laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 127—86 (GA)]—(Minister of Finance).
2. (2) National Parks Second Amendment Bill [B 128—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism).

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, dated 29 August 1986, as follows:

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, dated 29 August 1986, as follows:

1. (a) that it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitioners be entertained: Cloete, J; Gibson, J L; Human, W J; Marais, P A J; Minnitt, J H G; Myburgh, P; Steyn, F S; Vermeulen, J; Vermooten, D O; and Verster, I C W;
2. (b) that with reference to the petition of Annaline J Lemmer, it understands that the subject of the petition is an own affairs matter, and will accordingly be dealt with separately by the Standing Select Committee of the House of Assembly; and
3. (c) that it has been unable to complete its inquiries into the petition of Strydom, W J J, and recommends that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Pensions at an early stage in the next session.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Pensions, dated 29 August 1986, as follows:

Report to be considered.

Mr Chairman, I move:

At present probation services in South Africa are regulated by section 58 of the Children’s Act, No 33 of 1960. The Children’s Act, 1960, with the exception of section 58, will be repealed when the Child Care Act, 1983, comes into force. [Interjections.] This section relates chiefly to children and juveniles and describes the functions of probation officers as being the presentation of presentence reports to the courts…

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly. The hon the Minister may proceed.

… supervising a child or person who has been found guilty of a crime and has been placed under supervision, and taking steps for the observation and improvement of criminal tendencies in children and the tracing and removal of circumstances that may cause or give rise to juvenile criminality.

In practice probation officers do furnish pre-sentence reports to the courts and do supervise both juvenile and adult offenders who have been placed under supervision in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977. The provisions of section 58 of the Children’s Act, 1960, are not comprehensive enough to administer a probation service for juvenile and adult offenders and to have such a service come into its own.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa—the so-called Viljoen Commission—referred in its report to this shortcoming in the functioning of a probation service in South Africa. Hon members will therefore appreciate the fact that with this Bill we envisage designing measures to prevent criminal tendencies in people, and also placing the treatment of criminals in the community and the administration of probation services on a firm footing.

I want to point out that prevention here means basic prevention. It is a matter of developing a way of life or lifestyle that will force people to adapt to the accepted norms of society. Programmes must be developed in which the community and multi-faceted professional teams, consisting of everyone involved in the socialising of human beings, will pursue this goal. Such programmes do exist already, but this legislation makes provision for such programmes to be extended or developed even further.

†I also want to refer briefly to a circular which I received a few months ago from the South African National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders. In this circular Nicro’s delegation to the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders—it was held in Italy from 25 August to 6 September 1985—made a summary of their observations, and I want to quote the following:

Probation services achieve far better results if professional workers and volunteers join forces in developing programmes to eliminate circumstances which contribute to social maladjustment. Volunteers are also essential in programmes aimed at the rehabilitation of offenders in the community. The Bill therefore proposes to regulate the services rendered by volunteers.

Community involvement is also evident in respect of the alcohol safety schools which we have already started and which are intended to supplement sentences imposed on drinking drivers to make these sentences more meaningful. These schools form part of a comprehensive probation service system and are in line with present-day thinking in respect of community oriented sentences. An attempt is made to realise these aims by providing persons referred to these schools with information and guidance which aim to develop insight and to change their attitude towards drinking and driving. The provisions of clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Bill are, inter alia, intended to place these schools or information classes on a sound basis and to extend their use to other types of malfunctioning. These classes are organised by the Department of Health Services and Welfare but various experts in the community are called upon to assist in many ways. The Bill proposes to regulate these services.

*I also want to focus the attention of hon members on the fact that the establishment of pre-sentence evaluation committees in terms of clause 5 of the Bill is not a new idea. The Viljoen Commission also recommended that “pre-sentence diagnostic centres” be established. A multi-disciplinary pre-sentence diagnostic centre was established in 1982 in Pretoria, as an experiment, by the regional office of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. Its purpose was to assist probation officers in the evaluation of offenders with a view to making efficient recommendations on sentencing or other forms of redress to the courts. This experiment was a success, and with this Bill pre-sentence evaluation committees can now be established with confidence on a nationwide basis.

I should also like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 has been so amended this year that it is easier for the courts to impose community service sentences. It is seen as a part of the probation officer’s task to exploit and develop facilities in the community to make it possible for the courts to impose such sentences.

With this Bill we therefore envisaged confirming the functions of probation officers obtaining authorisation for the introduction of measures aimed at furnishing a better service to the courts in our country and making the probation service in general more efficient.

I hope that this Bill will also strengthen the confidence of the courts in the services rendered by probation officers, particularly because much greater contributions will also be made by professions other than that of social work. I foresee that the benefits inherent in the treatment of offenders by probation officers, in the community, will contribute to the fact that many more first offenders, and possibly also second offenders, will be kept out of the prisons, whilst they are being helped, within the family and job context, to improve their adjustment to society. I hope that I shall have the support of hon members of all the parties in the House for this Bill.

Mr Speaker, there is an undeniable need for an effective non-racial probation service for all the people of South Africa. This must be seen as an urgent priority. Worldwide trends indicate that many countries are making increasing use of probation services as they succeed in finding new, better and more meaningful solutions to imprisonment, which as we all know—though perhaps not this Government—is fast losing its credibility as an effective and viable option.

South Africa must follow this trend. The Bill before the House will provide such a need in many respects. The appointment for example of an evaluation committee in clause 5 for the presentence evaluation of persons awaiting sentence must be welcomed. This will allow for alternative sentences to imprisonment, for example community service. The establishment of information classes in terms of clause 10 will fulfil a great need for the rehabilitation of many unfortunate offenders, for example alcoholics and drug addicts. The recruitment of volunteers as dealt with in chapter 4 of the Bill is certainly innovative and, if properly handled, could fulfil a great need due to the great shortage of qualified welfare workers.

Having said this, we on this side of the House cannot support this Bill, and I move as an amendment:

I would like to motivate this amendment with the following reasons.

Firstly, the criminal justice system of South Africa which includes the Department of Justice, Prisons Services and the Department of Law and Order are rightly regarded in our Constitution as a general affair. Crime, criminality and the relevant legislation to deal with this phenomenon cannot be differentiated on the grounds of race, colour, religion or creed. An organisation like Nicro has for this reason always catered for all racial groups without any form of discrimination since its founding in 1910.

Unfortunately the new Constitution has now deemed welfare to be an own affair. This step has been rejected by the vast majority of national and provincial welfare organisations because it is discriminatory and will result in unnecessary duplication and a waste of scarce funds.

The creation of an effective probation service should offer the State the opportunity of uniting the entire criminal justice system with the exception of the SA Police under one department instead of four. It is obvious to all that it is illogical that the Department of Justice should be responsible for the execution of all sentences passed by our criminal courts with the exception of those relating to probation services.

Our second reason for opposing this Bill is that if it is passed it will provide the White population with their own probation service. This must lay the Government wide open to sustained and I believe justifiable accusations of racial discrimination. It will be regarded by those who are not White—the Coloureds, Asians and Blacks—as further evidence of the continuation of apartheid. This will come about, not because they will not have their own probation Bills but because, as is abundantly clear, the State welfare services provided by those departments responsible for population groups which are not White are underdeveloped and grossly understaffed and therefore will in no way be able to provide separate but equal probation services.

As we know, South Africa has an appalling crime rate and our prisons are overfull. Would it not be better to create an effective, non-racial probation service under one department, that of Justice, to deal with this problem? Fragmentation of this service on racial grounds, as envisaged by this Bill, can only limit its effectiveness.

Our third reason for opposing this Bill is that I believe it has been brought before this House without proper consultation with the appropriate agencies concerned. May I ask the hon the Minister if he has consulted with Nicro, for example, or with any of the other agencies dealing with this problem? If he has not, could he tell us why?

I consider this to be important because the programmes which can be established in terms of clause 3, which deals with the prevention of crime and the rendering of probation services, impinge heavily upon, for example, Nicro’s aims and objectives and must affect the agreement entered into by Nicro, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Prison’s Service in 1976.

The obvious failure to consult with private organisations only confirms the Official Opposition’s suspicion that the so-called partnership between the State and private welfare institutions no longer exists. On the other hand, is the reason for this lack of consultation the fact that the hon the Minister’s department is so bankrupt of responsibilities that he is trying to build a phantom empire at the cost of the private welfare organisations? Surely the envisaged probation services require, in terms of the Bill, more widespread public participation and support than any other component of the criminal justice system in South Africa.

One of the vital objectives of the Bill is the procurement and regulation of volunteers to assist the probation services. Surely the hon the Minister must know that private welfare organisations in South Africa are the institutionalised expression of volunteers in welfare and, with their vast experience and expertise, can and will be of great assistance to the hon the Minister and the public.

This Bill is a sophisticated measure that could fulfill a great need—that is a good, efficient probation service for all South Africans. It has, however, been wrecked, firstly because it will be administered by the wrong department—the Department of Health Services and Welfare instead of the Department of Justice; secondly, because it is racialistic; and thirdly because it has been brought before this House before proper consultation with other welfare organisations.

The Nats wreck everything!

Mr Chairman, it was almost to be expected that the hon member for Parktown would try once again to denigrate the own affairs section of our Constitution. To us welfare, education and so on is very definitely an own affair which we regard with relative jealousy. I want to point out to the hon member that if welfare is a high priority in the case of the other two Houses, they can also decide, if they want to, to take this piece of legislation as a basis for the services they provide. In terms of our Constitution which was approved by a majority of two-thirds of our voters, welfare is an own affair, and we regard it as a matter of absolute priority. We are not prepared to play around with the welfare of our people for the sake of the political gain of people who do not agree with the Constitution.

The hon member for Parktown made the statement that there are too few voluntary workers. We realise that and that is why we want to get volunteers there. He also said there were too few workers among the other race groups. We can put volunteers there too.

When one considers this whole matter, one comes to the one conclusion that the rehabilitation of our offenders is of the utmost importance. Of course the concept of “rehabilitation” is very broad, because one can rehabilitate a physically handicapped person or someone who is insolvent. One can also rehabilitate an offender. Basically it means that someone who is in a poor state can be assisted so that his circumstances and the state he is experiencing improve.

Crime is no new phenomenon. A century or so ago people such as the Italian school of Garofalo Ferri and Lombroso and others had already considered the causes of crime. This Bill is making provision for that now, but also for much more than that. Apart from the programme which we want to establish for the prevention of crime, we do, of course, have a completely new approach now which extends to the treatment and care of the victims of crime. I find this a further important facet of the legislation before us. We now look at the total spectrum, viz the person being sentenced, the person awaiting trial, the released prisoner and, very important, the families of these people, as well as people who have been detrimentally affected by criminal action.

We might experience a problem in future, and as far as that is concerned I have some sympathy with what the hon member for Parktown said. The Department of Prisons and the Department of Health Services and Welfare will have to liaise much more closely in future than was the case in the past. The Department of Prisons has an extensive and very good social and psychological auxiliary service and that programme has top priority in the Department of Prisons. They have psychologists who make extensive psychological services available to the department on a full-time basis.

I think it would be of cardinal importance for our probation officers, but particularly our voluntary workers, always to keep themselves informed on their clients’ circumstances, especially in cases in which the psychological services of the Department of Prisons have identified certain psychopathic and other psychological deviations and, in their treatment and rehabilitation of these people, are paying special attention to these deviating patterns they have determined. It is in our interests for our probation officers and voluntary workers to take these factors into account.

If they are not aware of this at all, they can create certain problems for themselves, especially when it comes to the possible interpretation of the conduct of a probation case in certain given circumstances. That is why it is of cardinal importance that our voluntary workers and probation officers—they are, in fact, no longer going to treat cases of youths, but only of adults—liaise with the Department of Prisons in future. They have an input to make before someone is sentenced. They have an input to make and a treatment to apply after the person has completed his sentence, and in the period preceding his release, there should be very close liaison between our department and the Department of Prisons so that we will both be striving for the same objective.

