first time in the history of South Africa the same certificate will be issued to all pupils, representing the same standard of education and examination.

By writing different examinations?

Examining bodies will be required: To comply with the requirements prescribed by the council for the conduct of examinations with a view to the issuing of certificates; to apply the norms and standards prescribed by the council with which candidates will be required to comply in examinations in order to obtain certificates; and to offer or cause to be offered such subject matter as may be prescribed by the council with a view to obtaining its certificates.

Mr Chairman, this latter function of the council is aimed at the presentation of the core subject matter essential for the monitoring of standards. It in no way inhibits the existing freedom of education departments regarding the particularization and enrichment of subject matter. Since the Certification Council will eventually be the only body in the Republic that may issue certificates at points of withdrawal from the school, the Universities Act, 1955, must be amended accordingly. I shall deal with these amendments when the Universities Amendment Bill, 1986, is read a second time.

The certificates of those pupils who have complied with the minimum requirements for admission to study at a university, technikon or other educational institution, will in future be endorsed accordingly by the council. A very important provision in connection with the conduct of examinations has been included in the Bill. Clause 10 provides that if two or more education Ministers agree thereto, the same examination may be conducted at any point of withdrawal for such candidates of the education departments concerned as may be agreed upon. This implies that such an examination could be conducted on a regional, provincial or any other basis.

The Bill also provides that if the Government and the government of any other state or self-governing territory agree thereto, the Certification Council may perform any function assigned to it in terms of this Bill in that state or self-governing territory. These functions will be performed on such conditions as the Government may agree upon with the governments concerned.

In conclusion, I should like to mention that I have accepted the recommendation of the standing committee regarding the release, before the Second Reading of this Bill, of the report of an Intersectoral Committee of Investigation into the Composition and Functions of a National Certifying Council, and I gave effect to this recommendation earlier today.

Mr Speaker, it would be a very interesting exercise to ask the hon members on the Government side of the House to indicate, by the raising of their hands, which members have actually read the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister. I do not think there can be many, which is most unfortunate, because it is not a bad speech. It would seem that the other side of the House has been deprived of knowing what the contents of that speech are.

Mr Speaker, at the outset, on behalf of the PFP, myself and my colleague who served on the Standing Committee on National Education, I should like to express our appreciation to the chairman and the other members of the Committee for the work which we did in the course of many months in order to bring this legislation to Parliament. I am a great supporter of and believer in the standing committee system, because I believe that under those circumstances it is possible for people to learn to understand and get to know one another, to examine in depth the legislation before them, and all matters relating to that legislation, to seek and find consensus and take part in reasonable, calm and responsible debates on matters which are dealt with on such committees. I do hope that the Government will, in the future, see its way clear to extending the functions and the responsibilities of such committees, because I believe that in all facets of government in South Africa these committees could make a very much more responsible, effective and meaningful contribution to government in South Africa.

I should like to thank the chairman. He was at all times courteous and patient, and we enjoyed working with him and the members of his committee. We would also like to express our appreciation to the Director-General and his officials for the manner in which they carried out their responsibilities on this committee. I do not know, because I do not serve on the other committees, what the standard of service is that is rendered to those committees by the officials for those committees, but I can attest to the fact that the Director-General of National Education and his officials gave very good service, very fine service, to the committee and its members. They presented their documents in a well-ordered fashion, they organised the affairs of the committee very thoroughly, people who presented documentary evidence to the committee presented it to us in a very clear and effective way and arrangements for people to give evidence before the committee were always made in a very fine fashion.

Having said that I should like to deal with the Bill before us which is the South African Certification Council Bill. I should like to say at the outset that we in the PFP shall support this Bill, but in supporting it we are going to express certain reservations and criticisms. I hope that the hon the Minister will listen to these reservations and criticisms. [Interjections.]

One of the reasons why I hope the Government listens to us when we speak is because there are certain changes which they are going to have to make in the near future, and if they listen to us now they will know exactly how to go about making those changes. In fact, if the Government had listened to us in years past they would not have had to delay some of the changes which have now been brought forward in the legislation before us on the Order Paper. There are also certain further changes which we shall be talking about in the course of debate which the Government will have to make in the future.

The origin of this legislation was the De Lange Committee investigation into education in the Republic of South Africa. Those hon members who have been here a long, long time, will remember that in the dim and distant past the HSRC carried out an investigation into the whole educational situation in South Africa. That was a remarkable commission with a remarkable performance as far as its work was concerned. A large number of dedicated and highly qualified South Africans in the field of education made an in-depth analysis of all aspects of education at all levels and for all communities in our country. In the report that they brought out, they clearly identified what was wrong with education in South Africa, where the shortcomings and the problems lay. Not only that, they also made recommendations as to how those problems could be solved and what could be done to improve the situation.

The Government has followed some of their recommendations, very reluctantly and at the end of long and interminable delays. The Government has, however, as far as I can see, not carried out the full spirit of the recommendations of that committee. Nevertheless the Government did pass the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act and, subsequent to that, certain other legislation and the legislation that we are dealing with at the moment, while we expect more legislation to come in future.

The main principle of the Act to which I have referred, the main principle underlining all the recommendations of the De Lange Committee, was principle No 1; namely, that equal opportunities for education, including equal standards of education shall be striven after for every inhabitant of the Republic, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex. That is a very fine principle and I believe that the Government is sincere about their commitment to their principle. We are equally determined to do everything in our power to see to it that the Government carries out the purpose of that principle in its legislation and in its provision of education in South Africa. The question is whether the legislation which the Government has put forward meets the requirements of that principle. We shall measure the Government’s legislation and its actions in terms of the principles which it has enshrined in legislation. It is interesting to note that there cannot be many other Acts on the Statute Book, if any, where a set of principles has actually been enshrined in legislation. We will constantly and persistently test the Government’s legislation and its actions in terms of the principles which the Government itself has accepted and enshrined in legislation. When we look at this Bill and others which will come before the House we will do just that.

The object of the Bill for the creation of a South African certification council is as follows:

I hope that it is going to be possible to ensure in time to come that a uniform certificate for all school-leaving pupils in South Africa, at whatever level they may leave school, will in fact ensure that they have benefited from the same standard of education and examination. It is not the examination or the certificate which ensures that the standard of education is the same. The standard of education, as all of us know, depends on many other factors. It depends on the quality of education, the qualifications and the ability of the teachers available, the standard of the building and the equipment, the curriculae which are provided, the books, and also the socio-economic circumstances under which the pupils live who are receiving that education. It depends on the ability of our society to achieve stability, peace and a positive spirit in order to ensure that children can benefit from a good education. All these things have not yet been dealt with. The technical details have been dealt with partially but peace and stability still evade us in the schools for the other race groups.

South Africans—Blacks, Coloureds and Indians and a large percentage of the Whites—have said very clearly to the Government that they want a just society for all the people in the country. They want no discrimination based on race, creed or colour and they want equal opportunities for all the people in this country. That is a clear message which has come to the Government from South Africa, also in the field of education. [Interjections.]

The Black community is aware of two forms of discrimination and two forms of deprivation in education. The one is the technical discrimination which involves the quality of the teachers, the schools, books and the curriculae. That can be put right and is being put right. I think credit should be given to the Government for the steps they have taken and for what they have achieved in that field, for instance in the field of upgrading the qualifications of Black teachers. I think that Vista University has actually achieved certain remarkable results in that field. However, we are a long way from bringing about a satisfactory situation as far as the technical discrimination is concerned which has existed in the past, for example concerning schools, teachers, books, curriculae and expenditure on education.

A far more damaging, difficult and dangerous aspect of the sense of discrimination that the Black people have that they have been subjected to inferior education is the emotional factor. Over many years of neglect and deprivation and of being subjected to inferior education, these people have been deeply scarred psychologically. I have personally had the experience among Black people, even in terms of a school which is built today and which is staffed by qualified Black teachers who have the same qualifications and who receive the same pay as Whites on the same level, that Black children are still totally convinced that they are subject to a deeply inferior system of education. [Interjections.] It is very difficult to overcome those deep-seated emotional factors which go to make up the feeling that Black children have—this conviction they have that they are getting a raw deal in education in South Africa.

These are the real problems that the Government must deal with, and we must decide whether this Bill and the other Bills are going to address these problems. One of the things which we in the PFP have consistently pleaded for, is for the Government to rid education of racialism and apartheid; to provide for open education for all the people in this country so that children from all groups may attend school together; so that there may be a demonstration to them that there is no difference in terms of the quality of education being given to them; so that they may experience a non-racial, non-discriminatory system of education; and so that those psychological factors which I spoke about may be effectively addressed. That is what we in the PFP are pleading for—education free from politics. We must give it to the people—the communities—to handle and free it from ideology and from the unfortunate existence and perpetuation of apartheid as a structure which is superimposed on education. That is what we must test this legislation against.

What is South Africa getting? In terms of this legislation South Africa is getting a Bill which provides for the certification of pupils’ examinations at different levels upon leaving school. This certification, which will be one single certificate issued by the South African Certification Council, will require that both the candidates and the examining bodies comply with certain norms and standards for the education and examination of those pupils. If they do so, those pupils will be issued with a certificate emanating from the South African Certification Council.

The hope expressed by the Government as well as by the other two Houses is that by having one certificate the child will somehow feel that he has had an education of the same quality and that employers in society will somehow believe every child has had the same standard of education. I hope this works because, if it does not work, this legislation will have failed to a large extent. The reason is that people will ultimately believe that they have the same standard of education, that there is no discrimination and, that they are not subject to inferior education when all South Africans visibly and openly have access to the education of their choice; that education is based on educational standards and educational norms and has nothing whatsoever to do with race or ethnicity. Then we will have a free and open educational system in South Africa.

I gain the impression that the Government is the foremost proponent of the introduction one hears so often when somebody tells one a story or gives one information and says: “I have good news and bad news for you.” Today the Government is the foremost proponent of that when they come to the country and say: “We have reforms for you”. It is always good news and bad news. It is most unfortunate that the good news cannot predominate and the bad news cannot be excluded from the reform measures of this Government.

When one looks at this Bill and the other ones, I want to say that they go a long way towards meeting the basic requirements of bringing about equal education opportunities for everyone in South Africa in the technical sense. The Department of National Education has four major functions, namely to set out the norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education for all population groups; to deal with the salaries and conditions of employment of staff; the professional registration of teachers; and also—this is very important—to deal with the norms and standards for syllabuses and examination and for the certification of qualifications.

There can be no doubt about the fact that in terms of those technical requirements this Bill goes a long way towards meeting them. However, it stops short of meeting the psychological and emotional factors involved in the conviction which Black people have that their education is inferior. About that I am very sorry because the Government has not brought forward a means of addressing that particular problem.

This is unfortunately so characteristic of the Government’s whole reform programme. They are reluctant to do what they know they have to do. There is a clumsiness about the way in which these things are being done. One gains the impression that the reformists in the party are at the steering wheel but that those in the right wing are applying the brakes. So often one experiences that in the end the Government does the right thing. I have no doubt about that; that is why I am an optimist. I have no doubt that in the end the Government will remove every vestige of apartheid. In the end they will do what we have been begging them to do for 30 years. However, it is like drawing teeth. The Government will in the end do the right thing but not until they have wrung the last drop of harm and disadvantage and heartache from those apartheid measures. Then they will remove them. Why not do it now and do this country an enormous service in terms of the creation of stability and prosperity for all our people? [Interjections.] In some respects the intention with this legislation is to camouflage the fact that the Government has not been prepared to bring about full and effectual reform in the legislation field. [Interjections.]

I just want to explain why the PFP supports the concept of one department and one system of education. We support one system and one department of education, not in terms of the technical requirements of education in South Africa but in terms of those psychological, emotional requirements. If it was not for the fact that the Government insists on undermining its education system by its ethnic and racial structuring within education, it would not be necessary to have one department and one system. Those requirements are deepseated, emotional requirements. If we had a normal system then we would be for a decentralised system of education. We would be for freedom of education in South Africa and for a diversity of education where there is competition among educational systems, a striving for excellence by various systems and where various systems encourage and prompt one another to make headway and to improve.

Who wants open education in South Africa? Virtually the whole of South Africa wants open education. The Black community wants open education where there is freedom of association and of choice. The Coloured and Indian community want it, and a very large percentage of the Whites in South Africa want it.

How do you know?

Why cannot we have it? Why cannot we have it? If the Government’s principle is that of accepting the concept of self-determination then surely they must be prepared to accept the requirements and the wishes of the other communities in this country. Who is against it? If one wants the answer to this question as to why we cannot have open education for the whole of South Africa one has to look at who is against it. Then one gets the answer to that question, because the people who are against it are the AWB, the CP and the HNP. [Interjections.] They are the people—a small, insignificant minority of the South African population. [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about.

They want separate and apartheid education, they want an unfair, unjust system of education.

Nonsense!

I am not so certain that the hon the Minister of National Education is responsible for this, so I asked the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly to be present here this afternoon because I have an idea he is the fly in the ointment—in the modem idiom, the AWB in the potjiekos. [Interjections.] I have an idea he is the fly in the ointment and while certain people are trying to push the hon the Minister of National Education faster in a certain direction, the hon the Minister for Education and Culture is putting on the brakes. [Interjections.]

I was given by my hon colleague a copy of the speech of that hon Minister at the NP’s recent federal congress in Durban. That is a very significant speech. It says it all. I should just like to quote a few points in it because it illustrates the dilemma we have in the educational situation. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said:

That is a motion at the Nationalist congress expressing concern at the opening of education to all races. He went on:

What he really saying is: “As julle bang is, dan is ek bang. Julle moet net sê. As julle bang is, dan is ek bang.” [Interjections.] I quote again:

The Government will never ever allow education to be utilised for political purposes. That is the standpoint he adopted. However, just a little bit further in his speech he completely contradicted himself. He said:

In other words the hon the Minister says they will use education to maintain group identity and to secure self-determination, but he also says that nobody else must under any circumstances use education for political purposes.

There is a confusion in the thinking of the Government which they must get rid of, because we too believe that education should be free from destructive political influences. Therefore we believe that education should be in the hands of the people, of the communities; that it should be in the interests of the children of South Africa and of society as a whole; and that it should not be the instrument of politicians seeking narrow and selfish aims.

Who is for open education in South Africa? I have already said that all the other communities are for open education. Also the White electorates are moving rapidly in favour of open education. In Rapport of 18 May this year there is a heading: “Mening swaai vir gemengde skole.” It reads as follows:

Only a third of the White voters are opposed to mixed schools. The report went on to say:

*I am not going to quote the rest of the report, but there is a clear indication that by far the majority of all South Africans of all groups—virtually all of the Black people, all the Coloureds, all the Indians and a rapidly increasing percentage of the White population of South Africa—have declared themselves to be in favour of the throwing open of schools to all population groups.

†I want to make an offer to the Government. We are in tune and agree with what the whole of South Africa wants. However, we understand the problem of the Government. I understand their philosophy and their ideology. I contend that the Government can solve this problem quite simply. The Government can solve this problem by abiding by the principles set out in the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, section 2(l)(d)(iii) which reads as follows:

Section 2(l)(d)(vi) provides—

In those cases where communities and the governing bodies of schools say to the Government that they want to exercise their right to self-determination—the Government say they have this right—and open their schools to all races, why on earth cannot the Government make that concession? Why cannot the Government establish an open Department of Education under which those schools could fall and then allow those schools to run their own affairs in their own way according to their own convictions, needs and aspirations, and then still continue to receive the same aid that the Government gives to all other schools? After all, once the Government have done that, they have honoured their principle of self-determination as set out in their legislation. If the Government do that, they will ease the tensions that exist throughout our society. Moreover, if they do that they will give children the opportunity of attending the same schools, getting to know one another and developing better relationships among themselves which is all in the future interests of our country. [Interjections.]

I just want to say very briefly in conclusion that we believe the composition of the council and the manner of its appointment is unfortunate. We did not want a bureaucracy to be created to take responsibility for the functions that are set out. We did not want a situation in which the Minister had the right to appoint people to the particular body, for then this body would be less efficient than would otherwise have been the case. This body would then be seen to be the agent of the Government and it would have less credibility than it would otherwise have had. Moreover, it would impose more uniformity than we should have. It would have been far better for the Government to develop an autonomous educational body composed of people nominated by the major interested parties, particularly those organisations that are the consumers of the products of our schools; those organisations that are going to use the young people who come from our schools, that are going to employ them, that are going to direct them and utilise their services. Those are the organisations that know exactly what they need and what they want. So they should also be represented on this body—not at the whim or choice of the Minister but at the discretion of the organisations they represents.

If we have that sort of structure which is seen to be free and autonomous, which is responsible to society as a whole and also to the children and parents of that society, we will have a limited amount of political interference. We will also enjoy high credibility, and we will have created an outlet for and given a voice to the principles set out by the De Lange Commission. In that way we will have allowed this body to strive for excellence and freedom in the education of all our people.

That, Mr Chairman, is what we would have liked to have seen.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I should like to respond to certain of the hon member for Bryanston’s political arguments. Before getting to them, however, in the first place I should like to make a few general comments which not only have a bearing on the Bill before us but also on Bills in subsequent orders—comments dealing with the entire concept of certification councils in general. In the light of the legislation still to be discussed after this too, I believe a few general remarks are fitting at the outset in this regard.

In this case I should like to express my exceptional thanks to all the members of the standing committee—to hon members of this House as well as those of the other two Houses who are members of the standing committee. The standing committee as a whole conducted itself with great responsibility throughout.

It is a fact that the subject which came before the standing committee with specific reference to the Bill under discussion is a very emotional subject which could very easily have led to confrontation in the standing committee. It could have happened very easily for the standing committee to have been split asunder because of emotional reactions to the consideration of this measure as in a certain sense this subject also affects the nerve centres of the South African education system in its entirety. This is inevitable.

The fact that this did not occur, the fact that the standing committee did not split up and that in addition we had this legislation passed in the standing committee and that it has already been approved by the other two Houses as well indicates significant success for the system of standing committees and for the tricameral Parliament as a whole. I believe it serves as a good example of what may be accomplished under the system of standing committees. These past few days I have involuntarily recalled arguments we put forward at the time—during the 1983 referendum campaign—in favour of the tricameral system. It was often said—by way of example—that in the process of considering legislation and in our striving for consensus we would necessarily have a rough and tumble. We would therefore move backwards and forwards while taking continuous steps in the process of our striving for ultimate consensus. I believe this specific Bill serves as an outstanding example of what we said at the time, in 1983, could probably happen if consensus were not immediately reached in the standing committee on a particular piece of legislation.

You also said there would be peace and quiet in the country and also less foreign pressure!

Now Pik Botha is left to eat his way through all those oranges alone! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as I said, against this background I should like to thank all the members of the standing committee—all my colleagues in Parliament who served on the standing committee and still do—for their co-operation as well as for the spirit in which they passed this legislation in the standing committee in particular.

It would have been easy to use our points of difference in the discussion of the Bill before us as an excuse to postpone the consideration of this measure per se to a later stage, especially in view of the possibility of tension which existed throughout. The members of the standing committee made it obvious, however, that from start to finish they were eager not to set the subject aside. As a result they continually worked at settling differences of opinion—not avoiding them but discussing them and attempting to iron them out. Consequently I say the success attained in the standing committee is also a triumph for the process of negotiation and the striving for consensus.

When we look back on events during the process of dealing with this measure, it appears that the standing committee commenced working on this specific Bill as early as October last year. It very soon became clear that consensus would not be reached immediately. After evidence had been heard and after the commencement of the debate in the standing committee, if my memory serves me, the matter was recommitted to the committee of Ministers of Education for further consideration. At that stage we already had an analysis of the points of difference in the standing committee at our disposal. We could therefore recommit those points of contention to the hon the Minister for further consideration.

Further consultation was undertaken by the hon the Minister of National Education with the other Ministers of Education. In the process, discussion among members always led to success in obtaining clarity on points of contention and on possible solutions concerning those differences.

As regards this Bill only, the standing committee met on about 22 separate occasions altogether. By means of important amendments the committee ultimately succeeded in reaching consensus and simultaneously complying with pedagogic requirements and, to my mind, ensuring good legislation. Consequently it was a team effort by the standing committee, the hon the Minister of National Education, all the other Ministers of Education and the department.

In this regard I should also like to associate myself with the hon member for Bryanston’s comments in thanking Dr Roe Venter, the Director-General, and his colleagues in the department. I believe it is true that a relatively large group of us on the standing committee—in which I include myself—are not people with a teaching background. In the process we therefore had to learn a great deal as in handling this Bill as well. I think Dr Venter personally exhibited great patience in instilling—I do not wish to say “pumping”—wisdom regarding education into us in a very judicious manner so that today we are all wiser concerning this subject. He has my grateful thanks for this.

The Bill is an important milestone en route to equal education in South Africa. When all is said and done, the De Lange Committee strove for this and it was later also spelt out in the White Paper.

The Certification Council cannot—the hon member for Bryanston is right there—ensure equal standards for education in South Africa on its own. A much broader underpinning and infrastructure is required for this. It is impossible to acquire this overnight. The hon member for Bryanston is right on this aspect too.

I also consider it right that he at least gave credit for what had been achieved by the Government over the past few years, specifically regarding the provision of the financial means and the increase of these to narrow the gap between the various educational standards as well. Nevertheless great leeway remains; nor is money the only factor which will extinguish the difference in standards. We have to accept that to a great degree we are dealing with an historical phenomenon here too. We should have preferred not to have this but unfortunately it is the factual state of affairs.

In consequence, we cannot turn our back on this today and say it is not our fault that the educational standard of other groups in the country is lower. We have to address the problem and ensure that we strive continually to attain equal standards. I think the Government is exercising great responsibility in striving precisely for this in the development of the educational policy. This has been stated explicitly by the hon the Minister of National Education on more than one occasion.

I think the institution of the Certification Council can have a very important symbolic significance in the sphere of equal standards. For the first time we shall have a body in respect of formal education which will be representative of all the people of South Africa. It is also directed at ensuring equal standards for all the people of South Africa on the level of education—at schools and technical colleges.

In connection with this I should like to refer to a few of the member for Bryanston’s comments. He stated that education should be separated from race, colour and any ideology and implied by this that Utopia would then suddenly descend on us in the field of education. That is patently untrue. [Interjections.]

He did not say that.

That is what the hon member implied. If that is not the implication of his words, I am pleased about it. The only point I wish to record through this is that, even if it were possible—assume, for instance, that any government striving for it were to come to power tomorrow—it would not solve the problem as regards education.

I should like to react to a second point made by the hon member for Bryanston. He said reform comprised two aspects one heard simultaneously—two types of news. The one was good news and the other bad. He praised the good news he heard, such as that related to this Certification Council, and complained about the bad news which, as far as he was concerned, struck him simultaneously.

It is interesting to test what the hon member for Bryanston regards as good news against an hon CP member such as the hon member for Rissik. The good news about which the hon member for Bryanston exults will be bad news to the hon member for Rissik. The reverse also applies: Good news to the hon member for Rissik will be bad news to the hon member for Bryanston.

That is a simple example of what the hon member for Bryanston put forward by coincidence to emphasise one fact, which is that we—in any case that means we on this side of the House—are addressing the truth and reality when we are involved in reform in South Africa. This means that we note simultaneously that there are joint as well as own interests in this country. This realisation is represented inter alia in a Bill like that before us as well.

I now reach a further interesting point touched upon by the hon member. He said that in his opinion one educational system would not satisfy the technical requirements of education. If I understood him correctly, he was therefore saying that pedagogically it would not necessarily be right.

If we get rid of apartheid for a start!

No, we are discussing the argument now. The hon member therefore said that one educational system would not necessarily be pedagogically correct; it would not satisfy technical aspects of education.

One department!

The hon member said it would be essential, however, from a sociopolitical viewpoint. That is how I understood the hon member on that point. I want to leave it at that now but I wished to have it placed on record that it was a very interesting argument if the hon member acknowledged that one educational system was not necly pedagogically justifiable.

That is not what he said; that is not true.

The hon member made a further interesting point. If I understood him correctly, he said own education was tantamount to apartheid education. I wish to tell the hon member I do not agree with that statement because own education is not, as far as I am concerned, tantamount to apartheid education. If the hon member’s statement were true, it would mean that Belgium, the United Kingdom and Switzerland also had apartheid education. In fact, it would also mean that at present there was a movement in favour of apartheid education in the USA as well. It is very interesting to note what is occurring in the USA at the moment as regards the desire for separate schools for the Spanish-speaking, etc. I shall leave my response to the hon member at that.

I should like to revert to the Bill and make a few comments on it. The standing committee heard evidence across a very broad spectrum. Witnesses represented the organised teaching profession, the Joint Matriculation Board, the Committee of University Principals, the Committee of Technikon Principals, etc. I should like to thank all persons and institutions involved in furnishing evidence to the standing committee. I think some of them were under great pressure because they were not warned long in advance but it had to take place at short notice. The evidence was of great value to the committee in enabling them to obtain a broader perspective on this subject. I should therefore like to thank them.

The object of the Bill is the institution of the same norms and standards of education and examination for all pupils in the Republic of South Africa. In this regard, there are specifically three points on which the standing committee consulted at length. One of these was the question of the issue of a single certificate by the SA Certification Council. This would mean that in future we would have a certificate issued by the Certification Council and in which no specific reference would appear to an educational or examining institution. This was done in an effort to carry out the objective of the Bill in particular. The standing committee considered it most seriously and decided it was a way of declaring that we wished to achieve the object of equal standards in South Africa.

I concede the fact that one certificate issued by the Certification Council is not the final answer to the demand for equal standards. It is not an instant magic wand which will ensure it. Nevertheless that document will be of enormous symbolic significance to the other population groups in the country as well.

The second point to which I wish to refer which was addressed by the standing committee is the composition of the Certification Council. The possibility was considered to constitute the council in such a way that it would be representative of the various sectors served by education in South Africa. Another possible method was to obtain names for submission to the Minister which would then be bound to provide various sectors with representation on the Council in that way.

In its treatment of this specific aspect the standing committee took into consideration that, if the Certification Council were to be bound to representative persons serving on that council on behalf of specific bodies, it could not act in its own right as an independent autonomous body capable of exercising decisions concerning these aspects. The various members of the council would then continually be bound to go back to their empowering constituent bodies. For that reason the standing committee judged that it would be preferable for us not to carry out that principle in the constitution of the Certification Council.

A further problem the standing committee encountered was the fact that, as soon as consideration had to be given to the inclusion of particular bodies in the constitution of the Certification Council, one had to ask oneself who one included or excluded because it would be impossible to have a Certification Council which could work capably and effectively if it was too large. If the principle were to be followed of granting representation to all, it would ultimately result in a number of members which would make it a clumsy, ineffectual body.

That was the reason why the standing committee reverted to the point of departure of keeping the council as small as possible, especially for the sake of effectiveness but with a very strict condition of expertise regarding the appointment of members to the council. This has been incorporated in the Bill.

In addition, the standing committee effected an amendment to the original Bill to make provision for the Minister to extend invitations to the general public and also specifically to bodies concerned in it or which feel concerned to enable them to make submissions to the Minister in the consideration of his appointment of the members of the Certification Council. In other words it is a open invitation to all interested parties who will then be able to make submissions to the Minister regarding names he may consider. The central concept remains that expertise will be the decisive factor in such appointments.

The third aspect to which I want to refer and which the standing committee addressed is the question of one examination. Perhaps I had better first sketch the background of the need for one examination. Arising from the desire and the requirement expressed by some members of the standing committee, it became clear that one examination at national level, for instance, could arguably satisfy a need in the striving for one central executive education department.

As far as this concerns the relevant subject, I do not now wish to examine the merits of the argument in depth to one side or the other but the question of one examination was identified by the standing committee as a way of implementing the objectives of the Certification Council more easily, which are equal standards.

For this reason an empowering provision was written into the Bill to provide that, if the respective Ministers responsible for education could reach agreement on it, whether on their own initiative or at the request of the respective examining bodies, implementation could be given to one examination, for instance, on a regional, provincial or even national basis.

That is why the standing committee decided not to make this a mandatory provision in the Bill—because regarding this point there are obviously various practical considerations which one also has to consider at the present stage—but to insert an empowering provision as contained in clause 10 of the Bill to provide that, if it were decided in this way, an examination might well be set at the various levels I mentioned.

I consider this a method certainly worthy of recommendation when various examining bodies and the Ministers reach agreement on it. As a result, the standing committee also stated in its report that the intention was for this to be used if so agreed.

I shall not pause any longer at the Bill as such. Other hon members of the standing committee will certainly deal with other aspects of it. In conclusion, I take pleasure in saying I think that ultimately this is a Bill which on the one hand fulfilled our requirement as politicians to reach concensus between the three Houses of Parliament and simultaneously also fulfils the requirements of educations on the other. For that reason we may say we should be happy and satisfied that it is a good Bill.

I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is the first of four pieces of educational legislation which we shall probably be discussing in the course of the afternoon, this evening and tomorrow. There is still the Universities Amendment Bill, the Certification Council for Technikon Education Bill and also the Technikons (National Education) Amendment Bill. We shall probably, at some later stage, have other Bills that will have to fall in with this educational programme being instituted by the Government.

I must say that I found the discussions in the standing committee very interesting. The hon member for Johannesburg West, who is the chairman of the standing committee, saw matters from his point of view and, as far as his party was concerned, did his work well. He created an atmosphere in which the various party could openly discuss their questions and problems. I personally did not, of course, participate very extensively in the discussions because I disagreed with the Bill in principle, as I shall indicate at a later stage. Let me tell the hon the Minister, however, that in his capacity as chairman he did very good work.

The officials who were present, in particular the Director-General, were of great help to us, and this help was extended to us with a dignity that one is glad to encounter in the field of education. The hon the Minister can also feel very satisfied with and proud of the quality of the officials serving him. I also want to join the hon member for Bryanston in extending my personal thanks for the way in which the officials assisted us.

That is more or less the introduction. I now want to come to the other matters. In the first paragraph of his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister more or less sketched the milieu embodying his educational principles and standpoints. I just want to repeat this to refresh the memory of hon members of the House. The hon the Minister said:

In other words, the initial terms of reference were issued to the HSRC at a time when we in the CP were still members of the governing party. The White Paper, which subsequently appeared in 1983 and was tabled by the Government, was published and made available at a time when the right-wing element, the conservative element, of the NP was no longer part of the NP.

Looking back at the terms of reference issued to the HSRC at the time, I think that if I had then been aware of what was subsequently going to take place in the political sphere, my response would probably have been very different to what it is today. So let me tell the hon the Minister of National Education quite frankly that the terms of reference to the HSRC about the so-called in-depth investigation into all the facets of education were issued against the background of a time in the NP’s history when the left-wing element had already gained control of the old NP.

In my view the subsequent investigation by the HSRC was instituted and conducted exclusively with a view to preparing the way—in this case that of education—for the so-called new South Africa which the NP had at the back of its mind even then.

The NP was planning for a new South Africa in which there would, in the political sphere, be power-sharing up to the highest level, the Government envisaging a new nation with one fatherland, one Parliament and all that entails. Even then they intended that this should be part of their future political philosophy in South Africa. Viewing the situation in retrospect, I have no doubt about that today.

The pieces of legislation we are going to deal with today and at some future time, including the legislation on education that is pending, are small cogs in the machine, and no matter how small those cogs may be, they are cogs enabling the NP’s machine of integration to make the new South Africa, which it wants to create, a reality and to keep that machine functioning. [Interjections.]

That is why the CP is opposing this legislation. We are opposing it in principle. One would not like to move an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months in the case every Bill that is introduced, but we nevertheless feel so strongly about this that we would have done so if there had not been a whole series of such Bills. The House must accept, however, that we feel very strongly about education and are therefore opposing this Bill.

We are not opposing this legislation because we, too, do not want a certification body within the educational system for a specific people. We are not opposing it because we do not want very high norms and standards for the children and the system of education of our own people, or because we begrudge such high norms and standards to other population groups with their own systems of education, norms and standards which also enable them, as members of the Third World, or at whatever stage of development they happen to be in the history of their own people, to achieve the greatest possible heights and participate fully in the modern world in which we are living.

The very opposite is true, since the CP, with its view about the solution to the problems of Southern Africa, specifically wants to create a lebensraum, a climate, a milieu, in which we can give of our best to the children of the respective peoples of Southern Africa. In great measure we want to create norms and standards that can compete with the best in the world at large. Not only must this apply to Southern Africa and to Africa, but also to the rest of the world.

We shall, in any event, never be part and parcel of the process of trying to force education in South Africa into one unitary dispensation. The Government and the hon members of the PFP, and also other hon members, including those of the other Houses and the other population groups of South Africa, must have no doubt about that. In saying that, however, we are also saying that we do not begrudge other peoples the achievement of the highest possible standards and norms.