We must realise that we are not dealing only with a problem in the sphere of social work, but that we are also dealing with psychology, sociology and criminology. The prescribed course that volunteers attend will have to be compiled with the greatest care so that we do not lose sight of the objective the departments are striving for in this legislation.

I find it rather a pity—I do want to draw this to the hon the Minister’s attention—that we do not make specific provision for voluntary workers at least to be graduates in one of the behavioural sciences. The hon the Minister can change this by means of a regulation later, however, because this Bill does make provision for that. We shall have to appoint “professional volunteers” and requirements should be too high rather than too low. Otherwise we may find that we are frustrating the whole purpose of the legislation, viz to grant professional assistance to everyone who has been affected by criminal action in some way or another. As has been said, there will have to be very close liaison between the two departments in future. This new approach will have to apply as far as the criminal and his family are concerned in particular. In my opinion we have not quite succeeded thus far in the treatment of the criminal once he returns both to his family and the community.

We did very little as far as the family was concerned. The rehabilitation of the family is important too. The family must also be rehabilitated to receive the criminal back into the family, and that is not always easy. Until now this kind of rehabilitation has barely existed. The legislation before us now gives us the opportunity to think about this whole matter much more progressively. In using the word “progressively”, I am not talking politics. I mean we should think “progressively” in the good sense of the word.

In my opinion the time has come to reconsider the whole essence of criminal procedure. Here I am referring in particular to both the offender and his family. One of the evils, if I may put it that harshly, of our present system is that we judge people, sentence them, and then take them out of their communities and families for months or a whole number of years. Once they have served their sentences, they are suddenly placed back into the family and their environment. In my opinion we are not using any scientific method to prepare those people for the task they have to fulfil in civilian life once again.

Only now do we come to the one great problem, and that is the problem of readjustment. I put the question: Why can we not phase in the adjustment process? I know one of the objectives of our system is in fact to punish the offender. The other objective, on the other hand, is that of rehabilitation. If we analyse it carefully we shall find that we cannot merely train a person or treat him psychologically. He and his family should be reunited gradually.

I have said that putting him back into his family suddenly causes problems. We know that. I think we should begin by considering allowing such a person to go home for a weekend once or twice a month during the last quarter of his sentence, for example. This is a completely new thought, but I really cannot see why someone who has been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, cannot be reunited with his family for the sake of his and their rehabilitation for one weekend per month during that last year. One can lengthen or shorten the period of a quarter of the sentence, but I think the principle is of great importance.

There are people who will ask me how one explains this to the children. How does one explain to a child why his father has been away for three years and is now coming home for a weekend every month and then leaving again? Not all offenders are unmarried, however, and we have made provision in the legislation for volunteers and probation officers who can help us to prepare the family to receive this man back into his environment and milieu.

There is something else that we shall have to start thinking about. I think our probation officers will have to talk about this, and this department will have to talk to the Department of Prisons and Justice. I am thinking of the possibility that we should consider permitting private visits by wives in the prisons.

At the moment I think we are also punishing the family for the offence of the man himself. In my opinion the time has come for us to look much more progressively at the whole system of punishment and rehabilitation.

I proposed this idea to a very senior official in the Prisons Service approximately 20 years ago, and the only reaction I got from him was: “I do not want a brothel in my prison.” To look at the problem in such a petty way and with such blinkers on, is something I really cannot agree with.

This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity and creates possibilities which we can use in the treatment of offenders, and also—which is very important—in the rehabilitation of those offenders, to make them normal people in our society once again. I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, in supporting this Bill I would like to discuss two principles. I would then like to discuss the amendment of the hon member for Park-town in an endeavour to prove that the argument is not based on sound reasoning.

In this Bill probation services are described in detail for the first time. The whole process of treatment may now be conducted properly according to a programme.

For the first time it has also become possible to look beyond the crime or offence of which the person is guilty and to focus on the person who finds himself in that situation. The whole process of helping and supporting an offender is important. It has now been made possible by this rehabilitation programme.

In American literature the term “significant others” is used when the whole rehabilitation programme or the rehabilitation of a person is discussed. It means to introduce a significant other person into the life of someone who has a problem.

When we look at all the measures contained in this Bill, it becomes very clear to us that the function of a probation officer is in fact to be a significant other person in the life of the offender, to give him the opportunity of forming a meaningful relationship. It is someone who is interested in him, who supports him and is able to assist him in his practical circumstances.

I think it most welcome—this is the first time it has ever happened—that comprehensive support can now be given to the offender, by way of prior evaluation and the development of the programme, which pertains not only to the offender himself but also to the family and the victim of the offender.

When we consider the people who have to render this service, namely probation officers, it becomes quite clear that these should be skilled and trained people, a factor which has already been mentioned by the hon member for Stilfontein. One of the recommendations contained in the Viljoen Commission’s report is in fact that these probation services would probably not be able to meet this requirement in the Black and Coloured communities at this stage, firstly because the probation services cannot be controlled, and also because there would not be enough qualified people to get such a service off the ground.

I therefore wish to say that this Bill which is before us can succeed only in a developed community. This type of service cannot be introduced in underdeveloped communities. Therefore, by now producing a Bill which applies to all population groups we would simply be creating a situation where the service would not get off the ground, thus causing more frustration.

Marius is not interested! [Interjections.]

It is a pity that the hon member for Parktown should politicise this matter and use this fine Bill for the purposes of petty politics. [Interjections.] To me it demonstrates the irresponsible way in which some hon members of the opposition deal with very important issues in our country.

This Bill makes it possible for the question of probation services to be dealt with most effectively and comprehensively in the White community for the first time. The fact that it is not possible for a similar service to be introduced in the Black and Coloured communities on the same level does not mean that this House cannot proceed to place such a measure on the Statute Book.

I do not wish to make any further comments, and I would like to give this Bill my most enthusiastic support. I also wish to compliment the hon the Minister on this Bill, as a comprehensive probation service system can now be introduced for the White community in South Africa for the first time.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us makes provision for the rendering of welfare services in respect of people who have been found guilty of crimes, and their families. It also makes provision for programmes aimed at the prevention of crime and granting of assistance to the victims of crime.

When one looks at these objectives, one is aware that they cover an immensely wide field and make provision for the granting of assistance to all people who are affected by a crime’s being committed. In general people are inclined to think only of the aspect of the criminal, the person who has committed the crime. The effect a crime has is far greater than that, however. It often affects the wife and children of an accused person intensely. Very often it also affects the victim of crime, sometimes to an incalculable degree. In particular one thinks of assaults, of whatever nature, in which victims are plunged into circumstances which they cannot deal with or adjust to.

The Bill makes provision for the appointment of probation officers by the Minister, who is defined as the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, Administration: House of Assembly. The principle of the appointment of probation officers has an immensely broad meaning. In the first place one would think the focus was on the person who had committed the crime. I do not want to talk summarily about criminals, because there are people who are born with criminal tendencies, in whom these tendencies are inherent. There are also people who become involved in a crime situation unconsciously. Sometimes this is serious, and it can have far-reaching psychological results for the person who has committed the crime. In such cases a probation officer can do a great deal to assist such a person, to give him moral support and to put him on the right course again.

What is of particular importance—I should like to emphasise this—is that the family of someone who is found guilty and given a prison sentence can suffer immensely in most cases. Those are the cases in which probation officers and volunteers can serve an exceptional purpose. Their task is not only to assist people in the ordinary community; they can also make an exceptional contribution in the spiritual sphere to supporting those people and to eliminating any stigma that may attach to such a conviction and imposition of punishment.

Another aspect that we should not underestimate is the assistance that should be rendered to the victims of a crime. I do not think we always realise the tremendous spiritual damage suffered by people who are the victims of a crime. I am thinking of any kind of assault in this connection, but in particular of the victims of rape. There is a great deal of talk on many levels at the moment about the kind of assistance that can be granted to such victims, but I think an immense contribution can be made with the introduction of this legislation, the fact that probation officers will now be appointed, and perhaps especially by making use of voluntary helpers—this aspect receives special attention in the Bill—to build a much better community than would have been the case without the introduction of this legislation.

It is a pleasure for me to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I was not very surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon member for Parktown, because over the past couple of days it has become quite obvious that party is now on the road of obstructing the functioning of Parliament.

He feels that he cannot oppose this measure, but he proposes in an obstructive way that this be now referred to a select committee. He stated that this Bill was discriminatory in its nature. Well, I defy him and challenge him to tell me how it can be discriminatory if I provide a service for my people and other people have the right to provide that very same service for their people.

Get somebody to explain my speech to you.

Being personal and objectionable will not advance the hon member’s case.

We have an interdepartmental committee called the Liaison Committee for Reconstruction Services to Families of Prisoners and Aftercare Services to Released Prisoners. I should like the hon member to show me the simple courtesy of listening to me, because he makes all these inane remarks and then he does not listen to what I am saying.

I am afraid I will accede to your request.

I am not very keen that the hon member should.

Well, do not ask me then; sit down.

I just think the hon member should be courteous to Parliament as well.

Calm down! Do not get so angry.

You have nothing to do with this matter; so just keep quiet! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, then that hon member might as well take over control of this debate, and then I shall leave the eloquent hon members opposite to their own devices.

†I should just like to tell the hon member for Parktown that this measure originated from an interdepartmental committee called the Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction Services to Families of Prisoners and Aftercare Services to Released Prisoners. On this committee are represented social workers of my department, the Directorate of Prisons of the Department of Justice, the Department of Health Services and Welfare of the Administration: House of Representatives, the Department of Health Services and Welfare of the Administration: House of Delegates and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning.

In other words, all the departments involved in reconstruction services to prisoners and their families are represented on this committee, and each of the other administrations is free also to pass a Bill such as the measure we are discussing today. However, their Bills will differ in their structure inasmuch as they will provide for their own particular needs. This Bill is designed to meet the needs of Whites, and the needs of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks may be completely different. Therefore I can see no reason why this Bill should now be criticised just because it is an own affair Bill. In any event, I certainly do not think this Bill is the correct vehicle on which to argue the principles underlying this whole concept of own and general affairs and I am not prepared to do so any longer. The hon member must remember that the provision of welfare services to Whites is the responsibility of my department. It is, moreover, a responsibility which we aim both to shoulder and to carry out. In the same way, it is the responsibility of the other own affair departments to look after their people.

All over the world these probation officers are under the control of welfare departments and not under the control of prisons or justice departments.

Yes, it is high time something was done for our White people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am really trying to be parliamentary this morning, but this hon member is really going to make me violate the rules by using unparliamentary language. [Interjections.] If I actually start doing this, Sir, please bear with me. You should take the fact into consideration that I am being provoked. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to tell the hon member for Parktown that, as far as this Bill is concerned, we did not specifically negotiate with Nicro and other similar organisations but we are in contact with them on a continuous basis. This particular Bill has been on the Order Paper for the past six months and it is public knowledge. [Interjections.] Consequently, I am merely asking the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that Nicro is perhaps opposed to this Bill, because as far as I know, they welcome this Bill. After all, we are discussing the problems addressed in this Bill. In fact, we discuss them regularly. We are not, in the final analysis, determining the particulars in this Bill of the systems which are going to be used. We are only making it possible for certain systems to be put into operation and certain structures to be made available to assist in the rehabilitation of prisoners and their families.

As I said in my Second Reading speech, this Bill was introduced at the request of the Viljoen Commission; it was not fabricated. In fact, on 20 March my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice referred to the departmental committee of the Department of Justice, headed by Mr Krugel, the President of the Regional Court of the Transvaal. I quote (Hansard: Assembly, 1986, col 2239):

He was, of course, speaking of community service sentences. He went on to say:

I quote further:

From a welfare point of view we in the Department of Health Services and Welfare of the Administration: Assembly associate ourselves with our hon colleague’s appeal. I repeat, we respond to that. As I have already said, this Bill was not fabricated. We were asked to introduce this Bill and we take pleasure in meeting that request.

The daily prison population in this country is 105 000 for all population groups, and 82,4% of the turnover of 560 334 prisoners during the 1983-84 year under review received sentences ranging from one to six months’ imprisonment. They therefore constituted smaller offences. The turnover of Whites in this category was 18 822 for this particular year. Hon members should appreciate that it costs between R11 000 and R18 000 a day to build and maintain a prison. However, these probation services cost us only 90 cents a day. We think that, if we can succeed in reducing the White prison population by half, we will have achieved our aim.