I want to quote the hon the Minister a single paragraph illustrating a standpoint that I, too, can endorse. I am specifically saying this to lay the basic foundation on which we can build our educational policy. I want to quote the following to the hon the Minister, and he must tell me whether he disagrees with it. This also applies to any other hon members in this House. I quote:

This is very important:

I would very much like to know whether the hon members of the NP, the governing party, disagree with this fundamental point of departure of the author of this document which I do, in fact, support. [Interjections.] Let me, however, leave it at that for the moment.

This hon Minister is the leader of the NP in the Transvaal and has a very great responsibility to the White children in the Transvaal, if I may speak about the Transvaal. Let me tell the hon the Minister that I have gained the impression, following his political career over the past few years, as I have done, that he is a “terribly unwilling participant”; that unwillingly he has willingly been taken in tow by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] I really cannot believe that in his heart of hearts this hon Minister is not, at times, unwilling to be taken in tow by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

Education is an integral part of an ethnic organism, and if it wants self-determination, a people must have it in regard to every facet of life, and this includes self-determination in the sphere of education. One can obtain knowledge from others; one can obtain knowledge about others. Others can obtain some of one’s own knowledge and they can obtain knowledge about one without one thereby losing one’s self-determination. This system into which the hon the Minister and his Government is forcing us, is enslaving education at all levels. It is enslaving all individuals who are involved in education, the child, the teacher, the parent, the lecturer—everyone who is involved. [Interjections.] I shall present my argument to the hon member in the course of my speech.

Are you going to speak for much longer?

Yes, very much longer and I am not going to stop today either. God willing, the hon member is still going to hear a lot more from me. [Interjections.]

I want to bring the hon the Minister back to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, because I made the statement—and it is true—that education has to be adapted to the political dispensation that the Government wants in South Africa. In the course of this week I said that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made the following remarks to student leaders at Stellenbosch. He said:

The hon the Minister was here the other day when I quoted this. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning went on to state:

As far as I am concerned, that is not reform, but I am now using their terminology:

The hon the Minister’s colleague said that, and he is the one who is in the vangaurd of the so-called political reform in South Africa. Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning went on to say:

He originally wrote “apartheid”, but then deleted this and wrote:

I must now tell the hon the Minister that his colleague is therefore saying that there is going to be power-sharing with all the groups in South Africa.

It has already happened.

The hon member says it has already happened.

I would just like the NP to convene another congress and explain to us in detail how they are going to achieve this.

Particularly in Natal. [Interjections.]

Particularly in Klip River. The hon member Dr Vilonel would do well to accompany me or my colleague, the hon member for Sasolburg, to Klip River and explain to the people in detail how they are going to achieve this. [Interjections.] Let me, however, leave the hon member Dr Vilonel there. [Interjections.]

In the light of what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, let us have a look at how this affects this proposed SA Certification Council. In the NP’s terminology use is being made of words such as “individuals” or “persons” here in Southern Africa. I listened carefully to the hon the Minister and to the hon member for Johannesburg West. The NP regards all the peoples in South Africa—White, Black and Coloured—jointly as part of one South African nation. They regard the respective population groups, or “peoples”, as they wish to call them, all as minority groups within a larger whole. The NP is therefore saying that there are minority groups in South Africa that must jointly form one nation.

Whether the Government uses the concept “nation” or “people”, education remains an important facet of that nation which it wishes to have in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister says that a minority group should be subordinate to the whole. It is very clear to me that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has more or less come back to Genl Smuts’s Holism and Evolution, because he regards us as one part of a greater whole, and the interests of a minority group must be subservient to those of all the others. On that basis I asked, in regard to Natal, whether the interests of the Whites, who form a minority group there, must be subservient to those of the greater whole in which the Zulu’s and the others are in the majority. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon the Minister that there is no such thing as own education. The education of the Whites is subservient to that of the broader whole, as proposed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development Planning then replied to me, summing up what was contained in the NP’s constitution. He said:

Let me now tell the hon the Minister of National Education that his hon colleague is performing all kinds of acrobatic tricks in South Africa. His tricks, however, are progressively diminishing. His political somersaults in South Africa are increasingly diminishing, because he takes a part of his act from the NP’s programme of principles relating to membership of the NP. As far as membership of the party is concerned, the NP’s policy is:

But surely that is the principle involved.

No, there is a very great difference when membership of a party is involved and between power-sharing with other peoples one’s own people is numerically the weaker component. According to the hon the Minister’s view which he has expressed in the House, he does not allow a Coloured or Indian to become a member of his party. According to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the hon the Minister, however, makes White education subservient to the education of the South African nation as a whole. The Government—and hence the hon the Minister—therefore lends itself to the enslavement of White education as a result of the power-sharing of White education with Black, Coloured and Indian education.

The fact that this legislation has been the subject of discussion in the standing committee since last year—that was a multiracial standing committee—is surely proof of the fact that the Whites do not have their own system of education. We are made subject to a multiracial standing committee, a multiracial Cabinet, and as far as norms, standards and financial matters are concerned, we are subject to general legislation. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—I do not know where he is, because he is not here at present—that they should stop travelling the length and breadth of the country telling the trusting Whites, and particularly the Afrikaners, that there is any such as own education. White education in Southern Africa is subject to multiracial structures in the political and educational spheres.

And is that not true?

From clause 4 of the Bill it appears that this council will not be composed solely of Whites; there is not a Zulu or a Venda Council either. It is, after all, a mixed council. I see the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid is here. He is one of the front-runners in the NP’s left wing when it comes to introducing mixed education or integration in education.

What you are saying is not true.

It is true; the hon the Deputy Minister said so himself. The hon the Deputy Minister must not deny this in the White House. Left-wing members say this to the Black people when they hold discussions with them.

What grounds do you have for saying that?

I am saying it because I know what the hon the Deputy Minister said. [Interjections.]

If we analyse the functions of the council, it is very clear what this is all leading to. In this connection let me quote from clause 9(1) of the Bill which sets out the functions of the council:

1. (a) complies with the requirements which may be prescribed by the council for conducting examinations with a view to the obtaining of certificates;
2. (b) applies the norms and standards which may be prescribed by the council and with which a candidate is required to comply in those examinations in order to obtain the certificate;
3. (c) offers or causes to be offered such subject matter as may be prescribed by the council with a view to the obtaining of certificates.

In other words, this White education is now being subjected to multiracialism. Hon members may ask the chairman of the standing committee about this, but the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that the demands of the Blacks, in regard to the important issues, were acceded to. According to the standing committee, and also the statements of the hon the Minister’s colleagues, Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, it is clear that the demands made by the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, as the hon member for Bryanston has said, are for a completely open community.

The hon member for Johannesburg West referred to the tension in the standing committee which he temporarily alleviated, and he knows that the demands that the Coloureds, Indians and Black people made were for a completely open society and completely open schools. The arguments of the hon the Minister’s hon colleagues in the Cabinet are that one cannot have equal standards and norms whilst having separate schools. The hon member for Bryanston later said more or less the same thing. The prerequisite for open schools is that legislation on separate residential areas should be abolished.

Now the National Party has relinquished its own principles of separateness. It has rejected those principles and accepted the principles of communality. I have put it here today to the hon the Minister of National Education—he is free to make these pronouncements to his congresses or to the right-wing elements that still remain in the ranks of the National Party—that separate schools and separate residential areas are non-negotiable. What I am saying here today, however, is that the National Party will not be able to retain its so-called non-negotiables. [Interjections.] At the congress held here in the Cape one of the foremost members of the National Party in the Cape, Mr Jannie Momberg, argued in favour of open residential areas. At the Natal congress recently, however, none other than ex-Minister Jan Haak stood up and apparently also advocated grey areas.

Apparently? So you are not quite sure, are you?

Well, if that is not the case, the report in Die Burger is inaccurate. [Interjections.]

What are things like in practice, however?

I now want to turn, however, to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has now come to light with the absurd argument that certain street blocks in White areas should simply be declared group areas for other races. He even advocates a single block of flats being declared a specific group area. I should now like to know from him how, in the long run, he is going to retain separate schools for the respective population groups. I am thinking, for example, of the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Bellville and all the other very left-wing hon members of the National Party…

The hon member for Geduld!

Yes, the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid too. Not one of them would stand up and tell me that they still regard separate residential areas as being non-negotiable. The left wing of the National Party does not want it! They are already arguing, at their congresses, in favour of open schools and open residential areas. I should then like to know how the National Party can still retain separate education and self-determination in the sphere of education as a non-negotiable element. There is simply no longer any such thing! As surely as day follows night, those hon members know that the National Party does not intend to maintain separate residential areas and separate primary and secondary schools.

At a later stage, when we are dealing with legislation in regard to universities, I shall be indicating how the National Party has already jettisoned the principle of own universities. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education can move from one platform to another, but his credibility, when it comes to the assurances he has given the Whites, is in tatters. It is in tatters! This so-called certification council is being established, and in some or other way—how he managed it, I do not know—the hon the Minister has thus far succeeded in convincing his colleagues in the other two Houses to participate in this venture. I put it to the hon the Minister today that what he has in store are the problems he is going to encounter no later than next year or the year after. They accept it now, and the hon the Minister has been able to convince the standing committee, which represents the left-wing element, to agree to this unanimously. I put it to the hon the Minister now, however, that the Coloureds and the Indians are not going to stop there, just as the PFP is not simply going to stop trying to eliminate separate schools either.

That is quite right, too!

Yes, I know it is right. I am quite right. Therefore I can contend with certainty that the National Party has jettisoned every old principle on the basis of which it differed with the former United Party. That is specifically why the National Party can now agree with the PFP on every principle that it previously defended. The National Party no longer adheres to a single one of those former principles.

That was not the impression I gained when listening to Horace’s speech!

I must say the hon member for Bryanston is very lucky. When I look at hon members of the PFP, it is clear to me that they are all very happy. They are not even putting up a candidate in the Klip River by-election. Nor is the National Party putting up candidates in the by-elections in the two PFP constituencies here in the Peninsula. [Interjections.]

The Progs in Klip River are going to vote for the National Party! [Interjections.]

Well, I must say…[Interjections.]

In Springs the Progs voted for the National Party too! [Interjections.]

Yes, and in Pinelands and Claremont the Nats are going to vote for the Progs. [Interjections.]

Our candidate in Klip River is Mr Chris Wolmarans.

He is standing for the HNP!

Yes, he is standing for the HNP, but he is a friend of mine.

He is nevertheless a good candidate!

Oh, yes, he is a good candidate! He and I have already held joint meetings. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brits will remember that he was the deputy chairman of our student council. He is a good and intelligent fellow. [Interjections.]

For the record, and for the debates to be conducted at a later stage, I want to indicate what the CP’s education policy is. In this connection let me quote from our programme of principles. These days a new fad is manifesting itself—when one or two Nats turn up at our meetings—and that is that we are asked what our policy really is. Then we are told that we offer no alternative. I usually have two booklets in my pocket, however—one is the Conservative Party’s programme of principles, and the other the National Party’s programme of principles. We then compare the two, and let me tell hon members that the CP spells out its principles and policy much more clearly than the old NP spelled out its policy and principles. Let me now ask that hon Minister—he is a provincial leader—to send me a written copy of the NP’s principles and policy and also their education policy in South Africa.

Chris first has to give it to him.

For the sake of our old friends sitting on that side of the House, those erstwhile colleagues of ours now sitting here…

Our old brothers. [Interjections.]

Let me quote the CP’s education policy from our Programme of Principles and Policy. It reads:

1. 3.1 Die party erken en eerbiedig
   1. (a) Die Blanke se reg om sy eie onderwysstelsel te bepaal met behoud van die beginsels van:
      1. (i) Christelik-nasionale onderwys;
      2. (ii) en in besonder moedertaalonderwys.
   2. (b) Die reg van elke ander volk om sy eie onderwysstelsel uit te werk.
2. 3.2 Dit is derhalwe die party se standpunt dat elke volk se onderwysowerheid, onderwyskundige struktuur, onderwysvoorsiening en onderwysinstellings tot op tersiêre vlak op die grondslag van eie verantwoordelikheid en afsonderlikheid uitgebou moet word. Vermenging in die formele, informele en nie-formele onderwys is nie aanvaarbaar nie.

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, that hon member for Rissik and I will eventually become good friends because we are talking to each other a great deal, and yesterday we both had untidy hair whereas it is neatly combed today. [Interjections.]

Sir, allow me also to congratulate the hon the Minister, the Director-General, and the chairman of that standing committee as well as the members of the committee. I must say when one had sat in that standing committee for days on end, one realised that we had a wonderful future in South Africa. If we exercise a bit of patience we will be able to reach consensus. I think in this case I must congratulate the chairman on the way in which he handled the committee. We became despondent time and again, but eventually we found common ground and I thank him for that.

Now I want to react to the behaviour of the hon member for Rissik. That hon member has become known for arriving at the meetings of standing committees, greeting us one by one and then disappearing. He does not want to talk to us; he does not want to give us his solution to the problem. That is what I hold against the hon member. He says they disagree fundamentally with us in the NP, but he does not want to speak to us and tell us how he will try to solve the problem. The present situation is after all untenable. Education differences and the backlog of the education of people of colour, specifically that of the Blacks, will have to be faced up to. I wanted the hon member to talk about that, but he did not want to talk about that. [Interjections.] He says he wants to talk about the days of Jan van Riebeeck, but we want to talk about today—1986.

He accuses us of power-sharing, etc, but it is a fact that we are not ashamed of this or afraid of it either. We say frankly that we are grateful to the other population groups who want to work out a plan with us to share power in South Africa so that we can all have an opportunity to participate in the Government. This is what our voters are making plain to us. [Interjections.]

Sir, that hon member for Langlaagte who is so blown up must just be careful he does not explode when he starts to speak so suddenly.

All that is important to you is the abyss in which you are sitting. You are a Prog and you belong there. [Interjections.]

The hon member must continue to keep himself busy, but perhaps he must keep calm for a while.

At least I am not like you who betrayed the people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte has made a great many interjections now. The hon member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte entitled to say to another hon member that he has betrayed his people? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Yes, Mr Chairman; and the hon the Minister who has just risen to his feet has also done so because he told me he would leave this Parliament if the Blacks came in.

Order! I have now called for order three times and the hon member must please pay attention.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon member withdraws it, but he must also apologise…

To the Chairman, yes.

No, the hon member must also apologise to the members because that was a personal insult.

No, sorry; I will not apologise to them.

Then the hon member is disregarding the authority of the Chair and must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If a person tells one that he will leave this Parliament if a Black comes in here … It is a traitor who allows Blacks in here.

Order! The hon member must withdraw from the Chamber. The alternative is that I shall have to take further steps.

[Whereupon the hon member for Langlaagte withdrew from the Chamber],

[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May hon members taunt the hon member for Langlaagte while he is withdrawing from the Chamber, as the hon member Mr Vermeulen did?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect I submit that it is extremely important that an hon member must be protected when he withdraws from this Chamber because he may not defend himself. Now he is being taunted in a disgraceful and cowardly manner.

Order! I say that it is not a point of order. The hon member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it essential for an hon member to apologise to other hon members when he does in fact withdraw a word he has said?

If the Chair orders him to do so he must do so. The Chair thinks it is quite fair to apologise to hon members if they are personally insulted.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Jeppe referred to me and said I had made a disgraceful remark. He must please tell me what I said that was disgraceful.

Order! We cannot have a debate on this now. The hon member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is quite clear to us that the hon member for Rissik spoke today with an eye on the by-election which is under way in Klip River at the moment. They are not doing too well there. I hear the HNP candidate represented here in the House, the hon member for Sasolburg, held a meeting there which was very well advertised. He was so disappointed because only 60 people attended the meeting that he fetched his colleague, Eugéne Terre’Blanche. He lost his voice and they were still unable to draw a large crowd. Consequently I do not think matters are going as well as they would like to suggest they are.

The hon member for Rissik is now telling the people of Klip River that the NP is going to abolish the group areas—he is a soothsayer or prophet—and that the schools are going to be mixed. He is trying to play off two of our most important Ministers against one another. He knows very well he capitulates when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gets up here to speak. If the hon the Minister of National Education gets up to speak here the hon member for Rissik also capitulates. But now he is trying to play them off against one another. But we forgive him because we understand this is the message he would like to convey to the people in Klip River, but his message is not true.

He says he strongly opposes this legislation. The CP is trying to force things onto people which are not feasible. People are starting to think and say the position with regard to the education of other peoples in South Africa is unsatisfactory and we must do something about it. We say we are going to do something about it.

The hon the Minister said he was going to put this matter right within a period of 10 years. Now I want to say clearly what is going to happen. The hon the Minister said he was going to try to bring the education of each group in the country—the Blacks, the Coloureds and Indians—up to the same level as that of the Whites within a period of 10 years. What we demand for ourselves, we do not begrudge others.

It is not true that we want to lower the standard of the Whites; we want the people of colour to improve to the standard where the Whites are at the moment. We do not begrudge the Whites and everyone in South Africa an even higher standard of education. This is the recipe we are in favour of in South Africa.

The hon member for Rissik, who does not want to listen now, says that he is going to divide the 10 million Black people who are in White South Africa at present into compartments. He is going to distribute them or shift them with might and main, and they do not know where he is going to shift them to.

The CP does not want to accept the realities of South Africa, they want to discriminate openly and they begrudge people of colour what they themselves have. After all they know the physical separation of peoples is nothing but a story they are trying to tell the voters of Klip River, but it is not feasible.

We are really trying to face up to the problems of South Africa. We know what is important to the people. That south Africa. To every parent the education of his child is the most important, and he will make sacrifices and go hungry for this, because he wants his child to have a better life and a better future than he himself had. We understand this about every person, and this is what we are trying to make a reality by means of this legislation. We want to afford every person, irrespective of his colour, the opportunity that, as far as his education and examination is concerned, his employer know that he is getting a product of a constant value.

Is the hon member for Rissik suggesting that White education is going to become subordinate to the education of the other groups? I do not know whether the hon member does not understand properly, but it is not a matter of subordination. The education of the Whites and of every other group is important to us, but the interests of South Africa as a whole are of even greater importance than the interests of each separate group.

The hon member says White education is going to be subordinate to Black education. I do not even want to reply to that, because it is not true.

To every parent the education of his child is of the greatest importance, and it is the dream of every parent that his child will face the future well equipped. This applies to every parent in the world, and particularly in South Africa. Every parent wants higher and better living conditions for his child than he had himself. This is the highest priority, particularly in the coloured group. The Black people who hey have at present.

That is why education is so important and a politically explosive sphere. Every person should be able to see that certain Black groups can agree with us as Whites in all spheres, but the education of their children is an important sphere where they can turn against us if we do not handle it with sensitivity. This is a matter we must put right.

Also when they bum down their schools?

I am not talking about the radicals now, but about reasonable Black people who want peace in South Africa, who want to earn their living and live in peace like that hon member. That hon member makes the big mistake of thinking that all Black people are radical; that is not true. [Interjections.]

That is why education is an important and politically explosive sphere. We realise education is at present one of the most important problems in South Africa, and everyone must understand this. When one talks to Black people they say that the education of their children is important to them. They want equal opportunities, and that is why this South African Certification Council Bill is so important. We are achieving an important step in the right direction and hon members should congratulate the hon the Minister for having made such good progress in this regard.

As I have said, the objectives of the Certification Council are to have the same standards for education and examination and place them at the same level. The guarantee for every, irrespective who he is, hands to him. An employer is very disappointed when he finds that certificate does not reflect the level of education of the child. After all it is the priority of an employer to take the pupil from the best institution, and perhaps to look for the best pupil. Now the guarantee is being given that every institution in South Africa which provides education is being placed at the same level with regard to certain aspects.

In the second place the Certification Council guarantees equal opportunities to work seekers. The time has passed when we in South Africa had to measure the achievement of a person by the colour of his skin. His ability must be decisive, and in my opinion this is the key to peace in South Africa, because it ensures that we can bring people of colour into the free enterprise system so that they can also reap the benefits of it.

In the third place the Council guarantees equal opportunities for education. It is important for the Black man to be able to go to his school and receive an equal education, something which does not exist at the moment and is a problem. The hon the Minister has admitted and has faced up to the fact that he must put this right, but he says the backlog is so great. As a result of historic circumstances the backlog has become so great that it will take 10 years to make it up.

A large percentage of the teachers in the Black schools of South Africa at the moment, are people with low qualifications. The department is trying to improve the qualifications of those teachers in as short a period as possible but, particularly in certain remote areas, what is available is not comparable with that of other population groups. I am talking about the structures now.

But the most important is the person standing in front of the class, who may have a Std 8 or a matriculation certificate. The ideal is that they must all have a matriculation certificate plus three years’ training, but this is not so easy to achieve in a short period.

That is why we, the hon the Minister and those of us involved in education, may have to take a look at this. We will have to make use of the best trained teachers available at present. As a temporary measure to solve this problem we may have to give serious consideration in the present set-up where there are too many White teachers, particularly women teachers who were temporary staff and no longer have an income and post, to making these people available to train Black people. This must take place with the permission of Black people, and they will agree to this, because they want to see to the best interests of their children.

I come from the rural areas, and there are many farm schools and also many farmers’ wives who are well qualified; ie they have matric plus three years’ training. At the farm school at present there may be two or three women teachers with let us say a Std 8 qualification. If one of those farmers’ wives could go into that school, do hon members realise what effect that would have on that school, the children and the teachers? The standard will immediately be raised, and what is more the problems existing in Black education with regard to many things will actually be eliminated by the participation of these White teachers who become part of that school.

In South Africa such teachers are already being used at the request of the Black people. Well qualified White women undertake the education of their children in their schools with extremely good results and with the great appreciation of the Black community.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, we were a little nonplussed at the absence now of the speaker before the adjournment for dinner, but in view of the time, perhaps he felt that his speech had been completed. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, we are happy to continue with this debate.

May I add to what the previous speaker said by saying that the experience of being a member of the standing committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Johannesburg West was a very pleasant one. He displayed immense ability in respect of a difficult Bill, and his own attitude towards differing opinions and certain deadlocks which arose and about which I shall say more in due course, really stamped him as a man of the future in the NP. [Interjections.] I hope they will listen to my advice…

When are you going to join the Nats?

We are not Nationalists. That is another debate altogether.

But they are not Nats. They are “Saps”. [Interjections.]

I am going to talk a little about that just now. [Interjections.] It has also been mentioned that the Director-General, Dr Roe Venter, was a tower of strength, and I must say that the manner in which he repeatedly provided an overview of the subject under discussion in a very calm and erudite manner was of immense use to the committee. I must say that with the Director-General and the chairman together there was a very powerful and effective source of consensus-making in this committee.

It has not been said, and I know it is not normally said between parties—I am wrong there: It was said in the standing committee, but it has not been said in this House—but I think that another person who deserves mention for his in-depth knowledge and technical ability in respect of these Bills is the hon member for Pinetown. I think at times he tested hon members’ patience to the limit because of his doggedness in making a point, but I think every hon member recognises the input which he made in this committee.

This committee started nearly a year ago. I think we assembled for the first time in Pretoria during August, and then, after deciding on the hearing of evidence, we proceeded. Ultimately we reached a stage where there were really three points in the Bill around which the whole discussion revolved. They were the question of the same certificates being issued by the Certification Council, the composition of the council itself and the question of one examination.

Whilst two have been resolved to a certain extent—certainly, the council is not perfect, but it is a compromise and a consensus decision—I should like to say a little about the third point I mentioned which is the question of the same examination. Despite all the discussions and the meeting of the hon the Minister with the standing committee on a semi-formal basis to discuss this point, I have not yet quite understood why it was impossible to have a suitable clause in the Bill as an identical examination could be easily attained within regions. What we have really achieved with this Bill is not that we are back where we were in 1948 or years subsequent thereto. I mark 1948 as the year the NP came onto the scene in the post-war era…

The old National Party!

Yes, I will talk about the old NP in a moment because I am coming to a point the hon member for Rissik made concerning nationalism in relation to education. In those years, in each province all South Africans wrote one examination. There was no problem with that; in fact, there was a great deal of pride in the differences between the Cape, the Orange Free State, Natal and Transvaal. We have not actually achieved that in this Bill yet. We have achieved the situation where, in terms of clause 10 of the Bill, on page 9—

The Ministers only “may” agree to a common examination. I would have liked to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly whether, faced with such an approach from his counterparts in the other two Houses, he would in fact be inclined towards agreeing to the writing of a joint examination within a region or a departmental area. It seems to me that, when one grants Ministers that right, the problem will not lie in the other two Houses but might well lie in the House of Assembly. The question is whether, our Minister of Education and Culture will be in a position politically—not otherwise—to take that bold step of agreeing to one examination within the region concerned.

Having granted that right to those Ministers to make that decision, obviously one has a situation where that Minister is really faced with the rebuttal of the reasons why we could not have used the word “shall” instead of “may” in this clause. That would have put the position entirely within context where, on agreement being reached, those Ministers “shall” arrange for a common examination. One wonders why it was such a traumatic step for the governing party to take. I would ask the hon the Minister whether a Minister, as of now, without further legislation, does not in fact have the right simply to copy the syllabus used by the Education Department of another House of Parliament without any further legislative authority if it is his wish to use exactly the same syllabus that the Education Department of the other House of Parliament uses. In such a situation they would therefore ultimately be able to set the same examination by simply copying that examination. So, without any permission at all, and simply by following a trend within one House or another and looking at the norms and standards applied in that education syllabus, they could present identical syllabi and then set the same examination. It appears to me that they are free to do that in any case. For that reason one fails to understand the trauma of the NP as to why it represented such an enormous step that, when two Houses agree, they would be obliged to present the same examination. We know what the technical and practical difficulties are, of course. It is, however, the principle of the matter that we are discussing now.

I would say that perhaps the reason lies in what was said here before dinner by the hon member for Rissik. The hon member for Rissik—putting aside many of the historical and party-principle aspects of the issue—clearly said one thing, to me at least and, I believe, to other hon members left of the Government, and that was that own affairs education on a Christian national basis was actually a source of the development of Afrikaner “nasionalisme”. It was one of the ways of developing a political awareness round about the culture and the political aspirations of the Afrikaners.

Like the English private schools.

Yes, but do not forget that they are private. They are not funded by the State.

They are subsidised.

They are now subsidised. However, the point he was making is a very real one and the CP members have seen that, with a breakdown in that ability to produce a person who thinks in a certain direction, there will be a certain loss of control.

We view the matter in an entirely different way. We believe that a freer type of education and an greater ability to think for oneself would place people in South Africa in a position to meet the challenges of the future while facing the reality of a multicultural society and of the world with a far more balanced point of view and a point of view which included all South Africans of whatever colour.

A private school gets the same results.

No, not at all. That is an interesting point, though. [Interjections.] That is an interesting point because there is a very clear difference. In our community we do not have the same situation where members lack individuality in respect of church, school, politics, commerce, etc. There is a far greater degree of independence in that respect.

The hon member Mr Theunissen talks about private schools doing the same thing. One can go to a private English speaking school and one will find there a total spectrum of thought and attitudes toward politics, commerce, religion, etc. The person thinks in terms of what impact that educational input has had on him and he makes his own decision, whereas the hon member for Rissik was talking about the fears of a breakdown in Afrikaner nationalism by virtue of a lack of control over the educational system.

We in this party do not have any fears for the Afrikaans culture. We see it as a great part of South Africa—the language, the traditions and the history—and we believe it has so many positive attributes and aspects with which it can serve South Africa, which are there for the taking, and it does not need protection or legislation for that to be made real.

On that point, the hon member for Bryanston, who is not here this evening, mentioned the question of leaving it in the hands of the community. That is an interesting statement because, if one is to take into account the total community of South Africa, then one must take into account a very large, strong and dedicated Afrikaans-speaking community in different provinces, who have different attitudes and approaches to our history and our passage through life. I would say that, when talking about leaving it in the hands of the community, one has to acknowledge that one of the most severe conflicts in this country would come from a system in which one disallowed a community to have separate education. I do not mean separate in the hard sense of the old NP approach where it is imposed upon one, but where the community had that right.

If one is going to ask communities to decide upon their educational requirements, then certainly the hon member for Bryanston, who spoke about this, was talking about the flexibility and tolerance now and in South Africa’s history which goes hand in glove with this party’s attitude which is encapsulated in the concept of local option. We know that local option in respect of residential matters is something at which the Government is having a look, and it is axiomatic that will flow over to educational matters. We believe that it is a more tolerant and, in fact, a more purist, liberal approach when people are given the right of choice and of association in our present situation in this country, in a very heterogeneous society, than the principled approach as put forward by the PFP, which we believe would bring about conflict.

I recall once again the evening when we met with the hon the Minister and that hon member made an impassionate plea for local option in education.

You should join them then.

No, they should join us.

They should join us!

I am sure the hon the Minister will remember that. The appeal was perhaps made far better than any of our members could have made it, but it was a very sincere plea for the introduction of a system which would, without conflict, allow communities to have the right to negotiate and decide through the parent bodies on the nature of their schools.

We have had the situation in the Cape recently where four big, well-known schools, steeped in tradition as educational facilities within their communities, have asked for that right. I think this House will have to take note of those people’s attitudes towards education very soon.

Furthermore, I think the party sitting in those benches, which has been well represented by the hon member for Bryanston, will have to acknowledge that one cannot just go bald-headedly at the question of integrating our society in a manner which will bring about more conflict than we already have. [Interjections.]

There he is, fraternising with Hendrik Schoeman, man.

Oh, there the hon member for Bryanston is. He is on the right side of the House now. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vryheid talked a little earlier about catching up on the “agterstand”. He did not really do justice to the question of education in South Africa. We in this party and the members on the standing committee acknowledge the tremendous strides which are being taken and the efforts being made to make progress. There was the White Paper on Education arising from the De Lange Commission and now we have this legislation which has been introduced by the hon the Minister. We acknowledge that it is not just an “agterstand”. It sounds rather as if it is a cultural situation brought about by themselves. The hon members in that party are all products of the educational system which the hon member for Rissik seeks to perpetuate. The members in that party grew up under the mantle of nationalism. We are going to fight…

Didn’t you too?

No, certainly not. We in this party are not Nationalists.

Didn’t we grow up in South Africa together?

We are not Nationalists, Sir. That is the difference between us.

We grew up in the same system and went to the same schools. [Interjections.]

No, Sir. [Interjections.] That hon Minister’s system developed Afrikaner nationalism. [Interjections.] All the hon members in that party who were brought up in that educational system have gone and are going through a traumatic period of withdrawal from that system when faced with the reality South Africa has to face. The trauma of hon members on those benches stems from their disbelief that is happening, but it is happening and they will not believe it. Other hon members have realised what is happening and they are withdrawing from it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Vryheid said they had to “haal in ’n agterstand”, but that does not reflect the true picture. The NP did not pluck up the courage in this Bill, they did not screw up the courage in this Bill—but they screwed up the education system—to make that final point in clause 10 that the Minister “shall” allow a common examination.

That is only because of the political fear within their own ranks, and on the part of hon members in the CP benches, resulting from the education which they have experienced. That is enough of an indictment against rigid separationist attitudes towards education. Unless that party can make up its mind about whether it still hangs on to nationalism or whether it is truly representative of South-Africanism in its moves towards an education system, we will always do just a little bit too little just too late. That is the choice they have to make; whether they are still nationalists…

Sectional nationalists.

We are Nationalists.

Are you still Afrikaner nationalists? [Interjections.] It has been a sectional, selfish policy which has not included all the different groups of South Africa. That is the problem of that party and that is the problem of this country. [Interjections.] It has been the scourge of this country and the Government has to make a final decision whether it supports South-Africanism or Nationalism.

Mr Chairman, as usual the hon member for King William’s Town began his speech at a very high pitch, but it became more and more moderate and ended on a false note. [Interjections.] The hon member also made very important contributions in the standing committee, however, for which we on this side of the House have great appreciation. We want to thank him for the inputs he made there. I shall return later to some of the hon member’s references, inter alia his reference to certain communities and groups.

Since the HSRC’s report on education, determining and setting norms and standards has come into prominence. The Government accepted the report in broad outline and laid particular emphasis on the importance of providing equal education for everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! There is an undertone of too many voices; the hon member definitely cannot speak any louder. The hon member may proceed.

I believe the step that was taken at the time was a wise and bold one. Pessimists and the more cynical people in politics, as well as some in the educational profession who say the objective we are striving for is an illusion, will be proved wrong. The Government has accepted the challenge of achieving this objective in an evolutionary way.

Let me say that already there has been a great degree of success in attaining this objective. Apart from a method of giving the various education bodies a sound stimulus, there were references to two other methods of dealing with education during the discussion about the methods.