I also want to thank other hon members of my party who participated in this debate and I want to comment briefly on one or two points which were made.

The hon member for Stilfontein considered problems in connection with prisoners’ reunion with their families very positively. Being in a prison is of course a traumatic experience for any person. Careful consideration is given to the problems a prisoner experiences when he is released from prison. Multidisciplinary teams will introduce programmes which will facilitate the rehabilitation of a prisoner and his reunion with his family and which will make it possible and meaningful.

The hon member also referred to the fact that we should make use of the voluntary services of graduates. Of course we shall use the services of graduates in society but I do not think that only graduates will be able to provide us with optimal services. I can, for example, imagine that an ex-prisoner, who does not have a degree, could be of great assistance to us. It would also help a prisoner just released from prison to adapt himself to society again. I can therefore imagine that we shall use the services of many of these people in the rehabilitation process.

In this connection we also think of people who have problems with alcohol. We know from practical experience that former alcoholics—actually they themselves say “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic”—can best assist alcoholics with their problems. Rehabilitated people make excellent contributions to the rehabilitation of people who are still addicted to drink. They will also not all be graduates and we shall be able to make the best use of their services in these voluntary committees.

The hon member Dr Venter stated the two principles fundamental to this Bill in a very positive way. It is certainly not our entire aim to introduce something new. The idea of a probation officer is nothing new and I can therefore see no reason to refer this Bill to a select committee. Probation services or probation officers have been in existence for ages. It all amounts to this Bill regulating the principle, because only one section in the old Children’s Acts dealt with probation officers. That section very definitely did not give the probation officers the freedom of movement and activity which are so absolutely necessary for them to do their work in the best possible way. All we are doing is legalising certain actions which have already been instituted so that this work can be done on a firm and sound basis.

I also thank the hon member for Middelburg for his contribution.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill makes provision for amendments to the National Education Policy Act 1967 (Act 39 of 1967) hereinafter referred to as the principal Act.

†In the Bill provision is made for amendments relating to the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation. Prior to the implementation, the principal Act was administered by the Department of National Education which, as from 3 September 1984, was divided into two separate departments on the grounds of the functions which this department carried out on both the general and own levels. As from 17 September 1984, the principal Act has been assigned to the Minister of Education and Culture, Administration: House of Assembly for administration.

As a consequence of this, certain definitions in clause 1 have been amended, deleted or inserted, and further provision is also made in clause 15 for the amendment of the long title of the principal Act providing for a reference to the Minister of Education and Culture to be substituted therein for the reference to the Minister of National Education.

*The phasing out of the provincial dispensation as regards education necessitates further amendments to the principal Act. Wherever the word “Administrator” appears in clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 12, it is deleted or substituted. In clause 9, provision is made for the establishment of an education council for each of the provincial education departments.

As decided by the Government and set out in the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the Republic of South Africa, 1983, paragraphs 6.2(b) and 4.6.2, provision is made in clause 5 for the recognition of the organised parent community and the organised teaching profession, by the allocation of a place in the education system.

Following a thorough inquiry and the consequent recommendations, provision is made in clause 7 for the constitution by the Minister of an ad hoc council to advise him on any matter which he may refer to the council.

Also following an inquiry and recommendations received from interested parties in respect of the functioning of the South African Teacher’s Council for Whites, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, the National Education Council and the Committee of Heads of Education, it was decided to rationalise the existing structures and that a single body for the organised teaching profession must be established.

†Provision is made in clause 14 of the Bill for the recognition of such a body. As a result of this the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites will be phased out and provision is therefore made in clause 14 for the repeal of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, 1967, Act 116 of 1967. In the same clause provision is also made for the exercise of discipline; the drawing up of a professional code of conduct; the imposition of professional fees and a provision that no person who is not registered or provisionally registered with the new body may be appointed in a teaching post. Provision is also made for the transfer of all assets, liabilities, rights etc from the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites to the new body which is to be recognised.

*Provision is made in Clause 10 of the Bill for the appointment of subcommittees to assist the Committee of Heads of Education. This is being done because of an urgent need for a statutory provision for the appointment of such subcommittees.

The Bill contains a strong component of devolution of power which will advance the interest of education at all levels. It is clear that the majority of the amendments in the Bill are consequential amendments connected with the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation and the phasing out of the provincial council’s functions in respect of education. The other amendments relate to inquiries which were conducted and about which consultations with interested parties took place.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the PFP cannot support this legislation and we shall be voting against it.

This legislation is aimed at determining the education matters falling under this hon Minister’s department by legislation. There are one or two matters in this legislation which we welcome. In the main we welcome the fact that the teaching community and the parents are going to be far more closely involved in all aspects of education, for example planning, management, etc. This is a positive aspect of the legislation which meets with our support and approval.

But we cannot support the rest of the legislation. The reason why we cannot support it, will be obvious to the hon the Minister and the hon members of the House, namely that this legislation is aimed at establishing apartheid, racial segregation, in new legislation in the field of education. We are opposed to that. The Government is very sensitive about the use of the word “apartheid” and they are also trying assiduously to create the impression that the segregation which is taking place, is taking place on an ethnic, cultural or language basis. They are trying to get away from the fact that it is taking place exclusively on a racial basis.

The Government is not going to succeed in this, because it is stated expressly in their legislation. When one looks at this particular piece of legislation, one sees that the word “White” is used approximately 15 times as regards education. It is stated very clearly that all aspects of education falling under this hon Minister are going to be so-called “White” education, exclusively for White people by White people.

Yet this is not the case. This is in conflict with the facts and runs counter to the truth. We know that there are going to be private schools under this hon Minister’s department, at large numbers of pupils from the other race groups are going to study. Technikons are going to fall under this hon Minister’s department at which members of the other race groups will study. There are universities at which large numbers of Black; Coloured and Indian students are now studying.

In spite of this and with an utter disregard for the facts and the truth, this hon Minister comes to this House with legislation and definitions which prove that the Government, in the first place, is disregarding those facts and realities and, in the second place, does not mind being repugnant to the other race groups.

I want to read out a few of the definitions to the hon members—

Irrespective of the fact that large numbers of Black children are going to receive an education at schools falling under this department, it defines compulsory education as though it is only intended for White children.

Then there is the definition of the word “education”, where the education concerns schools, technikons, colleges of education, technical colleges and universities where large numbers of Black people will study. In terms of the provision of this legislation, “education” is defined as follows—

The South Africans who are not White, are consequently being humiliated and affronted by the provisions of this legislation. This hon Minister is so insensitive and unmindful of what the consequences of this short-sighted legislation will be, that he allows a definition of that kind to be included in this legislation.

There is also the definition of the word “student”. Today there are thousands of Black, Coloured and Indian students at so-called White universities, although many of those universities do not consider themselves to be White universities. The word “student” is defined as follows—

It is indeed impossible for we on this side of the House to co-operate with the Government in the field of education, in which we would very much like to do so, in which we would like to participate in a sincere, positive and constructive way in order to develop, improve and enhance the status of the education opportunities of all South Africans. This is our wish; this is what we would very much like to do.

We cannot do this if the Government purposefully comes up with legislation which is deliberately aimed at humiliating the Black people of South Africa. The hon the Minister and his department know this and the Government knows it, but they are continuing with this. Why are they doing so? Are they doing this to seek favour with that small percentage of narrow, right-wing racist White voters in South Africa who have forced this unfortunate trend on the Government? [Interjections.] We cannot go along with this.

This legislation also makes provision for the creation of a statutory body to represent teachers in South Africa. Yet again the Government is making a terrible mistake. The provision contained in clause 14 provides that a new body will be created for teachers, but this body—this is now a body that can look after the interests of teachers, can register teachers and can convey the views of teachers to the Government—which is going to be an extremely important body because it will be able to make a tremendous contribution to the improvement and development of education in South Africa is going to be exclusively for White teachers.

I want to ask whether this is not in conflict with the Constitution of South Africa, because when one looks at Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act, one finds that the indication in respective education is as follows. Mention is made of education at all levels, after which the various levels are mentioned. It goes on to say—

Under subsection (b) the following appears—

Consequently the Constitution Act indicates that the registration of teachers is a general affair and should be maintained as such. But in terms of this legislation it is now going to be an own affair and teachers are going to be admitted to and registered in an exclusively White body.

When one looks at the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, Act 76 of 1984, one finds that section 2 reads:

Various matters are mentioned, but in subsection (b), reference is made to—

Subsection (c) reads—

We believe that this indicates that the professional registration of teachers is a general affair and this means that it should take place on a non-racial basis.

It is obvious what benefits can be derived from a structure in which all teachers in South Africa of all race groups and from all regions can be admitted to one body. There it will be possible for them to discuss education matters, settle matters and then approach the Government on an organised and united basis and say what they believe education in South Africa needs in order to make progress.

It is obvious that the contact which can take place in such a body between teachers from various regions and race groups can only be to the benefit and welfare of the education of all South Africans and the teaching profession as a whole. This is obvious and no-one can disagree with it. But at the insistence of the far right-wing group the Government is refusing to allow such a sound and beneficial development to take place in education in South Africa. [Interjections.] The Government comes up with an exclusively White organisation which it wants to force on South Africa and all the teachers. I can tell the Government that a very large percentage of the White teachers are not satisfied with this and do not want to be part of such a narrow, racist organisation. They do want to be part of a multiracial organisation. The hon the Minister is going to be faced with a large number of teachers in South Africa who will not go along with this. [Interjections.]

Look at the precedents which the Government itself has set. Recently we have created one multiracial body after the other in education. Look at the certification bodies, for example. They are all multiracial. The South African Teachers’ Council is multiracial. Consequently the trend as far as education is concerned, is to bring people from the respective racial groups together to communicate with one another and to promote the cause of education. Suddenly the Government again comes up with a body which is only being created for one race on a purely racist basis. We cannot accept this at all, and consequently we shall vote against the legislation.

There is another matter which is mentioned in the Bill to which I have not yet referred, namely the provision in connection with the use of audio-visual aids—this includes computers, videos and so on—as teaching aids. In this respect I only want to make one appeal to the hon the Minister. As a result of the fragmentation of education, as far as its management and provision in South Africa are concerned, not only on a racial basis but also on a regional basis, we find that every department is doing its own thing on its own initiative as far as this matter is concerned. As a result there is a tremendous duplication of these services. Time, energy and money, are being wasted.

I want to suggest most strongly that the hon the Minister use his influence to ensure that as far as these matters are concerned, they will be regulated on a co-ordinated basis in South Africa. All the interested organisations must participate and be represented there so that we can prevent money, time and energy being wasted and can provide services of the very highest quality to South Africa in this connection.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston imported a new dimension in their opposition to own education. It is a dimension of fear which they are developing for everything that is White. In his speech this morning he repeatedly referred to White education as if it were a monstrosity or a calamity. We on this side of the House are not ashamed of White education. We are not ashamed of our standing here this morning as representatives of a White community.

The hon member went on to introduce two further phrases into his argument. He says that we are being offensive toward other population groups by means of this measure. The hon member, with his arrogant point of view this morning, was offensive to this House. He reveals an arrogance which utterly humiliates the Whites in South Africa.

The White man has on numerous occasions expressed his views on how education should be dealt with in South Africa. On numerous occasions the White man has expressed himself, by means of elections, and also the referendum of 1983, on the Constitution, and has resolved that education should be handled as an own affair. [Interjections.] Now the hon member for Bryanston comes along and says that this is an abhorrent measure. By this he implies that the White man adopted an abhorrent attitude by his conduct in elections and the referendum. We on this side of the House reject that absolutely arrogant allegation made by the hon member for Bryanston. [Interjections.]

We must be careful not to earn the teacher’s disapproval, too, in the process of evaluating this measure. [interjections.] The hon member made the general statement that many teachers disapprove of this measure. This is absolute nonsense! It is absolutely nonsensical for the hon member to have said this morning that many teachers are opposed to this legislation. The PFP does not know the teachers of South Africa. [Interjections.] They do not know how the teachers of South Africa think and feel. For the sake of a little political gain which he tries to extract from this situation, the hon member said this morning that many teachers are opposed to this legislation. This is an absolutely foolish attitude which the hon member has adopted, and I therefore reject his arguments.

This measure must be considered against the background of certain data in the education situation. The first is that for the first time, education is controlled centrally; provincial control has disappeared, and education—I am now talking specifically about White education—falls under the control of the hon the Minister and the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly. This in itself is an important change which has been widely welcomed by the teaching fraternity. I want to repeat that it was welcomed very widely by the teaching fraternity.

The second datum is that education can best be developed as an own affair. For the first time the House now accepts full responsibility for White education, and the goodwill and devotion of this side of the House will determine how successfully own education is to be developed, but with the attitude that the PFP revealed this morning, it would be difficult to develop White education in South Africa, were it not for this side of the House which seeks to develop own education as a whole.

Right at the outset I want to say that there must be no doubt about the goodwill and determination of the NP as regards achieving this.

The PFP may continue making its narrow-minded claim of a so-called single department. I want to make the allegation today that hon member’s appeal for so-called open education has a purely political motive, and contributes nothing to education in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is simply an appeal to oblige someone who has nothing to do with education.

They do not address representations in the interest of education. Neither do they address representations in the interest of the child. Therefore they are not appealing on behalf of the parent community of South Africa. They appeal for open education, but in fact they hope and believe that the NP will always remain in power in order to provide the different groups with community education.

A further important characteristic of this measure is that two of the three partners—these three partners are the child, the teacher, and the parent—are acquiring a very important statutory responsibility. This Bill reflects a conscious effort to involve the parent community along with the organised profession to a far greater extent in the planning of education, as well as the training of teachers.

If this measure is opposed it will therefore mean that there is opposition to what has been achieved by an investigating committee appointed by the Committee of Education Heads, as well as organised education. Here I refer to the so-called OBO-002 report.

I want to quote from the September 1986 edition of the SAOR—Die Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysraad vir Blankes—bulletin. It concerns the investigation and what it achieved. I quote:

It continues:

This is the objective of this measure. Therefore it is also fitting to pay tribute on this occasion to our teachers, as well as the parent community.

Firstly I should like to convey the appreciation of this side of the House to the organised teaching profession which, over the years, has succeeded in giving education and also the teacher a certain status and professionality. All the teachers’ associations—most of them, at any rate—have placed a very high premium on the profession through the years, so much so that the teacher is still recognised and respected as an honoured community leader. Similarly, most teachers have handled the responsibility of the child’s education with the utmost responsibility through the years, and are still looking after the whole child with the greatest piety and care. For these 12 years of shaping and moulding, we parents want to pay tribute to the teachers who have moulded our children through the years.

The organised parent communities—the school committees, the control councils, and now also the management councils—will in future acquire an increasing responsibility in the management of schools. We want to thank them for what they have done until now. I want to express the hope that this increased responsibility will be supplementary to the achievements of the corps of teachers. When these statutory parents’ bodies put education and the school first and act in the interest of education, it will—I believe—go well with our children in the various schools. Just as the teachers’ associations jealously guard over the professional conduct of the teachers, so will the parent community have to accept the responsibility to see that school boards, school committees and management councils serve only the school and education under all circumstances.

This Bill concerns several amendments and new measures which are being introduced. The hon the Minister referred to this in his second reading speech. I want to briefly refer to a few of them.

The first is the abolition of the National Education Council, which contributed greatly to education in the investigative and advisory spheres. The Bill still provides that the Minister may appoint an ad hoc board of inquiry and advice, and I believe that this may well happen in the future.

The most important point in this regard is undoubtedly the establishment of education councils for each of the provinces. Herewith the NP still acknowledge the importance of provincial education departments that will proceed, as in the past, to carry out the activities in the various provinces.

Section 9 provides for the establishment of such education councils in each of the provinces. As the council must advise the Minister and department, it will also be responsible for the coordination of the department’s activities.

I want to refer briefly to the composition of this council. Apart from the head of the department and a specified number of officials who will serve on the council, a specific number of persons from the tertiary education sector, the organised teaching profession and the organised parent community will also serve on it. Representatives of the private schools, special education and technical colleges, and at most seven other persons who have been appointed by the Minister, will also serve on this council. I understand the fact that lengthy negotiation was necessary to determine the number of persons for each sector, and that what currently appears in the Bill was determined by agreement. However, it has come to my attention that a certain group of teachers, a certain association, has not been included in this specification of representation. I refer to the South African Association for Technical and Special Education. Representatives of Saatse—as they are known—consulted me in this regard. These teachers, and also their association, were part of the old Department of National Education during the negotiations, and as an association were not part of the provincial education system. For some reason they were not included as an association in the allocation of the number of persons in the organised teaching profession. This association cooperated readily, in the change to the new dispensation, and it would be a pity if they could not be represented in the education councils as they are currently being composed. May I once more implore the hon the Minister to examine all possibilities to accommodate this association in the education councils. I should really appreciate it if there could be a solution in this regard. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister whether there is some possibility of accommodating this association.

Next I want to refer to the provision under section 14 which makes it possible for the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites to function as a single statutory council in the future. I want to congratulate the two bodies that I have just referred to, on the initiative that they took, and on the progress that has already been made in linking these two bodies. Without waiting for approval for this measure, these two bodies had already agreed to enter the new Federal Teachers’ Council after this measure had been adopted. It shall be known as the TFC, or the FOR, the Federale Onderwysersraad, in Afrikaans.

This step will achieve the centralisation in a single body of the current Federal Council of Teacher’s Associations in South Africa and the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites, in order to participate in education planning on a statutory basis. The new body will play a very important role in education planning, as will the various associations. I want to quote the following from an SATC bulletin:

It continues—

What is stated here, is that the teaching profession must be considered in the planning of education, and that they must be consulted. It really is a welcome step which is being received with great enthusiasm in education circles, and also the security which it gives to the other people concerned with education—also to the parents—that future operations will be more co-ordinated.

The new council will still continue to register White teachers and deal with disciplinary measures. It was with appreciation that I took cognisance of the fact that I, who have always been a member of the SATC and still pay dues, will continue to be registered, while no longer having to pay annuities as an ex-teacher. This is a friendly gesture to accommodate the members of the SATC who are no longer teaching. I personally want to express my utmost appreciation for this.

May I also convey my very best wishes to the new Federal Teachers’ Council on behalf of this side of the House, and also in my personal capacity. I believe that there is a great task ahead of them, which they will carry out with the utmost circumspection in the interests of education. If education deals with the child product with dedication and love, I believe that product will be whole and sound.

I want to conclude by conveying the sincerest thanks to the hon the Minister on behalf of this side of the House, our study group and the management, for his involvement in our activities. We also thank him for the excellent manner in which he administers White education in South Africa.

White education has entered a new era with a smart and outstanding Minister. We really have great appreciation for what the hon the Minister is doing for education in South Africa. Because he serves education, I believe that education will show him the dividends.

Before I conclude, I also want to convey to the Chief Executive Director, Mr De Villiers Terblanche, our sincerest and best wishes. His teaching experience, expertise and insight is at the disposal of education, and we believe that he will apply that expertise in the interests of education. We want to wish him and his department everything of the best.

We gladly, and with great enthusiasm, support this amending measure which will now put White education on a sound foundation.

Mr Chairman, the CP does not support this Bill, but for completely different reasons to those which the hon member for Bryanston raised here this morning. Before I refer to the hon the Minister and the Bill, I just want to speak to the hon member for a moment.

The hon member made a few terminological errors, based on his party’s policy. Naturally he says the Bill still contains too much apartheid between the various races in South Africa and so forth. The hon member continuously refers to multiracial education which is what the PFP wants. This is not correct from the viewpoint of the PFP. The PFP’s policy is non-racial education, so it is incorrect of the hon member to speak of multiracial education. [Interjections.]

Naturally the hon member for Bryanston cannot say he wants multi-ethnic education in South Africa either. They also want non-ethnic education in South Africa. I leave the hon member at that. When the CP has taken over the Government, and if the hon member is back in his bench, we shall have another little talk about these arguments about principle. [Interjections.]

You first have to take Rissik again!

Of course the hon member for Bryanston is one of the right-wing members of his party, and that is why he makes such little mistakes. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the hon the Minister. I do not know if he has been given a Deputy Minister yet. Surely it was a mistake on his part to call this Bill an amending Bill in his Second Reading speech. If the hon the Minister had done his homework—if I can refresh his political and education memory a little and refer back to 1967—he must agree with me that this measure is not an amending Bill of the Act of 1967. This Bill amends the principles of 1967. I sat here in 1967 as a young member of Parliament when the National Education Policy Act, 1967 was discussed. At the time I listened to the Second Reading speech of the late Senator Jan de Klerk and to all the members who spoke on the NP side, and the hon the Minister should really go and look at Dr Connie Mulder’s contribution of that time as well as at the reasons why the then opposition party was opposed to the legislation.

The hon member for De Kuilen?

No, it was not the hon member for De Kuilen yet.

Not? It was his party at least.

It was a much better education man.

The hon member for De Kuilen was on a lower level than education.

It was “Oom” Flippie Moor, “Oom” Douglas Mitchell and those men. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell the hon the Minister that when, in his capacity as a Minister, he makes use of the opportunity to address teachers, teachers’ associations, parents and children on his own, he should tell all those people who are in the sphere of education that he has rejected the principle of the Act of 1967. The hon member should read what is written in the long title:

The hon the Minister should go and read clause 4 in which it clearly states:

The hon the Minister knows, does he not, that one of the arguments about that Constitution was that White education was made subordinate to general education. He knows that we sat here last week and the week before for the purpose of dealing with a whole series of legislation of the hon the Minister of National Education, after it was discussed in the Standing Committee which consists of members of all races—Coloureds, Indians and Whites.

As a former educationist I want to tell the hon the Minister he should be honest with the education people of South Africa, and should tell them in what milieu he is placing education in South Africa today. Education is an integral facet of the ethnic organism, but the politics of South Africa is enslaved by and subordinated to other races in South Africa, and that is why education is also enslaved and subordinated. The hon the Minister’s game of bluff will simply not wash. As we move forward, also in education, the hon the Minister will see the reaction of the people against this destructive downgrade on which he is taking the Whites.

I have here with me two of the NP’s documents on education. One of them is the constitution of the NP of Transvaal, as amended at the instance of the 1982 congress—that is after they had kicked us out because we did not want to accept a mixed Government, multiracialism or the destruction of the Whites…

Order! We cannot treat every debate like a budget debate by talking about the broader political policy, because that would nullify the significance of a budget debate. I want to point out to the hon member that he must please confine himself to the subject of the Bill. The Chair does not mind if he wants to make his point, but the point must be grounded in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that point? This Bill, the hon the Minister says, is an amendment of the Act of 1967, but the hon the Minister has changed the principle of that Act. I want to indicate to the hon the Minister in this debate that he cannot tell the House that this is merely an amending Bill. He has changed the principle, and I want to prove to him that not only has the NP changed this principle, but they have also changed their own party’s principle on education. I must indicate this.

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon member unnecessarily, but if the hon member looks at the title on the outside of the Bill, he will read that it is an amending Bill. What the hon the Minister says does not matter all that much. I pay attention to what is written here. The hon member will also notice that in the Bill itself mainly amendments are being made. If the hon member can indicate under which clause he is discussing this principle, I shall be pleased.

Mr Chairman, I am discussing clause 4, but may I address you on this matter? I am in fact pointing out that it is incorrect of the hon the Minister to say that this is an amending Bill. This Bill amends the principles which were entrenched in 1967, and that is what I want to indicate.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I just want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to his own programme of principles. He as well as the hon member for Gezina made a great fuss here about own education. Let me tell the hon the Minister he and his party have changed the principles on which the Act of 1967 was based. In the programme of principles of 1982 the following is still written:

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that and I agree with it. [Interjections.] But the hon the Minister has now changed these principles, has he not. This is the dilemma. That hon Minister still stands by these principles but the hon member for Benoni says the principles and policy of the NP have not changed. I now want to point this out to hon members. Did the hon the Minister not know this? Is the Free State so isolated? [Interjections.] Or do the Ministers in the Ministers’ Council not know what is going on in the Cabinet?