The first method was the insistence on an immediate equalisation of all education methods and facilities, under the auspices of a single department of education. That is the system the PFP propagated throughout, and still propagate. If this demand had been met completely at the time, I believe education in South Africa would have been in a chaotic condition. Education is a process and not an event. It is a process of growth and development which has to develop firm and fixed roots, and must grow from there. It is not an event which will eradicate all the problems of the apparent backlog we are experiencing in South Africa with the establishment of a single department.

Apparent?

The education of the Whites—and specifically that of the Afrikaners—also went through this process of growth. We experienced it ourselves; we went through it ourselves. We ourselves experienced a backlog in the sphere of education, which could be overcome only by hard work and by the will to survive and by sheer persistence. Our own parents, and we ourselves, had to walk for miles to get to schools. Many of our parents had to leave school after standard four or standard six. At the time there was a lack of properly trained teachers. That period of struggle and strife in the Afrikaner’s education laid a firm foundation, however, for the present educational dispensation. I believe we are reaping the benefits today of a soundly conceived, deep-rooted and distinctive education, which is peculiar to the Afrikaner and the Whites.

That is why I have sympathy with the other groups in the country when they struggle and fight to obtain only the best for their education. I have full understanding for the way in which they are trying to get their education to a standard equal to that of the Whites. I believe it is their right to fight for that. That is why I also understand the protracted and almost incessant way—as was manifest in the standing committee proceedings—in which they are trying to negotiate a better Bill, as we have it before us today. At the same time, however, I believe we must also reject the demand for a kind of potpourri educational system, and come out against it. Education remains an own affair because it is peculiar to the cultural pattern it comes from.

But that is not true! You know it is not true! [Interjections.]

Surely we cannot dissociate ourselves from that as well. [Interjections.]

Another method that is used, is to take care only of oneself. That is why I reject every method which places an obstacle on the course of attaining the objective of equal norms and standards in education. The time when we as Whites had to be the planners and the legislators for other groups’ education has passed. A refusal to pass the measure under discussion, merely because people of colour will serve in the envisaged council, is a flagrant and obscure method of self-glorification, which surely we can no longer afford. If we demand a certain level of education for the Whites, which has to maintain certain standards, we must also be prepared to create proper opportunities by which other groups can attain those same standards.

With whose money? [Interjections.]

If, therefore, we make it possible by way of the Bill under discussion for one certificate to be issued to everyone, it means that the respective examining bodies will have to adapt to that and gear themselves to complying with specific requirements. It therefore places a greater responsibility on every examining body to ensure that these specific requirements are met. I understand that it will be difficult initially.

It is true that there is a certain backlog in Black education in particular, and also to an extent in Coloured education. The endeavour to eradicate this backlog is being hampered by the great number of entries to Black education and the non-availability of sufficient trained staff.

This Bill is going to make an extremely great demand on these groups in particular, a demand with which they will have to comply in their education. It will not only be a demand, however; it will also place a very great challenge and responsibility on them. I am full of confidence that they will accept this challenge and eventually overcome it.

I do not want to go into detail on the separate clauses.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Johannesburg West has already referred to the respective clauses. The most important must surely be clause 3, which defines the objectives of the council that is to be established. I quote it for the record:

That is very important, because for the first time all school leavers will have certificates of equal value.

Here I must mention the strong standpoint assumed by the members of the other two Houses in this connection.

So strong that you capitulated! [Interjections.]

For those of us who are attached to the provincial system of education, it was a rather traumatic experience to relinquish the respective provincial certificates—and we make no secret of that! We realised, however, that education must be served as a whole and that a uniform certificate was the appropriate thing. We are convinced, therefore, that it is in the interests of education to do things in this way.

We also struggled for a long time with the composition of the council. The most important thing was to get the broadest possible representation. Eventually we could agree unanimously to constitute the council as determined in clause 4. All interested bodies will have to accept their responsibility, and are invited to submit names to the hon the Minister. I really want to express the confidence that all the bodies involved in education will feel free to make submissions. Only in this way can the names of the most expert people be brought to the attention of the hon the Minister and the Ministers of the respective education departments.

The functions of the council are defined in clause 9. The teaching departments will have to take thorough cognisance of these functions in order to adapt themselves to the requirements which have been laid down. I believe it is going to be a great challenge to the respective education departments to comply with these requirements.

The hon member for King William’s Town referred to clause 10. It is a very important clause, which makes it possible for two or more examining bodies to conduct the same examination. I believe that is also in the interests of education and that the expertise of one department can assist the other department in this connection to attain the eventual objective of this certification body. This new council is going to have an extremely important task. It is going to affect the nucleus and nerve centre of education. I believe it is a continuation of the Government’s endeavour to bring about equal education for everyone in South Africa. Education can only be served by this measure. We therefore want to wish this new council every success, and we should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Gezina has just had a great deal to say about the Afrikaner’s struggle concerning his education. Eventually he made the point that the Afrikaner had established an education peculiar to the Afrikaner. Tonight the same hon member, who was just as conservative earlier as we are, advocated a Bill in this House which will in fact mix up that education which is peculiar to the Afrikaner with the education of all other groups in the country, to form a new whole. In stirring terms he advocated own education for the other population groups. We are in complete agreement with that, but then they must be autonomous and on their own, and not mixed up with the education of the Whites. The hon member said we should get education out of the potpourri in which it is at present. This Bill is in fact plunging it into such a pot-pourri.

They are still stirring it too.

Then he advocates, in stirring terms…

Stirring away.

… that this thing must be successful. [Interjections.]

Earlier this afternoon the hon member for Johannesburg West said they had struggled with two matters in the standing committee. The first was that they had to reach consensus with the other population groups and the PFP. The other was that they had to comply with the requirements for education. I want to ask the hon member tonight which one of these two things triumphed in the standing committee. Was it the requirements of education or consensus? I want to tell him it was consensus, and not the requirements of education, that triumphed.

You do not deserve an answer.

This Bill makes provision for the establishment of one certification council. There are others too, and I shall come back to that later. According to clause 4, which defines the composition of the certification council under discussion, it is merely one more racially mixed council which is being established in the sphere of education in the Republic of South Africa, as the hon member for Rissik said. It is being established in addition to other racially mixed councils and committees—I can think of about 10 or 11 just in passing—which have already been created for education as a whole in this country. This is merely one more racially mixed council which is being added to the others. This racially mixed council, which is being created for education, is merely a subdivision of the power-sharing policy introduced by the NP. The CP is opposed to power-sharing tonight, tomorrow and for all time, and we shall never accept it. The hon the Minister can take cognisance tonight that we shall never accept it. Just as his late father and his late uncle never accepted power-sharing in this House, we shall not accept it either. No one will convince us to the contrary. This racially mixed council is merely another sign—I can mention a number of other signs, but I want to confine myself to this certification council—of that great lie included in Schedule I(2) of the new Constitution Act of 1983 by the National Party, viz that education on all levels is an own affair. [Interjections.]

The fact that the NP added to the provision afterwards, in anticipation, that own education affairs were subject to any general legislation, detracts nothing from the lies included in that schedule, viz that it is an own affair on all levels. In fact, it simply aggravates matters. When the NP waxes lyrical about the non-negotiability of own schools, this all-important statement about being subject to any general legislation and what that implies, is normally concealed from the voters in the public at large. The NP say they stand for own schools, but they never say from the platform that these own schools, which represent the stand they assume on an own affair, are subject to a lot of general laws, councils and committees.

I read the whole of the Constitution Act regularly!

No, the hon the Minister does not! He does not even do so in the House, so why should he do it outside it? [Interjections.]

Any education legislation for Whites is subject to the provisions, regulations and restrictions of general education legislation, as is this Bill. One can still try to operate quietly within own school buildings, but any aspect of education in that school is made subject to the general Act of 1984. I find it surprising that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is shaking his head, since he has never heard of that Act in connection with education, an Act about general affairs, and the restrictions it imposes. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education appears to be conservative and he poses as the NP’s great exponent of the recognition of separate groups. I am using his own words, because he no longer talks about peoples, but about groups.

He is a member of a group now!

That was his terminology. He takes pride in the Whites’ self-determination in education, but he knows very well that education as an own affair for Whites exists only physically in the schools in which the children meet; it only applies to the places in which the children go to school. He knows very well that as far as all the other things are concerned, it was made subject to the general legislation like the legislation on the Certification Council which we are dealing with tonight.

The hon the Minister should take another look at section 2 of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act in which he, as the Minister of National Education, is given the authority to formulate the policy for formal, informal and non-formal education in respect of the financing of education, the service conditions, salaries and registration of teachers, as well as the syllabus, the examination and the certification which will be determined by way of this legislation. All these things I have mentioned are made subject to general affairs by section 2 of that specific Act. The own syllabus, own examination and own certification are also all made subject to general affairs by section 2 of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, 1984.

The proposed Certification Council is roughly the tenth or eleventh council or committee which is racially mixed and has a say in White education. To tell the truth, it has a decisive say in White education. The whole sub- and superstructure of our education is determined by general laws and another one is now being added to these.

This Bill is a further assault on the principle of education as an own affair, and in his heart the hon the Minister knows this very well. What has become of the standpoint of education from the people for the people? What has become of White education which decided autonomously on its policy, curriculum, service conditions, teachers, salaries, examinations and certification? Nothing is left of that. [Interjections.]

Where is it?

It is gone. As I said, section 2 of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act already binds own education to communal regulations in respect of curriculum, examination and certification. White education cannot make an own law about this autonomously; it has to see what the regulation in this general Act is, and it has to listen to the advice given to this hon Minister by these general councils and committees.

The Bill lays down general binding requirements. The first is that the Certification Council will require certain examining bodies, according to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech:

This racially mixed council prescribes the requirements for the Whites’ examination.

The second requirement to which the hon the Minister referred, reads as follows:

Who determines the norm and standard for White education: Only Whites, or Coloureds, Indians or Blacks as well?

People!

Who determines the Whites’ standard and norm for education? They no longer have the right to decide on the norm and standard of their own education—not when it comes to their curriculum, nor to the examination, nor to the certificate which will be issued by this council.

The hon the Minister sets a third requirement:

The subject matter for White education is prescribed by this racially mixed council. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said the presentation of the core subject matter was essential for the monitoring of standards. In addition he said:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister a question. It is an irrefutable fact, after all—the hon member for Vryheid admitted that with tears in his eyes tonight—that the present educational standards are not equal. There is a considerable difference in degree. It is only logical and realistic, therefore, according to this directive of the hon the Minister in this Bill, for the Certification Council to lay down norms and standards which necessarily have to involve the education of all the population groups and have to take the standard of education of all the population groups at this moment into account. This council will have to reach consensus on that matter. The Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks on the Certification Council will have to reach consensus on this. If consensus has to be reached on this matter, and if a higher and a lower standard are juxtaposed, one wonders on what level this norm and standard is going to be laid down by this council to be able to accommodate the higher one as well as the lower one without its being to the detriment of the higher one. It will have to lay down minimum standards. The hon the Minister himself said so in his speech. He said an education department was free to particularise—to improve on its standard, as it were. He himself said, however, he was going to set a restrictive standard, a minimum standard, which would have to be complied with. [Interjections.]

I want to ask tonight whether the hon the Minister can convince me that certification council—he need not seek assistance from his hon colleague at the back there; he can reply himself—is going to lay down the present White norm and standard as the minimum limit which has to be complied with. [Interjections.] I want to tell him tonight that will not be the consensus decision of that certification council. On the other hand, every standard lower than what exists in White education at present, will of necessity be to the detriment of White education. It affects its autonomy, including section 14 of the Constitution Act, in which own affairs are said to be allocated to the respective population groups. With minimum standards applying at examination to effect certificates of equal value, surely it does not benefit the hon the Minister to say it does not inhibit the freedom of education departments to maintain higher standards in any way.

If a norm and a standard is laid down for the certificate and the examination that have to be taken, and White education decides they want to apply much higher standards, but the examination is taken on this level and the certificate is issued on this level, what benefit is there in this tremendous concession of their being able to lay down their higher standards? How does that benefit them? It does not benefit them at all!

You are confusing the subject matter with the standard.

The fact of the matter is the subject matter on which they are going to write the examination is being made equal. It is that subject matter, it is the certificate for that equal examination, which is going to count, and not what else the pupil has learnt. [Interjections.] The fact is it is the standard in respect of examination which will count. The standard in respect of examination is going to count! The standard of the certificate will be equal to the standard in respect of examination. If the hon the Minister wants to be honest, there is no getting away from that with references to the syllabus and goodness knows what else. These are the facts one has to contend with when one is combining a recognised higher standard of education with a lower standard of education and one expects the best result.

Or trying to get out of things using semantics.

As a result of this, this Bill cannot under any circumstances be supported by the CP. It is as unacceptable to us as every other racially mixed general law which is being established to rob White education of its autonomy. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister tonight—in his heart he knows this, because he learnt it from his late father who was involved in education—if White education is really an own affair in South Africa, about which the Whites can decide alone, in which their so-called self-determination is to be preserved, only one recipe remains, and that is the CP’s recipe, viz that one must have separate education systems and education departments for the respective population groups and that each group should have the right, like the Whites, like the Afrikaners, to work out their own system which is suited to their circumstances and their position. Each population group should make its own decision on the curriculum, the examinations and the certificates of its education systems. This can best be realised within the policy of partition and of own territories and father-lands, in which each people, within its own fatherland,… [Interjections.]

Where is that?

Just listen to that! [Interjections.] Just give me a second, Sir, and I shall tell them where it is. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister of Law and Order asks me where it is, I tell him it is where the old NP wanted it; but as a result of the present NP with this power-sharing and this confusion within one fatherland in which we have to be mixed up and in which we are eventually going to be subjected to a Black majority rule, as was spelt out to them as early as 1962 by Dr Verwoerd, it will be where the bodies of the Whites are lying and the vultures are congregating. [Interjections.] That is why I say tonight that if the Government can have various certification councils, one like this one, one for technikons and one for teachers’ training, it has no excuse or reason to mix up education any further in this way and not to establish an own certification council for the Whites. It is just if it gives the Whites their standard in their own place that they deserve, and also gives every other people what is appropriate to its standard in the position it occupies and which it wants to work out itself and need not be the pot-pourri the hon member for Gezina referred to.

This Bill cannot be supported. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have been listening attentively to what the hon member for Koedoespoort has been saying. He made one very important statement. Actually that statement constitutes a refrain in all the speeches the hon members of the CP make. I am referring to the statement that he would opposed to power-sharing this evening, tomorrow and in future. I almost want to say that he misled the House, because yesterday—in 1977 in fact—they accepted power-sharing.

That is untrue!

The hon members say it is untrue. [Interjections.] They say that outside the House they will say I am a liar.

Everyone who says that, inside or outside the House, is a liar!

Now I wish to quote a very good authority to hon members. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Rissik say that the person who says that inside the House is a liar?

Mr Chairman, I said the person who says that, inside or outside the House, is a liar.

If I understand it correctly, the hon member said it inside the House. That means that the hon member for Rissik is saying that the hon member for Bloemfontein East is a liar.

Mr Chairman, I put it that I said that anyone, inside or outside the House, who says…

Withdraw it! [Interjections.]

Keep quiet, you half-baked (halfwas) Afrikaner! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Kimberley South must realise that the hon member for Rissik is addressing me. The hon member may proceed.

I said that anyone who says, either inside or outside the House, that I supported power-sharing is a public liar. [Interjections.]

That is not what you said!

Order! Does that imply an inevitable deduction? I cannot remember exactly what was said.

Mr Chairman, I was making a general statement. I said that any hon member who said that…

The hon member for Rissik may resume his seat. What did the hon member for Bloemfontein East say?

Mr Chairman, I did not say that. He can say it if he wants to, but…

Order! What did the hon member for Bloemfontein East say?

Mr Chairman, I cannot remember now what I said. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein East said that the hon members of the CP—that is, the hon members sitting there on the opposite side—had accepted power-sharing in 1977.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Rissik permitted to say to the hon Minister of Law and Order: “You are lying and you know it.” [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, I did say that, but I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Rissik permitted to tell the hon member for Kimberley South that he is a half-baked (halfwas) Afrikaner? [Interjections.]

Order! I wish to put it to the hon members in this way: If I were to say it was permissible, any hon member on this side would be at liberty to say to any hon member on the other side, including the leaders of parties, that he is a half-baked Afrikaner. I do not think any hon member of a party would like his leader to be addressed in such a manner. To take it further, I do not think it is going to contribute to the dignity of this House. The hon member should therefore withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bloemfontein East may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik has made enough interjections now. Four minutes have elapsed already and the hon member for Bloemfontein East has still not commenced his speech. He is now going to do so. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should now like to…

He has no speech!