You are now being nasty!

No, I am not being nasty, but I wish the hon the Minister was my pupil. I too was a teacher. [Interjections.] I wish I had a podium now so that I could have given a lecture on this for a while.

What are the hon the Minister’s principles now? He should go and compare the various documents with one another. I read the following:

What does that tell you?

Surely this differs from what is stated in the programme of principles! [Interjections.] Of course! The reference to Christian national education does not appear in this policy document of the NP. This is one aspect which has changed substantially.

The hon member for Gezina made a big fuss here about so-called own education and he was terribly upset that the hon member for Bryanston reproached the NP for still talking about White education. The hon the Minister still talks about separate White education, which it is not. He also says that there will be separate schools for Whites. But I want to quote from a paper which was written by one of his leaders, who was the chairman of the body that carried out research into education for the HSRC. This man writes the following in a confidential paper to the hon the Minister:

What does he go on to say? He says:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister how he is going to apply this Bill in the communities that he wants in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must not tell hon members of this House and the public at large that he is going to amend the Act of 1967. He has amended it in principle. It is not only sections that are being amended here. That is why I want to tell the hon the Minister that just as we CP members are concerned about the political direction in which he wants to move, we are also concerned about the direction in which he wants to take education in South Africa. With this insertion of clause 4 he is in the process of subjugating education, just as he has subjugated us at the political level.

Hon members will be very pleased now to hear that I am going to conclude. [Interjections.] They will not silence me in public, however. [Interjections.] That is why what happened yesterday or the day before…

[Inaudible.]

The hon member should rather go to America.

You will not even win again in Rissik. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member for Innesdal something. Would he like to listen? He does after all talk to everyone in the country; why does he not talk to the Whites too? He should listen to me for a bit. [Interjections.]

We are concerned about education and I want to tell hon members that the public at large is also very concerned about education. That is why the electorate is now starting to make changes in regard to management boards. Do hon members know what happened in Waterkloof? Where are the hon members for Pretoria East and Waterkloof? I have news for them.

Rustenburg as well.

Yes, and Rustenburg included.

Just look after Rissik!

I shall. Rissik is under very good control.

Forget about all the other places, just look after Rissik.

The hon member always listens to Crocker, does he not. He must also listen to me for a bit. [Interjections.] He listens to that “old Crock”; he should now listen to a decent man. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member for Rissik is still speaking. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I can understand the hon member’s anxiety! [Interjections.]

All eight members of the management board of the Hoërskool Waterkloof who were elected last night, are right-wing members. [Interjections.] All eight of them are CPs. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister—and I want to count my words—he should stop travelling through the country and telling the poor unknowledgeable and uninformed electorate that there is such a thing as own education in South Africa.

You underestimate the voters.

No, I do not underestimate the voters. That is why all eight members were voted in. The hon member should just resign from his constituency and we shall see what will happen. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister should stop writing confidential papers to his organisations, the so-called cultural organisations which are simply abdicating, to prepare the way for grey areas and for multiracial schools, since he wants to include the people, the educationists, the leaders in the sphere of education and the children in a non-racial society as far as the education community is concerned, just as the hon member for Bryanston wants him to do. Let me therefore say this to the hon the Minister: Stop deceiving and misleading the people.

Mr Chairman, I think it is advisable for me not to react to the hon member for Rissik, who preceded me. I am not even going to allow myself to be put off by this small gang who are sitting there contrary to their own better judgement. [Interjections.]

It is wonderful what a beating can do!

Mr Chairman, I would really appreciate a little protection today, because the hon member for Kuruman is in the habit of seeing whether he cannot make a longer speech when it is my turn to speak. [Interjections.]

This is a special day for education in South Africa—I should like to associate myself with my colleagues who spoke before me in this regard—because for the first time we have a comprehensive Bill before us today in terms of which all education in South Africa is brought under one umbrella.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on the fact that after years of investigation and study we have this final product in front of us today. When I refer to the hon the Minister and his department, I also take pleasure in referring to the many professional bodies which represent education in South Africa. We are privileged to have some of their representatives attending the debate today. One thinks in particular of the people from the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and other educational institutions, which have made such a tremendous contribution towards getting this legislation into shape.

Sir, in view of the exceptional degree to which I am connected with technical colleges you will understand that I want to approach the Bill more specifically from that angle. This is a special day for the technical colleges because in clause 9 of this Bill, which replaces section 5(l)(i) of the principal Act, provision is made for the councils of technical colleges to be represented on the provincial education councils.

The creation of the Federation of Technical College Councils, or Fedtech, as it is already known in the vernacular, in my opinion also has special significance for technical colleges. Through this federation trade and industry will now also have a direct say in the formulation of policy at technical colleges.

One of the previous speakers—as I recall it was the hon member for Gezina—advocated that Saatve should also be represented on these education councils. I hasten to add that it worries one that Saatve is not represented on these education councils. One understands that such councils cannot be too large and unwieldy, but it does seem to me that these councils cannot afford a body like Saatve being absent. That is why I want to associate myself with that request, and ask the hon the Minister whether he will not consider the inclusion of Saatve in the Committee Stage.

In spite of the appreciation I have expressed, there was and still is a deep-seated fear at technical colleges—it has been present for many years—that colleges, in the more specific sense of the word, will be turned into schools. I want to tell hon members why that fear exists. In terms of clause 14 of the Bill two sections will be inserted in the National Education Policy Act of 1967, viz sections 8B and 8C. The envisaged new section 8B(1) provides that if a body is established by the councils mentioned in it, the Minister of Education and Culture must recognise that body by notice in the Gazette as a juristic person with the object of promoting the prestige of the White teaching profession.

Subsection (3) of the envisaged new section 8B provides that after the said body has been recognised in terms of subsection (1), no person shall be appointed in a teaching post as defined, or teach at a school unless he has been registered or provisionally registered with that body—ie the body recognised in terms of subsection 1—in terms of the regulation made under subsection (4) of the envisaged section 8B.

The keywords in the determination of the extent of the prohibition introduced by the envisaged new section 8B(3) are “teaching post”, “teach” and “school”. Clause 1(r) of the Bill envisages the insertion in the principal Act of a definition of “teaching post”, which reads as follows:

1. (a) teach at a school, technical college as defined in section 1 of the Technical Colleges Act, 1981 (Act No 104 of 1981), or college of education; or
2. (b) render auxiliary educational services or professional educational services to the department, including provincial education departments.

A technical college is defined as follows in section 1 of the Technical Colleges Act:

Section 3 of that Act determines the functions of a technical college as follows:

As defined in the last-mentioned legislation.

The Bill also envisages the amendment of the definition of “school” in terms of section 1 of the Act and if that definition is amended as envisaged it will read as follows, and I am quoting from clause 1(n) of the Bill:

This definition is so wide that it will also include a technical college maintained, managed and controlled or subsidised by the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly or by the provincial education department. In other words, such a technical college is a school for purposes of the National Education Policy Act, 1967.

There is no doubt about the express failure to mention a technical college and the exclusion of a university, a college of education and a technikon from the definition of “school”. If a technical college provides education, as defined in the statutory amendment, ie “instruction, teaching and training provided to White persons”, and if such a college, as mentioned, is maintained, managed, controlled or subsidised, it is a school in terms of the National Education Policy Act, 1967.

On the basis of the foregoing one must come to the conclusion that the said envisaged section 8B(3) also includes the said technical colleges. This means that after the body referred to in the envisaged section 8B(3) is established, no person shall be appointed in a teaching post at such a technical college or shall teach at such a technical college unless he has been registered or provisionally registered with that body in terms of the regulations made under subsection (4). It is in fact regarding this interpretation that I should like to speak to the hon the Minister again on a later occasion.

Subsection (4) provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa and the said South African Teachers’ Council for Whites or, after the recognition of the body referred to in subsection (1), after consultation with that body, make regulations in relation to:

1. (a) the requirements with which a person shall comply in order to be registered or provisionally registered with the body.

It is consequently being left to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to decide which requirements will be laid down, and, I assume, he will act after consultation with the councils mentioned in subsection (1). It would appear that the relevant regulations need not necessarily lay down the possession of some or other educational qualification as a prerequisite for registration.

Because technical colleges are unique and frequently—or rather regularly—have to lure people from the field of commerce and industry as lecturers—full-time or part-time—that definition can create serious problems for us if that person, who has to be appointed to the staff on a full-time or part-time capacity, must first be registered by the SATC. Of course one asks oneself why a lecturer, who may only give a one-hour refresher course per week at a technical college, would spend R60 to be registered, simply to be able to lecture for one hour a week. For that reason I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to resolve this practical problem. I am still convinced that this can best be done by omitting the reference to technical college in clause 1(1)(a). I cannot foresee that such an omission can in any way adversely affect the legislation. For that reason I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to consider an amendment to that effect in the committee stage. In any case I do not believe that this cropped up in the original draft Bill.

If the definition of “school”, as we find it in clause 1(n), is aimed at making it possible for an ordinary school to offer advanced post-matriculation courses too because this would be cost-effective, this is really a step in the right direction. As a matter of fact, this is the basis on which many of our technical institutions were established at that stage—institutions which later developed into technical colleges. I believe that one of our finest colleges, the Tygerberg Technical College, came into being in that way. We simply cannot carry on establishing small technical colleges in every little town. There is no longer the finance for that.

Another aspect causing concern is the restrictive use of the word “student”, as in clause 1(p). I find it hard to imagine a student enrolled at a technical college, who has already reached a specific stage of maturity, having to be known as a pupil. Without in any way encroaching upon the spirit of the legislation, the hon the Minister must please try to accommodate technical colleges in this respect. We cannot refer to these people merely as “persons” or “pupils”.

These matters, which I have raised here in passing, Mr Chairman, are not new ideas to the hon the Minister. We have already spoken to some of his senior officials about this, on behalf of the Federation of Technical Colleges, and we have also spoken to him personally about this. Personally I am very grateful for the comforting assurances we received in this regard, particularly in connection with that restrictive concept of turning colleges into schools, without trying to make the functions of schools subservient to those of technical colleges. For that reason, what our earnest appeal amounts to is that by means of this measure the hon the Minister will also allow technical colleges to retain and develop their character so that they can remain institutions with their own identity. In collaboration with commerce and industry we would like to continue to meet the training needs that sector presents us with.

Mr Chairman, technical colleges have a delineated, unique purpose and function, thus far having their own legislation—not bigger or better or smaller than other educational institutions; nor in competition with any other educational institutions, but supplementary to them. That is why it is of so much importance that the hon the Minister to make an unequivocal statement today regarding the retention of a separate Act for technical colleges, Act No 104 of 1981.

Of course—and this goes without saying—this Bill will also have to be amended, but we want to be sure that Bill No 102 of 1986—the Bill we are dealing with now—will not eventually be considered an adequate replacement for Act No 104 of 1981.

After all I have said hon members may feel that technical colleges only have something to be fearful of and have no hope for the future; on the contrary, the introduction of the advanced M courses in commerce and management—the advanced technical M courses—are not only opening new spheres for technical colleges, but I honestly believe they are also creating new horizons for them. As a matter of fact, at this stage I make bold to say that an explosive growth is already evident in this sphere. If there were fears in the past of conflict between technical colleges on the hand and technikons on the other, they will in any case disappear with these new courses and this new direction in which the hon the Minister and his department are taking us.

In conclusion I should like to say that South Africa has phenomenal mineral wealth in these ominous times, and it will pre-eminently be the task of technical colleges to unlock this treasure-house for South Africa through the training they offer.

Today there are 71 technical colleges in South Africa, with a diversity of character which puts them poles apart. This demonstrates that the overall family of technical colleges has succeeded in adapting to the needs of the community it serves.