Order! The hon member for Barberton knows that I have just ruled that the hon member may proceed. I ask him not to make any further interjections. The hon member may proceed.

I now wish to quote from a very good authority who said this, and I want to ask the hon member for Sasolburg to listen to it very carefully and convey it to his leader, Mr Jaap Marais. I also want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that if he is unable to send a photostat of this document to the hon members of the CP, I shall make a contribution so that he can do so. I am quoting to him from the Die Afrikaner of 6 October 1982, which the CP perceives to be credible. The following appears under banner headlines “Misnoeë oor misleidende propaganda. KP se pamflet skok in Parys”:

[Interjections.] I am now coming to the crucial part:

[Interjections.]

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

I am not going to reply to any questions. [Interjections.]

Order! No questions are being taken, and moreover the hon member Mr Theunissen has already made enough interjections. The hon member may proceed.

I am now coming to the important part:

Now the hon member for Rissik must go and tell Mr Jaap Marais that he is a public liar.

[Interjections.]

If the hon members for Rissik and Koedoespoort as well as the entire CP now come forward with that refrain that our party advocates power-sharing, I want to tell them that here is the proof from a good authority that they are not accepting power-sharing this evening nor tomorrow, but that they accepted it yesterday—as long ago as 1977. [Interjections.] Now I ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether my statement is correct. [Interjections.]

It was indeed a privilege for me to be a member of that standing committee. I should very much like to ask that the hon member for Koedoespoort, who has just spoken, to make a study of the speeches made on 16 April by the hon the Minister of National Education and by the hon Minister of Education and Culture on 22 May during the discussion of their Votes. Then he would not talk the kind of nonsense he talked this evening. If he is a student, he will find the answers in it.

Mr Chairman, since the hon member is now instructing me to be a student, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Koedoespoort will resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! It causes great confusion when a second hon member rises to his feet and two hon members try to speak simultaneously. If it happens again, I shall take strict action. It cannot be allowed to happen. Before an hon member simply starts talking, he must ask whether he may put a question. The hon member for Bloemfontein East may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it really was a pleasant privilege for me…

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

No, Sir, I do not want to reply to questions now.

It really was a pleasant privilege to be a member of this standing committee. The very first time we…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In all fairness, all the hon member for Koedoespoort did was to rise and try to draw your attention, in order to put a question… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe would do well to resume his seat and leave the maintenance of order in the hands of the chair. I have already taken a decision. The hon member for Bloemfontein East may proceed. [Interjections.]

When we considered the Bill for the very first time, I thought it was a very easy and simple Bill, one that was logical and obvious, and one that would be accepted by all the parties. But when the standing committee started to consider and discuss the Bill clause by clause, there were major differences in opinion, to such an extent that I thought that we would never be able to resolve that stalemate, and that this legislation would never come before Parliament. I want to repeat what other hon members said, namely that this Bill was saved, thanks to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon member for Johannesburg West. The chairman had an extremely difficult task, but acquitted himself brilliantly of his task. I wish to congratulate him and thank him for his conduct. He succeeded in causing consultations to take place in an informal and calm atmosphere, but at the same time he guided the meetings with a firm hand. He was consistently patient, tactful and courteous.

In the same way as the chairman did, the other members of the committee also discussed the topics with great insight. One was able to glean from their experience as teachers. It was an experience to be able to listen to their contributions. Sensitive and important aspects were discussed in depth. Ex-teachers—here I am thinking about the hon members for Gezina and Brentwood—spoke about this topic with great love and compassion. [Interjections.]

The same applies to the officials under the guidance of the Director-General, Dr Roe Venter. Masses of information and facts were made available to us with despatch and great thoroughness, whether in writing or orally. That same applies to the evidence that was made available.

By means of this Bill various beacons have been planted in the history of education and the provision of education in the Republic of South Africa.

The first beacon is the fact that this certification council will be the only body in the Republic which will be responsible for the issuing of certificates to pupils of all population groups at points of withdrawal from the formal school and technical college system.

The second beacon is that for the first time in the history of South Africa the same certificate representing the same standard of education and examination will be issued to all pupils. It arises from this that examining bodies are inter alia required to cause the material which the certification council prescribes with a view to the acquisition of certificates to be presented. The hon the Minister emphasised that the function of the certification council is aimed at the presentation of the basic material which is necessary for the guidance and direction in respect of standards. It is extremely important to note that this function in no way detracts from the existing freedom of movement of education departments regarding specialisation in, and supplementation of, material. The own character of the respective education departments in the provinces will not be impaired.

A third beacon is the fact that the certification council itself issues the certificates and that any doubt concerning the difference in standards of educational qualifications is finally being eliminated.

A fourth beacon is the fact that the certificates of pupils who have complied with the minimum requirements for being allowed to study at a university, technikon or other educational institution will in future be endorsed by this single council. This means inter alia that the own character and identity of universities, technikons and other educational institutions will not in this way be impaired.

A fifth and final beacon is the fact that this Bill will without any doubt contribute to the realisation of the potential of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, to the promotion of economic growth in the Republic, which is so important at present, and—most important of all—the improvement of the quality of life of all the inhabitants of the Republic.

It is the ideal of every parent that his child should receive the best education, but it is also important that every child in South Africa receive a thorough education. This is in fact in the country’s interest, and this Bill is a catalyst to that end.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein East has now been trying to score a few political debating points by playing the HNP off against the CP, but I can truly say that his was by for one of the feeblest performances anyone could have given in this context. [Interjections.]

The HNP and the CP make no secret of the fact—nor have they ever done so—that there are still certain differences between us, but I wish hon members could have been present to hear how we discussed them. [Interjections.] When we discuss these matters, it is done in the frankest spirit imaginable between people belonging to different parties. The hon member is therefore welcome to proceed with his story. We shall show him what’s what in Klip River. [Interjections.]

Of course the HNP’s premise, as well as that of the CP, concerning this Bill differs fundamentally from that of the Government. That is because the Government has a completely different approach to nationhood in South Africa to the one we on this side of the House have. They say that here is one all-embracing South African nation, consisting of various groups, from which it follows that a person, if that is one’s view, must strive for an all-embracing education system, in which there may still be a slight difference in emphasis, but which is aimed at the kind of citizen which would be a personification of the mixed, bastardised South African nation which the NP to a great extent advocates today. [Interjections.]

All debates in this House are concerned with this difference. We on this side of the House say essentially the opposite. We are in favour of the survival of separate peoples, and are also in favour of their preserving their respective identities. On those grounds, each people must have its own education system, which will impress its own features on its children and descendants. We cannot emphasise that strongly enough. The hon Minister in question knows these things as well as we do. He himself grew up in this milieu. His dilemma is merely that today he has to adopt a totally different standpoint to the one with which he grew up, and that is exactly what we do not want to happen with the Afrikaner people. We do not want the Afrikaner people as such to change their principles and direction and course in one lifetime as the hon the Minister of National Education has done. [Interjections.] What has happened to him personally must in heaven’s name not happen to the Afrikaner people in its entirety, because that would be the end of the Afrikaner people. [Interjections.] I hope I am putting this point across clearly enough. One can dwell on this for a long time but it is not necessary.

Furthermore I just wish to point out that we in the right-wing parties are not only in favour of White schools, but that we also believe that the White race group must have its own education system, which must bear an essentially White hallmark. Furthermore we are also in favour of Afrikaans language mother-tongue schools never ceasing to exist, in order to ensure that the Afrikaner people, within the all-embracing White nation, is perpetuated in terms of its identity and its future as the nucleus, as the original White nation in South Africa. A nation without its own education system has no future. It could rather be without its own defence force. It could at times even be without its own police force. A nation, however, that does not have its own education system, has no hope of leaving its imprimatur on its descendants which would ensure that future generations succeed one another and flourish independently. [Interjections.] It is also the purpose of the Bill under discussion that there has to be one council that will be responsible for the issuing of certificates. That is a total anathema to us of course. We cannot understand how one council is able to issue certificates to pupils, from completely divergent peoples, who have passed. We cannot understand that at all.

That is nevertheless the purpose of this measure. The purpose behind this purpose, however, is to attempt to bring about racial equality, and in so doing to promote racial integration. They are not doing it merely for administrative reasons. They have an aim, and the hon the Minister should tell me whether it is his aim to bring about greater racial equality. Of course once he has brought about racial equality, racial integration is so much easier.

The purpose of this legislation might well be administrative in nature. That could also be the idea behind the introduction of the certification council. How, however, does one determine the value of such a certificate? That is my question. How does one equalise the value of the certificates. How can one equalise the value of the certificates? That is my greatest problem. Neither in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech nor in…

There is no difference in the appearance of the certificate.

But, Sir, two certificates having the same form, printed in the same type—although one relates to a Black school and the other to a White school—still mean absolutely nothing to the person who has to look at it.

Even though they have been issued by the same controller?

It does not matter who it is issued by. [Interjections.] Those certificates may be administratively the same… [Interjections.] This hon the Minister does not want to listen to my argument. Certificates can be administratively the same, but how does the intrinsic value of a certificate which has been issued to a White pupil compare with that which has been issued to a Black or a Coloured or an Indian pupil? What guarantee does the man who has to appoint the possessor of that certificate have that because the certificates all look the same, are printed in the same way and have the same form, the value of all those certificates is the same? What guarantee does he have that a certificate issued to a White pupil has the same value as a certificate which has been issued to a Black pupil? [Interjections.] Is it the hon the Minister’s intention that because the certificates are now ostensibly being issued in the same way, the recipients of the certificates and those who have to look at them, must now gain the impression that despite the fact that a Black child was in a Black school and a White child in a White school, they have attained essentially the same matriculation standard? Is their matriculation standard equal? Surely that cannot be! And I shall also indicate why it is not possible. [Interjections.]

Before I come to that, however, I first wish to point out how far the hon the Minister went in this regard in his Second Reading speech. In his speech he says that the certificates which are issued by the various executive educational institutions have to be of the same standard. He must tell me if I am misinterpreting him. When one speaks of the same standard, it does not after all merely mean the piece of paper upon which the certificate is printed. That is not what we are talking about when we talk of equal quality. I am speaking of what the piece of paper represents. The hon the Minister says that must be the same.

He went further and said the standards had to be equal. Now is it possible in this world to get absolutely equal standards between, say, the Blacks and the Whites? [Interjections.] Is something like that at all possible? Is it ever possible to equalise those standards absolutely? Equal means in fact that the relevant things have to be very close to similar, Sir. [Interjections.]

Let us now, however, take the concept of equal quality. Is that possible? I do not think it is possible. The hon the Minister should tell me whether he thinks it is possible. After all, he is issuing the certificates. He put it quite forcefully. In his Second Reading speech he said:

I should now like to ask this hon the Minister how he is going to eradicate any perception of a difference, any semblance of a difference in standards between the various types of school which exist, without him…

Order! There are hon members in the House who are trying very hard to convince one another. Perhaps they could go and do so outside. The hon member may proceed.

There is another thing which I want to ask the hon the Minister. We get the impression that one way which he may perhaps have in mind, is the formation of mixed schools with a mixed teaching body. I wish to concede to the hon the Minister, that if he were to do that, he would be able to arrive at equal standards. If he were to bring White, Black, Coloured and Indian children into schools where the ratio in all the schools is more or less the same, he would be able to accomplish that. In other words, there must be more or less the same ratio between the number of White, Black, Coloured and Indian children. Then he also has to establish mixed teaching bodies so that they could proportionally give more or less the same amount of instruction in every school. I would then concede that the hon the Minister had a point. Under those circumstances, I think, the hon the Minister will be able to issue certificates for all those racially mixed and ethnically mixed schools that have the same standard because the children are then all subjected to more or less the same atmosphere, etc. Even then, it could still occur that the White children proportionately achieve a higher standard in relation to the others, but that would not be reflected in their certificates.

As I say, if he were to do it, he probably has a point. Yet he did not say that was his aim at this stage. We think pressure is being exerted on him to move in this direction. Whether he is going to give in, we shall soon see.

There is a second possibility as well. The hon the Minister is able to say that White education is on a higher level than that of the Blacks today. I am not going to bother with all the others now. White education is on a higher level. They did not steal that level, and no one gave it to them either. They worked for it! They exerted themselves for it for a period of centuries. That is their own achievement. It is no one else’s achievement that the Whites have reached a higher level of education than the Blacks.

There is something else as well I want to tell the hon the Minister. I know it is not mentioned here because in the times in which we are living, it is considered to be a sensitive issue, but we have to admit these things to one another. The scientists in America proved that even today, after many decades of integration of the Negroes, that the White child’s level of intelligence is on average higher than that of the Black child. [Interjections.] A whole series of tests were carried out, and I hope I do not have to inform the hon the Minister about it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister can go further and decide that he is unable to do it, namely that he cannot establish these racially mixed schools and racially mixed teaching bodies. What he might possibly be able to do is to raise the level of Black education slightly and lower the level of White education slightly, or perhaps considerably. I am unable to judge at this stage, and at this stage I do not want to say anything about it to the hon the Minister, because I do not really know whether it is the intention of the hon the Minister or not.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he could perhaps try a further step, that is, of applying the same syllabi in the schools. That cannot be done either, however, because judging by this Bill, that is not the direction in which he wants to move.

How is he going to obtain an education system for Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Indians which has intrinsically the same value if they differ so much at the moment? How does one equalise the differences in value? How does want one bring the differences of value onto the same level which educational certificates ultimately have to reflect?

The educational certificate in itself is not going to determine values. The educational certificate in itself is not going to indicate the norms. The question is: How does the hon the Minister equalise these things so that there is no perception of a difference in the teaching standards which form the basis of that certificate. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will have to explain that to us.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he thinks there is relative equality of standards among the four separate education departments of the Whites in the four provinces? How does he think they manage it?

Mr Chairman, they manage it because they all belong to the same race and the same people. [Interjections.] They are the same kind of people—surely it is easy and simple to understand that. I am a Cape man born and bred, but there is no essential difference between my training, education and background and that of the hon member for Barberton. Surely the hon Minister knows that the school I attendee was Paarl Gymnasium and he attended a school in Potchefstroom, but we received essentially the same education. The education which he and I received, however, differs fundamentally and decisively from that of all the education which all the Blacks have hitherto received in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon the Minister frankly that I have no objection that a Black people, for example the Xhosa people, paying for their own education and determining their own educational norms and standards. They need not be the same as mine. If theirs is different to mine I am not going to say it is inferior. I am not going to say anything derogatory about their educational system. I am going to say to them that it is theirs and I grant it to them, but they must pay for their own further development in the same way as I paid for mine. I just want to make that qualification clear. I have no objection to the norms and standards of Blacks differing from mine. It is just that I think that the hon the Minister cannot prove to me that he can equalise it. That is the point, and I merely wish to mention a few examples to him in order to indicate why it cannot happen, despite the use of the word specialisation (verbesondering).

Let us consider the poem Raka. After all, substance has to be given to the syllabi in education. This poem by Van Wyk Louw is generally considered to be one of the greatest poems in the Afrikaans language. The Blacks, however, say they are opposed to Raka and do not like the poem because in it Blacks, according to them, are portrayed as being evil. They may have a point, and I am not going to argue about it with them. If they do not want to teach Raka in their education, I am not going to force them to do so, yet this is not only the case with Raka, but with a string of other poems and novels as well. The same applies to the historical background to which I shall return in a moment. Among the Blacks there is a difference in perception concerning almost the entire subject matter of education. I am not saying the Black is incorrect, or that he is bad, or that he is this or that; I am merely saying that he differs fundamentally with me in his view of what is good, beautiful and right. Now I wish to know from the hon the Minister how he is going to equalise the various educational standards unless he introduces total integration.

Let us look at the question of history. For years there have been complaints from various left-wing quarters that the tuition of history in our schools is White-orientated. The contention is that we recount our entire historical saga of South Africa from the discovery by the Portuguese and the landing of Van Riebeeck up to the Great Trek, from a White point of view, etc. They say therefore that the whole historical saga of South Africa is centered on the Whites, and they mean by that the Whites are in the centre. That is the case, because the Whites were the one’s who wrote the history, and one cannot be angry with them about that. How should a White man, in all fairness, write South Africa’s history from a Zulu point of view? He cannot, as much as he might want to.

He must write the truth.

How can a Zulu write South Africa’s history from a White point of view? He cannot, as much as he might want to. That is my entire contention. There was a stage in which the Zulus held sway over virtually the whole of South Africa. I think they are still dreaming such dreams. If they can get the opportunity, they are going to say that they want to govern South Africa again. However, that is, besides the point at the moment. The point is, that recently a new, left-wing history book was issued which attempts to view South Africa’s history from an entirely new perspective. It is an attempt at writing it in such a way as to not be White-orientated.

It is the truth.

That history book inspires no one. If history cannot inspire the young generation, I almost wish to say that it is not necessary to teach it. How can those people write about the Great Trek? Some Blacks say the whole Great Trek was a marauding invasion of the interior, but to us it was the most heroic period in our history. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is making too many interjections. He is talking all the time. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

I know that the hon the Minister belongs to the right wing of the NP, and that is why I speak differently to him than I do to some of the other hon Ministers. I think that although he does not agree with me, and although he is a member of another party and even though he has to do things today which earlier he did not think he would do, he does understand fully what I mean when I say these things. The same applies to the hon member for Gezina, who was a member of the teaching profession for years, as well as the hon member for Standerton. They know as well as I do that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to write any history with any centre whatsoever as his point of departure. He can do it best and only if he writes from the points of view and perceptions of himself and the race, history and people to which he belongs. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister should also know that we on this side of the House—and I include myself—reject this Bill. We cannot vote for it, and we are going to raise this matter at Klip River because Klip River is, I almost wish to say, imbued with South African history. Weenen, Colenso and Ladysmith fall within the Klip River constituency. In Klip River history still speaks to the whole of White South Africa in a way which is rarely the case elsewhere. It is apparently an act of Providence at this moment in our existence that the election should occur in Klip River at this juncture. I can tell this House that it is a pleasure to speak to those people about Blaauwkrans, Moordspruit, Weenen and Ladysmith. [Interjections.] From that historical point of view concerning our struggle for survival in South African one can find point of contact with them and analyse and interpret the present political situation for them within this context.

The hon member for Johannesburg West let the cat out of the bag when he expressed the hope that these certificates issued would have “more than a symbolic meaning”, if I remember his words correctly. That is my point: It has a symbolical meaning only. These certificates are only going to create the impression of a kind of equalisation in education, but that is not the case. The issuing of the certificates changes absolutely nothing in regard to the few basic issues which I have raised here to indicate that one cannot equalise races because they differ too much.

The American… No wait, I had better not mention that.

Yes, mention it, mention it!

One day I spoke to an hon PFP member—I cannot remember who it was—about an American anthropologist. He said to me: “I suppose he is a right-wing anthropologist.” I said to him, no, the man has never heard of a “right-wing”. The anthropologist to whom I am referring, is Carleton Coon, who died last year. He was simply a scientist. He said the White race crossed the threshold to homo sapiens 200 000 years before the Black race. That has enormous implications. [Interjections.]

Since when do you believe in evolution?

No, it has nothing to do with evolution. I merely said that is what science says. That is what the sacred, modern science says. I am in no position to say personally whether he is right or wrong. I am not up to it. If one differs with Carleton Coon on scientific grounds—I am not speaking at all about theological grounds—then one really has to be well informed. I do not think there is anyone in the House or in all South Africa who would dare try to differ with him.

I am therefore saying that these certificates are merely going to have a symbolic meaning. Furthermore, let us consider what is happening at the University of Natal. The other day there was a report in The Natal Mercury under the headlines: “3 000 Blacks enroll at University of Natal” and “Facing the needs of Black students”. Then they explained how Prof Philpott and “A full time staff of 10” are struggling on three campuses in order to make it possible for Blacks to adapt themselves to a White university and how difficult it is. I shall not go into all the details now, but I actually find it quite poignant. The article concludes with the words: “Prof Philpott said that for Black students entering into the university meant reorientation into a very strange world”.

That is the whole point. How can one, when one wants to equalise education in South Africa, equate the “very strange world” of the one with that of the other? One cannot. The “very strange world” of the Blacks cannot become comprehensible to me overnight, and my “very strange world” cannot become comprehensible to the Blacks overnight. That is why the syllabi—that is number one—cannot be the same. [Interjections.] That is why the emphasis in Black education will still be different to ours for decades and centuries to come, and even between English and Afrikaans schools there will still be a difference of emphasis until eventually we shall have become interwoven as one indigenous White South African nation.

I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that I do not like this Bill. I abhor it and I am going to vote against it, but I prefer to keep my speech in this vein because I wish to bring home to him that as far as we are concerned they are not petty things that are at stake, but in fact the most profound values in the Afrikaner people which will differ for all time from the most profound values in the Zulu people or in the Xhosa people.

The hon member for Johannesburg West referred to the influx of Spanish-speaking “Hispanics” into America, who insist that instruction be given in a third language, something which is creating an entirely new problem for America. In other words, instead of America absorbing the “Hispanics”, the “Hispanics” are making their own mark in America and demanding that the Spanish language be their medium of instruction.

I am leaving out the whole question of race; I have already referred to it. I merely wish to refer to just one more matter, and that is my final appeal to the hon the Minister. I wish to ask him to please take a look at attempts elsewhere in the world at equalising education in racially mixed communities. He should have made a study of it before he came forward with this Bill. [Interjections.] I make so bold as to say that, as far as I know, the committee concerned paid no attention whatsoever to what is happening in other countries.

We are South Africans, Stoffie!

The busing attempt in America failed completely, totally, and Pres Reagan threw it out. It was the considered opinion of his predecessors that in order to achieve equal education in America, Black children had to be conveyed to the Black schools and Black children to the White schools. Busing became an absolute evil, from Massachusetts to San Antonio. [Interjections.] Eventually Pres Reagan himself quietly ended this attempt at greater racial mixing and racial integration in schools.

Stanley Uys, the great liberal of earlier years here in South Africa—Mr Vorster did not like him either—wrote an article the other day about the conflict in Britain over the Black communities which are not being absorbed, and in particular about what is happening in the Black schools, and also about the fact that the Labour Party now has to establish separate branches for Black members, because they no longer want to operate in the White branches, even though they are members of the Labour Party. According to an article which he wrote in the Cape Times all these things happened “because Black is simply not British”.

What happened in France? Earlier this year I pointed out in this House how the French people were rebelling against overcrowding, especially by Mohammedans who speak a different language and have a different historical background and who want a different kind of education. The French people turned around and voted against it.

At present there are 7 million non-Germans living in West Germany. I am referring to West Germany only. They are creating such problems now that in Beeld of 19 August the following headline appeared: “Vlugtelinge word ’n Tydbom vir Duitsland”.

I am mentioning these things to the hon the Minister for one reason only. These countries which are far more left wing and liberal than South Africa, have with so much sincerity, effort and enthusiasm truly tried to absorb into their ranks only small communities that differ completely, specifically in the field of education, because the Americans, the French, the Germans and the English know that if one does not succeed in that sphere, then integration is not a success anywhere. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister something. If the Americans cannot manage it, the French rebel against it and the Germans say “it’s a time bomb” and if there are these problems in those countries where the situation, seen from a White point of view is so much easier, how does he want to manage it in South Africa?

We are Boers!

Our policy is of course not their policy! [Interjections.] We are not asking for integration in schools!

I did not say that the hon the Minister is in favour of integration. At this stage he is in no way in favour of it. I am, however, pointing out his attempt to create a certain impression up here as well; so what other meaning does it have?

The universities are open.

Yes, the universities are racially mixed, and the Government is not taking action against the racially mixed schools. The Government has also thrown the private schools open, and it is merely a question of time before it goes further. [Interjections.] The poor hon Minister should not profess such to innocence now.

The residential areas…

Even though it is at this stage not his declared policy, as is the case on the opposite side, he must nevertheless see what has to be done in order to eradicate the differences and to equalise standards. All that I am saying to him is that if they were unable to manage it, having made a greater attempt than his, how is he going to manage it with a certification council which issues identical certificates. What iota of difference is that going to make? He is not going to succeed in any way in making the standards which these certificates represent identical or equal.

That is why we are voting against this Bill because the immediate and especially the long-term consequence of the Government’s attempt and steps is going to be at the expense of the White child. It is the White child who is going to lose out in the long term. Now they want certificates which are identical so that the Whites, the Indians and the Blacks can enter into the business world with the same certificates. People are now going to look at the race of the bearer, more than ever before. That, more than the certificates, will determine what the standard of his education is… [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am truly sorry that legislation of this scope has been reduced to such a level by arguments in this House.

As far as the hon member for Sasolburg is concerned, I honestly want to say that I reject with the contempt it deserves his insinuation that this party is an advocate of a hybrid nation. He weighs the concepts of people and nation against one another and arrogates to himself the concept of people, without knowing the difference between the two concepts, and I leave it at that. The concept of racial integration…

You stand for a racially mixed nation.

If the hon member sees racial integration as an objective of this Bill, it simply means that he has not understood the purpose of the legislation at all.

In the HSRC report the Government was instructed to rectify certain deficiencies that it pointed out in the education system in South Africa, by means of the legislation before us at the moment.

What directive did the Government receive from the HSRC?

As far as the concept of the hon member for Sasolburg is concerned—that only mixed schools are able to provide an equivalence of norms—I can test it for the hon member as follows: Which White schools in South Africa receive exactly the same lesson content and the same question paper, and have their papers marked from exactly the same memorandum? Which two classes in South Africa receive exactly the same presentation of content by the same teachers as well as the same presentation and the same rounding off for examinations?

Did anyone say that?

That is by implication what the hon member said. He said we could talk about a standard only…

Oh, no!

Sir, I am not debating the point. At the moment I am debating a statement put forward as a norm. [Interjections.] The fact is I think that we in South Africa are ultimately unable to talk about exactly the same standard, not even among Afrikaans schools throughout the country. [Interjections.] We cannot talk about the same standards in all the English schools throughout South Africa. [Interjections.]

We are not even going to try to quote the argument here as to which one of the four provinces, speaking only of the four provinces within the RSA, will concede tonight that its certificate is inferior to that of another province. After all, this is a history which has developed over 75 years or more, and we were not even able to manage it in that way. After all, these deficiencies were revealed by the HSRC investigation.

If one were to add to that the difference between Coloured, Indian and Black schools, and put the whole group together in order to have an end product that falls within the same rand monetary unit where these people, on the strength of their certificates, apply for jobs, one realises what the problem was that gave rise to the search for legislation of this nature. That is one side of the problem.

The other side of the problem is just as simplistic, namely to say that if schools were to be thrown open without further ado, the standard of education would be equal. Reference is made in this connection to less well-qualified teachers in certain schools who are supposedly not up to standard. If this is the point, however, and we were to open all the schools, where are we then going to get the teachers for the additional 2 million, 2,5 million or 3 million pupils who will then be involved? Since there are so many less-qualified teachers, who will then have to get those new teachers? Therefore, just to open the schools in a simplistic way would mean giving only the top stratum proper education and not being concerned with what happens to those on the lower levels of the community. Surely the matter is not as simple as all that, either. [Interjections.]

The problem in education is still one of setting up some form of corresponding contents of syllabus under a single umbrella organisation. We could not manage this even for the four White provinces. We were able to reach agreement on at most 75% of the basic curriculum.

Our second problem is to draw up a question paper for the whole country which will test each pupil on the same content. A third problem is when one decides on lesson content. A third problem is, when one decides on the lesson content to be given, that it should be presented on exactly the same level in every class-room. There is also a fourth problem. Although trained teachers do exist, they are not all equally well equipped to complete a child’s education to a certain level so that he is ultimately able to write examinations according to the required standard.

How did White education overcome this problem? Let us have a look at this piece of history. We had to move in the direction of a rounded-off system of management in education. A principal was not adequate to round off the management. We eventually appointed a deputy principal to assist him. If the school had more than a certain number of groups, two deputies were appointed. If the course content of that school is wide enough or becomes too comprehensive, a senior deputy and two deputies are appointed. Depending on the number of pupils at a school, heads of departments are appointed.

A principal that runs his school in an analytical way himself appoints subject heads, without their receiving any remuneration, so that each subject teacher will ultimately come under the leadership of an experienced member of staff and can be improved so that a standard is maintained which, in a specific school, offers each child more or less the same content under his small area of control in the school of that community.

That was not good enough either. We then went further. Ultimately, in order to organise the matter on a provincial basis, an inspectorate was appointed. When this was not effective enough it was brought up to the level of a circuit inspectorate, with the appointment of subject inspectors whose task it was to ensure that the same standards were applied in provincial schools.

When a province such as the Transvaal, which has more than 50% of the country’s matriculation pupils, eventually became too unwieldy, we did not experiment with it but changed over to a decentralised form and divided the province into seven regions—it is made up of eight regions today—for the sake of effective standard formation, to ensure that the standards are equally distributed throughout a province.

It is therefore not so easy simply to draw up legislation, eventually to pass it and then to say that everything will now be equal. [Interjections.]

Against this background I must on the other hand warn that a regimented, parrot-fashion, content-based education is destructive for the education system of a country. One must arrange one’s education between these two poles. On the one hand one must make sure that one is dealing with more or less equal standards. On the other hand one must make sure that education is not smothered by over-regulation.

I truly believe that the end product that eventually fell into our hands and is before us tonight in the form of this legislation, simply asks this House to give educationists and educators in South Africa the opportunity to make some arrangement to regulate standards of education, away from us, away from the way in which we try to catch votes from the electorate, and back to the child; the children of various communities, peoples, backgrounds and cultures in this country.

There will, however, be an overarching form of community determination of standards by way of issuing a certificate under a single structural name which will have credibility in the country, whoever possesses the certificate. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. This matter was obviated earlier in White education through the concept of the Joint Matriculation Board. That Joint Matriculation Board also ultimately determines standards in respect of only certain of the Coloured people but—and this is important—it was only in respect of a single exemption certificate, namely that which offers admission to universities. This, however, is not the only kind of exemption certificate. There are, of course, a number of different certificates of that nature.

There is a certificate that does not allow admission to university but does allow admission to the technikons. There are certificates that do recognise a matric, but will never allow admission to one of these two institutions. There are certificates with particular content questions in respect of the business world and the technological world, but that lie outside the level of the Joint Matriculation Board. [Interjections.]

The purpose of this Bill is ultimately to have some kind of standard for each outlet point, on which these educationists have agreed in the sense that they are equivalent norms. Their determination of these norms will not be by means of the legislation. The legislation creates the instrument, and the instrument will determine the norms from the level on which it works. Through the formation of syllabus committees and examination committees, those people will also…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Sir. I do not want Jo answer questions now, please.

By way of groups of this nature, these standards will be introduced in all the various communities of South Africa. I have no illusions about that. It will not happen within two, five or ten years. We are working on a ten-year pattern to achieve this, but it is really going to be hard work to reach that level. The point is that we cannot let the situation continue as it is now. One province, for example, issues two to three different certificates whereas another issues only one. One of the provinces issues only a matric certificate. We cannot allow the situation to continue.

I repeat that the purpose of this Bill is to charge the experts with finding solutions for our country in this regard. We must just reach agreement on that matter. Let us abandon this other kind of behaviour, in terms of which hon members see how they can use aspects of this Bill to their own benefit.

The end product of what this House is accepting here will ultimately have to be conveyed into every classroom by inspired, cooperative manpower. One can throw a spanner in the works, try to resist the course of events and swim against the stream, but they will experience the smoke and the ash of negative, recalcitrant, resistant, belligerent rebel colonies…

Listen to that! [Interjections.]

… that will lead to the destruction of all of us in this country. [Interjections.]

Education is and remains the extension of the milieu in which a child is educated for only six hours out of the twenty-four. It remains the extension of that milieu in which the child receives his education for 18 hours per day.

When does he sleep? [Interjections.]

Could we not give him just this along the way, Sir. Let us respect the work these people have to do, namely to carry our young people from the cradle to the place at which they go out into the life for which they have to be prepared. Let us strengthen these peoples’ hands. Let us give them mutual expertise, something they can share with one another on the road ahead. This will ultimately contribute to saving this country and making it great—that is something we should like to see one day—so that we shall be able to live in it in peace and prosperity. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not really know how to react to the speech by the hon member for Brentwood. [Interjections.] Sometimes it sounds to me as if he speaks just as we do, but at other times I do not know whether he is speaking for us or against us or whether he is for or against the legislation. [Interjections.]

We in the CP are not surprised about this Bill that the hon the Minister is now bringing to this House. Since we perused the Constitution for the first time we knew that this kind of thing would have to happen. At the time it was said that we were setting up Aunt Sallys, shooting them down, and telling lies. We knew that nothing would come of own affairs in education. [Interjections.]