That is why I believe that the hon the Minister and his department, as well as the provincial education department that will eventually become involved, will have to guide technical colleges with a sensitive touch so as to be able to do what they are so excellently equipped for. In saying this, I want to mention at once the attitude not only of the hon the Minister, but also of his own Department of Education and Culture and of the provincial education department. We want to wish the hon the Minister every success. On behalf of the Federation of Technical Colleges, of which I have the honour of being chairman, I offer the co-operation of technical colleges at all times. We are really looking forward to a fruitful relationship with this department and with the other departments falling within the ambit of this new legislation we are passing here today.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will agree with me when I say that the hon the Minister to whom he has just expressed his best wishes in the task that lies ahead, probably has the hottest seat in Parliament because his field, White education, is the one field that is going to remain untouchable in terms of the NP’s policy and that is continually going to come under attack from the CP.

I want to support the hon member for Bryanston, Sir. In other words, the NRP will not be supporting this Bill. Really, I cannot conceive of a more crassly, insensitively worded piece of legislation at this time than this one. Because of the manner in which it has been worded, what this Bill does is to overemphasise White education in a clear attempt to pacify party political adherents who are beginning to get the jitters in regard to what exactly the NP are going to do about education. It is a call to the members of the NP—a rather forlorn call at that—and a call which attempts to indicate to the CP that they, the NP, are standing fast on this issue. In all cases the use of the word “White” in this Bill could have been avoided by the use of a wide spectrum of terminology which would have related education to the community which is served by the school in its area.

The Government is so happy to use the words “self-determination” and “community”. If self-determination means anything in terms of education where the school serves the community, then that self-determination should devolve upon that community itself. That is where self-determination belongs in education. If the school serves the community, that community should be able to make decisions.

Mention was also made of the further involvement of parents and organisations in this Bill. However, it is an involvement on NP terms. The problem is that at the heart of NP thinking is still the fact that they do not see all the people in South Africa as South Africans—as Afrikaans-speaking, Xhosa, Zulu or English-speaking South Africans—but that they still see them through the eyes of the CP who think of them as separate peoples. We will not develop a common loyalty to this country and a proper South African patriotism unless the NP begins to see people in that light.

What are we going to do when for instance the other two Houses open their schools to everybody. What will the Bills that they put on their Statute Books look like? There will be no mention whatsoever of segregation because of the colour of a person’s skin, while our Bill contains those references ad nauseum. Those references will stick out like a sore thumb; it has nothing to do with communities. Those people now have the right to determine the content of their syllabuses. What are we going to do when they write our history through their perceptions? There will be many different versions of the history of South Africa. This Bill is totally in contrast to the spirit of the debate in the standing committee on the Bills on the various certification councils. It does not contain the spirit that was obvious there from all three Houses in relation to education.

We fear the compartmentalisation of education in this manner because people have different perceptions. We must bear in mind that in a very short time historians will be writing about South Africa in terms of what happened from 1948 until 1980 or 1982. That is what they are going to be writing about. The perceptions of the various communities of the laws passed by the NP Government are going to be very different. Unless we acknowledge that those things are happening in the country and that the history syllabus is going to be one that is fairly represented in terms of the effects of the legislation passed by the Government in respect of the various communities, and unless we have some form of acknowledgment of the friction points and the differing attitudes towards things and the resultant movement forward by the Government which has now commenced, we are truly going to be faced with the prospect of people’s education in some of these areas. We must get our act together so that we can unify our approach to South Africa. We are going to have to unify it on the basis of the realities of what is taking place, and we must allow room for differing communities to be able to put their perceptions—I grant the hon the Minister that they might be quite slanted—to the children. It has happened before.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he supports people’s education? I just want to obtain clarity about that.

That is not at all the case, Mr Chairman. I am only issuing the warning that one cannot ignore the fact that it exists, that it is gaining ground in certain communities, and that this kind of approach to education is going to exacerbate the possibility of its gaining ground further. That is my point.

We believe that in the spirit of what is happening in Natal today where the indaba is taking place—a regional convention if one wishes to call it that—where people can come together to air their fears, their differences of opinion and their perceptions, it is possible to come up with an approach to South Africa’s problems which we should be able to include in our education.

There is a paradox in the Government’s approach. The hon member for Gezina demonstrated this earlier in reply to the hon member for Bryanston when he said: “Hy ken nie die onderwyskorps in Suid-Afrika nie.” I think those were his words—it was something of that nature. Who is the “onderwyskorps” in the eyes of the Government? The hon member for Gezina is obviously only talking of White teachers.

What the hon member said is not true. The majority of White teachers in South Africa—I am now referring to both Afrikaans- and English-speaking teachers—may be in favour of the NP viewpoint on education but we can no longer think that we can include these people in the top structure which we have created with this Bill and others. In that legislation we recognise them as members of the teaching profession but in a debate such as this the hon member for Gezina refers to the “onderwyskorps” as the only one which he believes should receive recognition. There is a terrible danger in that approach.

I personally believe that schools will continue to serve communities because that is the practical reality of life. People will continue to attend the schools within their communities. I believe that if communities had power devolved to them to enable them to exercise self-determination in the true manner at community level very little would change. The hon the Minister of National Education calls that “tokenism” but I do not see how he can say that. The hon the Minister of National Education unfortunately has a very convoluted type of logic. The fact remains that the school will continue to serve the community and members of that community will make the decisions. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture shakes his head but what will the Government do with regard to the report of the President’s Council concerning group areas if they recommend a system of local option?

Wait and see!

Relax!

I hope you do relax and accept it!

If the Government decides to permit communities to exercise local option in respect of residential areas, this will mean a proper devolution of power. Axiomatically those people would then approach the community school in order to attend it—the two go in tandem.

However, this Bill makes no provision for that reality. The Government will therefore forge ahead in the one respect—that is in regard to the amendment of Acts such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and so forth—but in this instance we will come up against legislation which does not allow for the devolution of power. It will not be able to accommodate the results of the amendment of other legislation so conflict will simply be perpetuated.

In my opinion it is tragic that the hon the Minister did not take his courage in both hands and tell his law advisers that this Bill had to be drafted to indicate that the schooling represented the community and that in terms of the Constitution it was controlled by the responsible department. There was no need to try to whitewash the situation. The tragedy is that it was a transparent attempt at whitewashing. The CP does not believe it. We heard the hon member for Rissik say it was just a lot of nonsense and that nobody believed it. What has the Government got out of it?

The manner of going about reform and how it is perceived is as important if not more important than the very content of the legislation itself, and that is what the Government always seems to miss. We will not be supporting this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is regrettable that we have to debate this type of legislation with only one hon PFP, one CP and one NRP member.

There are enough of us for you! [Interjections.] We have the courage… [Interjections.]

Order!

This legislation is a splendid milestone in the history of education in South Africa but that is the extent of Opposition parties’ interest in it. [Interjections.]

I wish to revert to the standpoint of the hon member for King William’s Town. He said “local option” had a future as an education policy in South Africa. [Interjections.] The “local option” tale has been whittled down to five small areas and after the following election there may be no “local option” left.

That is what you say, and yet it has been…

To attempt setting up “people’s education” as a pole in opposition to the content of the legislation is, to say the least, a poor way of attempting to sell the “local option” policy.

I should very much like to associate myself with all the previous speakers on this side of the House in congratulating the hon the Minister and his department very heartily on the splendid piece of legislation submitted to us.

I wish to give hon members some idea of the seriousness of the content of this Bill by making a public confession today. The former Director of Education is the Director-General today and is sitting with us in the officials’ boxes. He and his successor probably also viewed me with surprise here, I who had had quite a hard time at their mature hands when I was a first-year student.

In 1975 there was serious discussion on the East Rand…

Which clause is this?

… concerning the principle ultimately contained in this legislation. The memorandum launched on the East Rand at the time was certainly amateurish in composition and elicited a great deal of criticism but its spirit was actually the same as that contained in a much improved form in this legislation.

An enormous amount of work lies behind this legislation. It is also an incredible breakthrough as regards the traditions of quite a number of provinces with a fine, proud history of the standards achieved at provincial education level because today they are handing their splendid treasure chests to a central treasury under a Minister. This is what we are experiencing today with this Bill.

As I have said, it was a monumental piece of work. Many very hard nuts had to be cracked en route to be able to reach this destination. If I examine the structure of the legislation, I think nothing better could emerge. For the first time in the history of South Africa a Minister is the direct terminal and focal point of education in a centrally controlled situation.

What I admire in this is the fact that the hon the Minister has the principal educational experts in South Africa as a subcommittee in an advisory capacity directly at his disposal. This is a brilliant conclusion we have reached after years of turmoil in education. It was a hazardous exercise to break through the existing situation to reach this point. I wish to pay great tribute to each person who relinquished his own small kingdom to become part of this enlarged empire. It betokens magnanimous leadership to make such a sacrifice to become part of the enlarged and improved pattern we have negotiated. [Interjections.]

The second matter which strikes me here is the form of the education council to be instituted in each province in support of the provincial education system.

As regards the Bill per se, I find clause 5 eloquent of the character of this legislation. Clause 5(a) provides exactly the form the general education policy will assume within a framework of principles. I am particularly pleased about the provision in clause 5(b) which reads that—

I think this particular matter is one of the greatest problems in education today as it sometimes creates enormous difficulties in the education situation in which tuition has to be given after all. This same question, however, is also the cause of many of the aspects the hon member for Bryanston will never understand as this matter gave rise to distinctive schools in South Africa because for this reason and in consequence of their own cultural background communities formed separate schools, which this Government permitted them to do. Today these schools are accomplishing fine work under their own conditions.

What strikes one further regarding clause 5 is that free education is provided for children whose parents are resident in the Republic and this has been given substance in the legislation. This is an important principle. It is of further importance to note—this is one of the milestones and characteristics of this legislation—the position this legislation accords the organised community of parents. It is one of the cornerstones of this legislation that the organised community of parents should have a greater interest in education.

I wish to repeat that I find clause 5 the embodiment of the character of the Bill and I wish to congratulate those who formulated it. The true spirit of the Bill tabled here emanates from it. We should like to carry it out in South Africa and give it substance.

The hon member for Gezina expanded fully on clause 9 and the education council. I merely wish to say I am exceptionally pleased that we could ultimately determine its composition. I am also extremely gratified about all those represented on this. I appreciate standpoints adopted here and we shall have to give further consideration to how to justify them. It was a brilliant stroke not to make this council too clumsy as a cumbersome body representing all would actually create its own problems for the very reason that it represented everybody. It is difficult to constitute a council like this within the limitations of the desired number but I am satisfied with the council as it appears here and we wish to congratulate the hon the Minister on it.

In addition, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Gezina in expressing very hearty congratulations to education associations because in this way they have also indicated how splendidly education can function by rationalising and joining forces throughout South Africa in an effort to see in what way we can serve this cause in its magnitude. I think this piece of legislation is brilliant and I hold it up to education circles as a model to indicate where we are heading with education. I hope this serves to convey our hearty congratulations to the hon the Minister.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when business was suspended before lunch, I was referring to this legislation as an adornment and cornerstone of present White education in South Africa. I referred to this Bill as the goal of the work of a whole group of experts on education in South Africa, the best brains at our disposal. These are people who have devoted their lives to education and whose intentions toward education were of the best. They gave substance to this legislation in the wording in which it appears before us today.

In spite of this, the CP says of this fine piece of legislation that in principle it rejects the cornerstones of South African education. The CP claims that this legislation is causing education to be enslaved. The hon member for Rissik alleges that the hon the Minister goes about the country with this legislation, which has passed through those hands and been designed in such a manner as to come before us in its present form, informing and deceiving uninformed voters.

I wish to conclude. It is regrettable that the sphere of education—it is a noble vocation—and the splendid work done in the classrooms of South Africa should today be demeaned to this level through politicisation of education. [Interjections.] I ask myself: If we are to proceed in this way, what right do we have to be critical of the Black politics of today? What right do we have to be critical of the “national education” or the “people’s education” which Black people want to offer Black children today?