As a result of the recommendations of the HSRC the South African Certification Council Bill has now been tabled. This Bill provides for control over the norms and standards of subject matter and examination. It also has to do with the issuing of certificates at different points of withdrawal in school education, at technical colleges and in non-formal education. Provision is now being made in this Bill for the conducting of common examinations and for matters connected with this examination. The Government therefore deems it essential that there should be certificates of the same standard issued by the various executive education bodies. In the past there were four provincial education bodies, plus one for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Each of these bodies wanted to bring its own education up to a level that would satisfy the Matriculation Board. This was a healthy endeavour to achieve only the best for the children for whom they were responsible, and for what one wanted to do for the future of one’s people. In the Second Reading speech by the hon the Minister he states that the accusation levelled by specific parties that there was a difference in the standards of educational qualification was to be met by way of the introduction of this council, and for that reason certificates at the point of withdrawal would now represent the same standard of education and examination.

Various White schools—English and Afrikaans—follow the same syllabuses that are offered at different places by different people and teachers, as the hon member for Brentwood also said. Equal quality of education and equal education for the various races need by no means be mixed, or controlled by a mixed council. Each of the separate departments can provide education by their own people, for their own people and in accordance with their own requirements, control it and ultimately test it themselves. The special nature of education will have to be taken into account in deciding on the structure of this agent of authority. Co-ordination among the different groups is necessary, but the cultural and ethnic links of education will make functioning within one statutory council inefficient and even impossible. We on this side of the House are not in favour of it.

Hear, hear!

A racially mixed council of this nature cannot do full justice to a specific people nor to any one other people in this country. Only a council with ethnic ties can achieve these things successfully for its own people. The Government finds it essential that certificates must comply with the same requirements, as issued by this council. School boycotts, the destruction of school buildings and tutorial matter will then have to be stopped, or else equal certificates will be impossible, unless the standard maintained at present by the Whites is reduced—as other hon members have also said—and that has been our fear from the outset.

That is so!

Education for each population group surely differs because culture, customs and needs differ.

The hon member for Brentwood elaborated on that at length.

Extramural activities differ in their nature and their quality because at White schools the parents, for example, provide substantial funds for school sport and recreation. Other population groups will of course have to do this for their own children too.

Suddenly legislation relating to three separate certification councils is introduced to this House. We have already received the Certification Council for Technikon Education Bill. We have not yet seen the Certification Council for Teacher Training Bill, but it is already being discussed.

Then too there is this South African Certification Council Bill. Education is supposedly an own affair, but these mixed councils that we are debating now and that we have to consider, impel me to ask what remains of own affairs and of own education. It is a deception and a farce. [Interjections.] After the De Lange Report, which in fact ought to achieve the highest endeavour for the education of all population groups, we see the biggest school boycotts, unrest, destruction and chaos. Now I ask who says that they—the other races—really want this. In this regard I should just like to quote from a report in Die Vaderland of 6 May 1986 in which, under the heading “Swartes vra skool uit die volk”, the following is said:

Of course, this has also been said here.

Now they themselves are saying so. I quote further:

Therefore I ask whether these people are in favour of this new thing that we now want to force down their throats. [Interjections.]

Therefore you prefer the UDF’s plan! [Interjections.]

A new co-operation…

You are now speaking in favour of the UDF’s plan with schools!

Oh really, FW, do not be stupid!

I am not speaking in favour of that. [Interjections.] I am merely saying… [Interjections.]

Order!

I am merely saying that if it is thought that the Black people will simply accept these things without further ado, the Government is making a very big mistake. [Interjections.] A new co-operation… [Interjections.]

FW, we really expected much better of you, man! [Interjections.]

… a new tolerance, which is merely a matter of deception, is nothing but sham co-operation. It preaches that the people have rights, but nothing is said about their duties and responsibilities.

Hear, hear!

As long as only the Whites have duties and responsibilities, while the other groups only have rights, there can be no question of co-operation. A different attitude to education must first take root among the Black people before a mixed council can carry out certification, and even then it will be ineffective. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I can at least compliment the hon member for Germiston District on the fact that she was thoroughly prepared and that she apparently had insight into the legislation that we have been discussing here this evening. This is more than can be said of some of the hon members on the other side over there who participated in this debate today.

At least I did hear something new this evening from the hon member. She said that we have had riots and unrest, particularly in Black schools, since the De Lange Commission report. While I listened to her hon colleagues on the opposite side recently I gained the impression that the riots were thanks to or due to the Government’s constitutional process of reform, and particularly since we implemented the tricameral Parliament. This is therefore a new tune which we have heard here now. [Interjections.] It makes the debate interesting.

The debate we are now dealing with is of course the Second Reading debate on the measure before us. It therefore gives us an opportunity to debate the principle of the Bill. It will therefore be fitting to take an in-depth look at what this debate is supposed to be about. What is the principle embodied in this measure? It really is very simple. All boys and girls, and men and women are entitled to equal education opportunities and standards. They have the right to education which can be evaluated by means of examination results, and which will eventually be visible and can be used in the form of certificates which represent the same standards of education and examination. These are not symbolic documents. They are certainly not simply documents which have a symbolic meaning, as the hon member for Sasolburg has just tried to impress upon us. I must also say that it is clear to me that the hon member for Sasolburg has never read this legislation. At most he had brief access to the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. To us who know what the legislation is about, it was clear that the hon member did not have an idea of what he was talking about this evening.

We are dealing here with a principle involving fairness and justice. This principle ties up with an important principle of the Christian faith, ie that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself. That which one claims for oneself, and that which one demands for oneself, one should also grant one’s fellow-man. It means even more than this. When one works for something for oneself or if one strives for one’s own progress, one should also do so to the same extent for one’s fellowman. This is the substance and the essence of the Great Commandment.

Of liberalism.

There are also another purely practical principle involved. This comes to the fore when people enter the same labour sphere and when they have to compete with each other for job opportunities in it. The certifications of qualifications which are put before employers in such cases, must have credibility and the employers must be able to lay store by them. They have to know what they mean. All std 10 qualifications and certificates should for example be reliable as far as their content is concerned; if not, they cannot fulfil the function for which they are issued. This measure is therefore based on a two-pronged principle. It is a principle of fairness on the one hand, and on the other a practical consideration. This principle in itself has nothing to do with run-of-the-mill politics, just as it is hardly a political act to compete for job opportunities in the country of one’s birth, and just as it is hardly a political act to want to practise one’s religion according to the prescriptions of the Bible.

One would think that no one on earth could be opposed to these principles and that is why it did not surprise me either that those who were consulted about this legislation and who were involved in it, definitely embraced the principle. Everyone welcomed it. The differences which we had—and we had differences, as the House has heard this evening—concerned the particulars of the application and implementation and not about the principle. Yet, when we started voting on this Bill in the standing committee on 16 June of this year, after months and months of deliberations, the hon member for Rissik said that he was in principle opposed to the Bill, as he once again confirmed here this evening. He therefore rejects the point of departure, the basis and the nature of it. He dissociates himself from it and wants nothing to do with it.

Now one asks oneself: What rational considerations could it be that are making the hon member so unhappy? What is it that he cannot accept?

What member are you talking about?

I am talking about the hon member for Rissik. If the hon member had listened he would have known.

I am listening, but you are speaking so unclearly that I cannot understand you! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe is someone who does not have an inkling about the whole situation that we are now debating; it is beyond the limits of his ability to have any comprehension of it. It would be better if he were just to remain silent.

But you love me! You say one should love one’s neighbour as oneself! [Interjections.]

Let me ask the question: Is the hon member for Rissik opposed to people having equal education opportunities? I know the hon member and I know he is not against that. I can answer my question myself and say he is not against it. Is he perhaps only opposed to the fact that people of separate races have equal education? This I know is not the case either. I know the hon member well enough to know this.

Are you sure?

He is certainly opposed to mixed education, and he said here this afternoon that he is opposed to a unitary dispensation, as he called it. In this Bill, however, no mention of this is made anywhere. The various education structures continue to remain unchanged, and this is precisely what the hon members of the PFP and some of our hon colleagues in the other Houses of Parliament feel unhappy about. This is the matter on which we could not reach an agreement entirely.

Similar certificates and even—I want to emphasise this—joint examinations surely cannot constitute mixed education in themselves. It was precisely during the process of growth and development of our proud tertiary institutions that the University of South Africa fulfilled such an examining and certification function and it definitely did not hamper the development of those proud, independent, autonomous institutions, but rather facilitated it. It did not give rise to characterless uniformity.

I want to return to the hon member for Rissik. He is also after all not against employers having to have clarity and certainty about the value of the certificates which are presented to them. All I can think of, and the longer I think about it the more I become certain of it is that—how can I put it?—the hon member for Rissik and his colleagues have estranged themselves from the complicated reality of our country’s situation to such an extent that they do not dare dealing with it. [Interjections.] They cannot dare dealing with it. As soon as they try to address the fundamental realities the inadequacy of their supposed solutions becomes too clear. That is why they avoid it, because they cannot tolerate the light of day. [Interjections.] That is why they blindly vote against the obvious practical principles, as in this case. They avoid the public acceptance of the principles of fairness, because then they do not have to bear the consequences either. If they accepted these simple principles which form the subject of the Bill, like every right-thinking person would accept it, they would have to admit that it would also have to apply in their dream homelands. Partition or not, those countries’ employers too will have to have certainty about the certificates of qualifications presented to them. [Interjections.]

Also in their CP dream of the future there will therefore have to be certification boards whose functions will have to extend across the colour line—in their case perhaps across state borders.

The CP’s contribution to the development and unfolding of the future of our country, South Africa, our country full of challenges, has now been reduced to less than zero. It is now a negative figure. [Interjections.] It is a pity that this is the case, because South Africa needs all its people to work on its future—them as well.

While the CP hampers progress by digging in its heels, the PFP retards that same progress which it would like too, by irrationally flying off the handle. The CP as well as the PFP fail because they do not want to accept the realities and the possibilities locked up in those realities. [Interjections.] Now look for example, Sir, how the issue of one examination was handled in the standing committee. The CP did not participate in the debate at all. It in fact did not participate in any discussion. [Interjections.] It deny every possible need for something like that and did not even want to think about it. The PFP, on the contrary, wants to force it onto people and wants to introduce a compulsory joint examination. This is clear from its amendments which have been tabled and rejected. It wants to force everyone to do what it wants them to do, even though it represents a minority in its own community. Now these are the people who make a big fuss about democracy and discussions, consultation and genuine negotiation.

We may just as well take note of the fact that absolutely nothing will come of all these fine ideals if that party had to win a share in the government of this country—for that it is much too intolerant. [Interjections.] They still think that the Whites of this country can be forced to do something. They can really just wake up to reality along with the CP. They have also lost all pragmatism by now, as is clear from all the discussions we have had with. They have elevated their own liberalism to a dogma, and that is futile. With that one certainly does not make any progress. [Interjections.]

The NP and the members of the other Houses of Parliament were once again—in this case about issue of the one examination—the pragmatists. We said we should go into the matter to see whether a need for such a joint examination develops and then allow the parties involved to decide about it themselves. That is why clause 10 contains a provision which in fact makes it possible if two or more Ministers of Education and Culture agree on it. They can then do this on a regional or provincial or any other basis. They can do this as it suits them and as is best for them and for the people who they serve.

Surely this is how politics should be practised in a heterogeneous community. Surely this is democracy and progress. Surely this is co-operation and the creation of opportunities for co-operation.

With this legislation we have followed a difficult and a slow road in the standing committee, as various speakers have informed hon members this evening. I never despaired, however, because one observed realism amongst most members of the committee and a strong desire to meet each other halfway in the interest of the future of the children of South Africa. We have here a piece of legislation, drawn up in a way which would not have been possible under our previous constitution. This is a fundamental piece of education legislation, which would have been necessary even if we were not a heterogeneous society. The divided control over standards and examinations by the various points of departure at schools should be ended in the interests of the country. A confidence should be developed amongst the public at large that all school-leaving certificates are of an equal standard. We are one country with one economy and one labour market. That labour market poses a variety of demands to the labourer force trained for that market. This requires academically trained management, but in a developing country like ours also high level technologists and expert technicians are required. The direct strong influence of the old JMB on the whole school system—it is actually supposed to control and record matriculation examinations for the universities—is no longer satisfactory.

This measure, together with the others which follow on after it, will bring about more equilibrium in education, to the advantage of tertiary institutions and of the labour market in general. The certification board can make an important contribution in this connection. To make it possible, a strong research component will have to form part of the activities of the certification board. I sincerely hope that this research aspect will be particularly emphasised.

The right-wing parties’ contribution to this debate generally had nothing to do with education. [Interjections.] It was cheap political rhetoric which we observed particularly in the speech of the hon member for Sasolburg. This is not a political measure. [Interjections.] The certification board will not consist of politicians either; it will be composed of educationists, people who are already dedicating their lives in the interest of the whole of South Africa and the education of our children.

I welcome this important instrument which is being placed in the hands of these dedicated people, and I wish them everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, it is a bit difficult being the last speaker before the hon the Minister, after three Houses have chewed through this Bill, to produce anything original. [Interjections.] I can see why the hon the Minister and the entire Cabinet are so enthusiastic about having common debating on Bills on general affairs as soon as possible.

I should like to reply to certain of the matters raised by hon members. The last speaker before me, the hon member for Stellenbosch, made what I judge to be rather snide remarks concerning the PFP’s position on common exams, implying that we are attempting to force them down everyone’s throat. What I find very interesting—the hon member for King William’s Town touched on this—is that when, in 1956, everyone wrote the common examinations, no one was actually saying that the Nats were forcing them down anyone’s throat. [Interjections.] The hon member for Stellenbosch must decide what he wants. He must decide whether he is going to allow people to have a choice or whether he is in fact going to say: “No choice; it has to be what our Minister says it is.” [Interjections.]

I should just like to turn to one or two other speakers, such as the hon member for Johannesburg West who is the chairman of the standing committee. I should like to congratulate him on his chairmanship. It was a very good standing committee. It will, I have no doubt, become increasingly a proactive rather than a reactive committee over the next few months and years. I think it is going to look at educational matters in South Africa and adopt stances which I think the hon the Minister of National Education will probably increasingly become aware of. Certainly it is now a committee that is very well aware of its subject. A lot of its knowledge and capability must be ascribed to the department and to the good offices of the Director-General, Dr Roe Venter, and his department for supplying us with vast amounts of information, not only from the department but from the people who gave evidence as well.

I should like to turn to what the hon member for Johannesburg West had to say. One of the issues on which he attacked the PFP and my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, was the whole question of own education or apartheid education. The whole concept of apartheid is linked to race and race difference. It is not linked to cultural difference; it is not linked to ethnic difference, and it is not linked to religious difference. It is linked to colour or race. The examples he quoted of Belgium and Switzerland, I find interesting. Ploughing through the hon the Minister’s reply in the House of Delegates yesterday, I find that this is the example the hon the Minister chose. He chose Belgium and Switzerland as examples of differentiated education that were acceptable.

The interesting thing about Belgium and Switzerland—and the hon the Minister acknowledges it—is that there are differences and that comparison is not exactly applicable. The hon member must also acknowledge that. Therefore, if we are going to use those examples we must find what our ground is, and our ground is in fact in culture, if you like.

That proves the point.

It is exactly not proving the point, because apartheid and racial separation is what own affairs is all about. Nobody in the CP, the HNP or the NP stood up and said: “We want cultural education and we want an Afrikaans education department”. No hon member said that.

We have one. [Interjections.]

I should like to quote from an interesting document that we have been discussing at the indaba concerning the Swiss canton system because the canton system has been a subject of much discussion. I quote as follows:

The point made there is that there is a recognition—at the indaba and in this party—that the Afrikaner, as a linguistic group has a perfect right to claim cultural identity within the educational sphere.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if he would concede that own education, such as in Belgium, is not equal to apartheid education?

No, it is not apartheid education on the basis of differentiating education in South Africa according to cultural norms. It is not apartheid education and there are models throughout the world that one can examine. Recognition is in fact given to cultural groups. This party gives recognition in its constitutional policy to cultural councils; cultural councils can be language, they can be religious, but they cannot be race, because a race is not a culture. [Interjections.]

I should now like to turn to the hon member for King William’s Town. It is interesting that he referred hon members to local option. I should just like to quote one of his erstwhile colleagues, Mr Frank Martin, from The Sunday Tribune of 13 July.

I know all about it. [Interjections.]

The hon member has read it; would he mind if I read it again? [Interjections.] I quote Mr Martin:

Order! The hon member may continue tomorrow.