I want to make a serious appeal to all members that we keep out of this sphere as we are dealing with the education of the children of today and the people of tomorrow. My earnest request is that we leave this sphere alone as there are sufficient other fields in which we may conduct our petty politics and canvass the votes of constituents. We need not do it in this way.

I wish to close by once more expressing our sincere gratitude and appreciation to each person who worked so hard at this legislation and the final product we are able to offer the teaching profession of South Africa as a cornerstone in dealing with White education in the future.

Mr Speaker, I should like to start by referring briefly to the exceptionally well-considered and effective appeal made here earlier this afternoon on behalf of technical colleges by the hon Chief Whip of Parliament.

The hon member is an expert on this specific subject. He has been the chairman of a college council for many years and has recently progressed to becoming the first chairman of the Federation of Technical Colleges. I wish to congratulate him heartily on this distinction. I can associate myself wholeheartedly with the plea made here by the hon Chief Whip and shall therefore join him in listening attentively to the hon the Minister’s reaction to it this afternoon.

The hon member for King William’s Town followed the hon Chief Whip and he judged this legislation in a way I really find difficult to comprehend. He apparently does not yet really accept that we have a constitution in South Africa approved by the overwhelming majority of Whites and in terms of which education in this country is an own affair. He cannot accept that it is precisely this which the majority of Whites in South Africa want. [Interjections.] I wish to advise the hon member to open his eyes to reality for once as he will see something else as well then. Then he will also see the reasons why he and his colleagues form such a small group in this House. [Interjections.]

Fortunately the hon member for Brentwood followed the hon member for King William’s Town and by his conduct again elevated the level of the debate. The hon member for Brentwood is an experienced educationist who is not only an expert on education but who has over the years actually become a philosopher on education. I always listen to him with great pleasure. This afternoon I listened to him again with interest and should like to congratulate him heartily on his speech.

This legislation is in essence a piece of reform legislation. It is a very important movement in the direction of the new South Africa towards which we are striving and working. It is a South Africa in which the self-determination of population communities becomes really significant only when two events occur.

First must come what is so unacceptable to the CP, namely that there has to be co-operation between the various communities sharing the same territory. Secondly, the greatest degree of participation in the decision-making processes affecting their own interest has to be possible for the respective communities.

This legislation deals chiefly with the latter. The organised White teaching profession and the organised White community of parents, for instance, are now to have greater participation in the education of their children and the training of their teachers.

At the same time, in clause 4 the fact is recognised that Whites are not the only population community with an interest in the affairs of macroeducation in South Africa but that there has to be a general policy on inter alia financing from the central revenue fund and on norms and standards for syllabuses, examining and certification. The reason for this is obvious.

The final product of the educational process enters the same labour market of a single, undivided economy in a common country. It is of cardinal importance to that economy and that country that the standard of education and the qualifications be co-ordinated among the various population groups.

It is not always easy to retain one’s perspective on this reform process which is occupying us. If only one facet of reform is viewed at a time, it does not always make sense. One has to attempt to retain one’s perspective on the whole to be able to evaluate single processes properly.

Some time ago provincial councils were abolished. Now, on the institution of provincial education councils in terms of this legislation, the step abolishing provincial councils makes more sense again. These education councils are very important advisory bodies and they are about as representative of the possible inputs on education as can be. The hon the Minister’s department is represented on them as well as provincial education departments, the tertiary education sector, the organised teaching profession, the organised community of parents, private schools, bodies governing special education, and technical colleges. Co-operation at this level among the representatives of all the various sectors can only be to the benefit of the respective sectors themselves as well as education in general.

The prospect that these councils may ultimately also function on a regional level will contribute to their effectiveness. One is actually dealing here with the institution of smaller, more intimate education families with more easily identifiable common interests.

I regard this development as one of the most constructive yet to occur in South African education. Education in the country will derive great benefit from this in years to come. [Interjections.] Even the hon member for King William’s Town will have to admit this in the future. [Interjections.]

The Bill under discussion is representative in its entirety of comprehensive co-operation, consultation and participation by experts on and parties interested in education. Notice, for instance, how the policy regarding teacher training will be determined in future. The Minister determines the policy but there has to be comprehensive consultation on this. He first has to consult the education councils which themselves are highly representative bodies, as I have already indicated. In addition, he has to consult universities, technikons and the organised teaching profession.

As regards the co-ordination of teacher training in a province, each education council may in addition appoint a provincial advisory committee to assist the universities, training colleges and technikons of the province concerned. That advisory committee in itself is once again a highly representative body with serving representatives from the hon the Minister’s department, the provincial education department involved as well as the universities, training colleges, technikons, the organised teaching profession and the organised community of parents in that particular province.

This type of co-operation is the predominant characteristic of the Bill before us. It is clear that the hon the Minister and his department set themselves the goal of creating structures through this to provide education for Whites in South Africa with the best service. If someone who reads and understands this legislation continues saying that education as an own affair is a farce or meaningless, I say he neither wishes nor is able to open his eyes to reality.

It is clear to me that the new dispensation in education, under the governing bodies and guidance of this dedicated and expert hon Minister of ours, will open new possibilities to education and our children which will exceed any expectations we have ever cherished regarding it. This provides a sharp contrast to the predictions of doom hurled from the opposite side of the House at us over recent years.

I say possibilities are being opened up which far exceed our expectations. Of course, it is a fact that, in consequence of reform, expectations are ultimately often exceeded and yield unexpected bonuses. The reason for this is that structures which were previously untouchable because of own and sectional interests often fall by the wayside during reform—such as the process involving us now in education as well. It often removes barriers…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he can justify it morally that schools at Stellenbosch may not be opened to those of colour too as he can find justification that the University of Stellenbosch should be opened to those of colour?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman had better just read the Constitution to understand that the University of Stellenbosch, like all South African universities now, in terms of a constitutional measure which makes it possible…

I am not asking what the Constitution says. What do you say? [Interjections.]

I shall reply to the hon member; just let him give me a chance. In terms of this measure, there are also students of colour at the University of Stellenbosch. [Interjections.] Reciprocal assistance on an agency basis is furnished even at school level. We can debate this later in the debate on private schools after we have dealt with this legislation. The principle is contained in the Constitution and it remains a sound one but the fundamental point of departure in South African education is that education is an own affair at all levels and that is what we are building on today. [Interjections.]

The NP has never been so inflexible in its standpoints as to attempt forcing any part of the community into a straitjacket which does not fit it.

You have not answered the question.

I merely wish to repeat that in this regard the reform process, as I said just before the hon member for Kuruman put his question, is a process of emancipation from narrow, sectional thinking and the protection of own interests conflicting with those of the total community.

This legislation is an outstanding measure which will greatly benefit education in South Africa. I take pleasure in supporting it and I wish the hon the Minister and his department every success in its implementation.

Mr Speaker, we have now come to the end of a reasonably long debate…

But it was not really a debate.

I am glad the hon member for Barberton has just said that, because I decided to try discussing education at a specific level. The hon member for Barberton, however, is responsible for the fact that I am now going to make certain remarks. We are debating education, speaking about a discipline in this country which I believe, with all my heart, is above the level of party politics. [Interjections.] I am of the opinion that we should carry out educational activities as a joint field of activity in the interests of all the population groups in this country, even across colour boundaries; it makes no difference.

What, however, happens in practice? We are in the process of debating extremely important legislation, but at the present moment there are only five hon members of the CP in the opposition benches. For a long time, however, there was only one hon CP member. At one stage, during this debate there was only one member of the CP, one PFP member and one member of the NRP—who also left the House at one stage—and, as far as the HNP is concerned, the hon member for Sasolburg has only just entered the Chamber. For the major portion of this morning’s debate the HNP was not present at all. [Interjections.] They are the people, however, who chiefly latch onto education when they want to play politics out there. [Interjections.] The fact that the hon member was not here is an indication of how important they regard this to be. I do, however, want to leave the matter at that.

Let me also say that I am convinced that we should keep the debate on education out of the party political context. I shall come back to that at a later stage, when I am dealing with hon members’ arguments to indicate how this very principle, which is sometimes blazoned forth, is quite simply violated in practice. Before I come to that, however, let me say that I have noticed that the chairman of the Federale Council, Prof Maree, and the secretary of the Federal Council, Mr Koos Steyn, are present here. I therefore want to express my personal appreciation for the interest which these two gentlemen have also shown in the development of education—not only now, but during recent years too, and particularly during the past two years in which there has been intense deliberation and planning, and in which intense scientific research has been done with a view to eventually getting to the point where we find ourselves today.

I also want to indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that this amending Bill that we have before us today … Oh yes, at a later stage I shall, in fact, be returning to the argument of the hon member for Rissik who alleges that it is not, in point of fact, an amending Bill. This amending Bill is based on negotiations that took place during the past two years. The eventual outcome was a large meeting at which representatives of all the respective educational disciplines in South Africa were present. They subsequently also brought out a brilliant report—the so-called OB0001—which actually served as a basis for what we have here today in the legislation under discussion. I also want to express my particular thanks and appreciation to everyone who co-operated so extensively in trying to establish an educational system which, we believe, will be to the benefit of the Whites—of course, yes, from the very nature of the case, because we are discussing educational legislation for Whites in the House of Assembly—and in the broader context too—there must please be no doubt about that—in the best interests of everyone living in this country.

Before discussing in detail the speeches made by hon members, I first just want to deal briefly with the question of the NP’s philosophy concerning education as an own affair. That, then, will also be my reply to many of the arguments raised here by the hon member for Rissik.

Before doing so, however, please allow me, Mr Speaker, just to direct a brief word or two at the hon member for Rissik. Mr Speaker, I have nothing whatsoever against the hon member for Rissik as a person. I do, however, want to say something to the hon member for Rissik again, something which, I think, was put to him in all seriousness on a previous occasion. When we debate across the floor of this House, we are debating certain principles, as we interpret them. When I arrogate to myself the right to see something from a specific point of view, I do not think that I begrudge the hon member for Rissik the right to see things from his specific point of view. That does not mean, of course, that we will necessarily agree with each other. What I object to, however…

Earlier on we always agreed!

What I do object to, however, is the personal enmity, the sharp acrimony, with which the hon member for Rissik denigrates hon members on this side of the House. I want the hon member to understand clearly that I disagree with his view.

But earlier on we always agreed!

When I disagree with the hon member for Rissik, however, it is not necessary for me to hate him. He, in turn, does not need to shout hurtful remarks here across the floor of the House. When someone shouts hurtful remarks across the floor of the House, it is the clearest possible proof that he does not have an argument on which to build a case.

What you are now saying there is untrue!

Mr Speaker, does the hon member for Rissik now wish to allege that he does not, from time to time, make hurtful remarks across the floor of the House?

I am telling you now that what you are saying is untrue!

Mr Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon member for Rissik while he was speaking. [Interjections.] You see, Sir? That is a typical example of the kind of thing I am referring to. The hon member for Rissik is now showing everyone—the members of the general public too—that what I have accused him of is true. The way he shouts at me is a clear indication. I really do not expect that of him!

I am not shouting at you! You are talking nonsense!

Mr Speaker, I do not tell the hon member for Rissik that he is talking nonsense, do I?

You know very well that you are talking nonsense!

Mr Speaker, I prefer to leave the matter at that. Since the hon member for Rissik has pointed out to me that I should tell the truth in public, that I should not tell lies when talking to groups of parents or teachers, let me put it to the hon member, with all the conviction at my command, that I challenge him to give one example of an untruth that I have told.

You are challenging me, are you? Very well!

What the hon member can, in fact, say is that he does not agree with my interpretation.

You have challenged me! I accept the challenge! You will see!

You see, Mr Speaker, what the real problem is? [Interjections.] The problem is that in the public manifestations of their political activities hon members of the CP, and in particular the hon member for Rissik, are bent on dressing education in a costume that best fits the CP. In the process those people do not have any respect for the truth inherent in the Constitution and the premises of this Government. [Interjections.] That they do not have, Sir. [Interjections.] Now the hon member for Rissik is trying to threaten me by issuing me with a warning. I now want to tell the hon member for Rissik here in all friendliness…

Keep your friendliness to yourself! [Interjections.]

That is just another example of the typical reaction we are dealing with here.

I put it to the hon member that it is my right to speak to parents who have an interest in both the development of education and education itself, and I shall continue to do so. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon member whether he has anything against the teachers’ associations. Does he have anything against the TTA? [Interjections.] Does he have anything against the SATA?

No, I have something against their Minister.

Does he have anything against the OFSTA? The hon member accuses me here of addressing teachers under the auspices of the teachers’ associations. He acknowledges here that I did not address teachers except with the knowledge of the teachers’ associations. Does the hon member then not want me to do so? Does he have anything against the teachers’ associations? [Interjections.]

Let me take the matter further. The hon member made an allegation in this House. He said that he was quoting from confidential documents sent to me by a specific person, but he did not have the courage of his convictions to mention the person’s name. [Interjections.] He spoke of a “confidential document” which he sent to me—we can check up on this in Hansard. My question to the hon member is this: How did he gain access to this confidential document addressed to me? Where does he get it from? [Interjections.]

Do you not have the document? Do you not attend their meetings?

No, the hon member must just wait a moment. We can consult the Hansard speeches and then the hon member can tell me if I am wrong. The fact of the matter is that the hon member is taking a long shot. And he is the one who tries to point out to me that we should tell the truth! Let me now say here in the House, in the presence of this hon member, what I say in public. What I am doing—and I shall continue to do so—is to administer White education in this country in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Hear, hear!

Nothing more and nothing less!

Section 14 of the Constitution spells out what we mean, in general, by own affairs. The definition is contained in section 14. We can, however, take the matter further. In paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Constitution it is stipulated that education is an own affair at all levels, “including” this and that.

Subject to (onderhewig aan)…

We then say it is subject to—“onderworpe aan” and not “onderhewig aan”—general legislation. Here we now come to the problem I have with those hon members. When they speak in public they simply say “subject to general legislation”. That is what they tell the people.

But that is what it is.

I knew the hon member for Kuruman would fall into the trap. The actual words are:“… subject to gener al legislation in relation to…” Then three aspects are stipulated, ie firstly norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs, secondly conditions of employment and the registration of teachers and, thirdly, norms and standards for syllabuses, examination and certification. [Interjections.] It is a question of norms and standards, and I shall be coming back to that at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is therefore that if I say in public that education is an own affair for Whites, just as it is an own affair for Coloureds, Indians and Black people, I have the Constitution to back me up, because words cannot lie, unless one distorts them oneself.

What is more: It is not merely a question of entrenchment in the Constitution. These aspects have not merely manifested themselves since the advent of the De Lange Committee’s report; they have manifested themselves since the advent of the 1967 Act.

The hon member accuses us of the fact that this is not an amending Bill because it changes the principles of the 1967 Act. What are the facts? The fact of the matter is that the principles of the 1967 Act remain exactly as they were in 1967. That is not what we are amending with this Bill. So where does the hon member get the idea that we are now amending the principle of the 1967 Act? We are not touching that.

We can go on with this. When, after the publication of the De Lange Committee’s report, we adopted the principles involved in the provision of education, this took place in accordance with what was stated in the White Paper in which the Government’s standpoints on this matter were stated very clearly. I want to quote this to the hon member so that he cannot again level accusations at me and so that he can tell it to his friends outside the House. Here it is stated:

What is more, in paragraph 3.3 on page 3 there is the following:

Hon members must take note of what is stated here: “Its policy that each population group should have its own schools”:

Paragraph 3.4 reads as follows:

I now ask the hon member how he can come along and tell me, if Afrikaans has any meaning whatsoever for him, that we are not administering education as an own affair.

You must just listen.

In saying these things to members of the general public, I am conveying the actual facts contained in the educational legislation and in the Constitution.

Give us a definition of self-determination.

The hon member may put questions to me at a later stage.

I want to go further, because hon members are denigrating education, since they are saying that because it is subject to general legislation, we are introducing integration into education. Hon members also normally come along—as they did this afternoon—and say that there are people of colour at the universities, technikons, technical colleges and private schools. We are not apologising for that, however, because if we accept the principle of administering education in accordance with the Constitution, we must do so in every respect. In paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution it is very clearly stated that a service can be furnished to a person from a population group other than that for which the institution was primarily established.

In everyday language—the hon member for Rissik will then understand it too—this means, therefore, that in a White private school we can, in fact, furnish the service to people of colour. Likewise we can do so at a university, a technikon or a technical college. That is nothing new, because for decades now there have been people of colour attending specific universities. For a long time now, prior to this Bill, students of colour could be admitted to technikons under specific conditions.

What is more: When he was still on this side of the House the hon member already knew that under specific conditions people of colour could be admitted to private schools. Now, however, he makes a great fuss of the fact that after the Constitution was passed, and with this Bill, we are suddenly moving towards the integration of schools. When he was sitting on this side of the House and was a member of the National Education Study Group, he did not jump up here in the House, or in the caucus, and record his objections. He did not do so. Let us speak frankly to each other across the floor of the House.

You joined in disputes on the issue with Piet Koornhof.

It is no use hon members interrupting me. I did not interrupt them.

For years now there have been people of colour at those schools. Let me say too—the hon member should also put this into perspective amongst members of the public—that for years now we have also had specific exceptions in regard to Government schools, particularly with regard to the children of diplomats. That has generally been accepted.

The objection I want to raise, as far as hon members are concerned, is that in public they denigrate the own affairs concept for the purposes of political expediency. They want to tell members of the general public that we are introducing integration into education. This is not so, and I do not apologise for this to anyone, including members of other population groups. It is my unqualified conviction that we can best serve education within this cultural context. It is in the best interests of education, and educationally justifiable, for us to have own education for the Whites in their own schools with their own education departments. At the same time it is my unqualified conviction that it is necessary, for the same reasons, for the Coloureds to administer their own education, as they do at present, in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, because they are participating in the system because they accept the Constitution, and that is also why they administer their education along those lines. The same applies to the House of Delegates which does the same, and also to Black education, which is administered by a general affairs Minister at the moment.

I believe that if we look at education from this vantage point, we shall be able to help one another with its development, because we are committed to an attempt—and I do not apologise for that either—at achieving equal educational opportunities. Some of the hon members in the opposition parties made certain disparaging remarks about the teachers of the various population groups. Let me tell them that if someone is professionally qualified as a teacher, it does not matter whether he is a White man, a Black man, a Coloured or an Indian, because I respect him for his qualifications as an educationist. If it were within my power, I would support him in his efforts at providing education for the children of his population group within his specific ethnic context.

The most important reason why we administer education as an own affair is because I—and this side of the House as a whole—believe that education or upbringing is nothing but the transfer of cultural assets. For that reason I want the education, which follows upon the upbringing in the home context, to perpetuate that upbringing within a familiar milieu. It should therefore take place in a White milieu. If one proceeds from the standpoint that education is not merely the instilling of knowledge, but is also a question of cultural moulding, one cannot but adhere to such a principle. We stick to that and that is how we shall be administering education.

I now come back to hon members who participated in the debate. Let me start off by thanking hon members on this side of the House—the House will excuse me for saying so—for the fact that, knowing as they do what the present Constitution and the legislation under discussion embodies, they could state with complete understanding and conviction that we are in the process of developing education, primarily in the interests of the Whites within the House of Assembly, but also in the interests of everyone in this country. I want to thank them for the way in which they put their case and for the way in which they tried to explain their standpoint to hon members on the other side of the House. I extend my particular thanks and appreciation to them.

I also want to express my thanks for the kind words extended to me by the hon member for Gezina as chairman of the education and culture study group, and also to all the other gentlemen who made a contribution I extend my sincere thanks. I greatly appreciate the fact, and I want to go on record today as saying that the wholehearted co-operation I have had from everyone who has participated has made a difficult task easier for me to carry out. I thank them for it. At a later stage I shall be coming back to what they said in more detail.

I now come to the hon member for Bryanston. I accept that he can unfortunately not be present; I received a note in that connection. My sincere thanks, too, to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition as far as that is concerned. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bryanston said that his party would vote against this legislation. I thank the hon member for nevertheless welcoming the fact that this legislation is making statutory provision for the involvement of parents and teachers.

The hon member says he is opposed to the legislation because it perpetuates apartheid. I find it strange indeed, and I am continually amused at the fact that the PFP says we are perpetuating apartheid, whilst the hon members of the CP accuse us of just the opposite.

The hon member for Rissik stood up with a great flourish and said he was opposed to the legislation, but on different grounds from those expressed by the PFP. He put forward diametrically opposed arguments. If we are not on the right road now, I really do not know.

The hon member for Bryanston says that in this legislation we are perpetuating apartheid. All I can do is to refer the hon member back to what I said about the principle, from the Constitution, in terms of which we administer education.

The hon member also referred to the definition of “compulsory education” in clause 1(g). It is a cause of concern to him that definition, and the definition of “education”, applies only to Whites. We are dealing here in the House of Assembly with an education Bill which, in accordance with our principle based on the Constitution and other Acts, is applicable to Whites. We are proceeding with this measure, and it is therefore not necessary for me to cross swords with the hon member on it any further.

The hon member then made the very ugly allegation, which I take amiss of him, that we were in that way deliberately humiliating Black people. With such a statement the hon member himself is in effect humiliating the Black people, for what is the hon member saying by implication? He is implying that Black education is of a low standard.

I am profoundly convinced of the following: Of course education opportunities for Black people are at present not the same as those for Whites. But I have appreciation for the ability of qualified Black teachers in purveying knowledge to and educating Black children. I also have appreciation for some of the achievements that are being accomplished by the Black pupils. If the hon member makes such an allegation it is humiliating to the Black people because he is indicating in this House that the education of the Black people is of a low standard. It is a reflection on the Black teachers, both men and women, who are already sacrificing everything in their efforts to educate and train their pupils.

The hon member referred to clause 14. It deals with the body that is going to be established and which will be representative of the teachers after rationalisation has taken place. At present we have the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa. After talks it was decided that rationalisation must take place. The hon members’ objection, even though he welcomes such a federal teachers’ body, is that this one is only for Whites. He also related it to the question of registration.

In the Constitution it is stated very clearly that this is also subject to conditions of service and the registration of teachers. At present we still do not have a central registration body, but for years now we have had a White professional body with which White teachers have to register if they wish to teach in schools. The other population groups also have an opportunity to establish their own professional teachers’ body, but up to now they have chosen not to do so; as they have every right to do.

It is also true, however—this is how I picture it—that when we possibly have such a central registration body in future—this falls into the sphere of operations of the hon the Minister of National Education—that body will impose certain minimum qualifications with which a teacher will have to comply, whether he is White, Coloured, Indian or Black, to be able to teach.

The issue for us is quality education for all population groups in this country, because that would be to our mutual benefit. If that is true, it is also valid in future that the Whites should continue to have the right to have their own White professional teachers’ council, with which people who wish to teach in White schools will have to register.

These things are not contradictory. It is fair and just that we have a White professional body in respect of White education, with which teachers must register.

I shall now refer to the audiovisual aids the hon member spoke about. It is true that every province is at present dealing with these matters on its own, but it is also true that the Committee of Heads of Education Departments and the Committee of Heads of Education have already discussed this whole matter. It is also interwoven with future networks so that we are already able to bring about rationalisation in that sphere, to the best advantage of the cause we want to serve. I have taken cognisance of what the hon member said and we shall look into this matter as well in future.

I want to thank the hon member for Gezina for stating very clearly and categorically that we are not ashamed of White education, although we do not begrudge any population group its own education.

The hon member referred in particular to two of the three partners, as he called them, who have now received statutory recognition, namely the teachers, who have for many years now had statutory recognition by means of the Federal Council and who will retain it, and the parents. There the hon member for Gezina touched on an extremely important matter.

We are convinced that one can best serve education if one does so in respect of three equal partners, namely the State on the one hand, which cannot evade its primary responsibility for the basic provision of education, but complies with it in co-operation with the organised parent community as well as the organised teaching profession.

As far as the organised parent community is concerned, I just want to say that provision is being made in the legislation for what I want to call statutory parent representation. This means parent representation via school commissions and control boards, or whatever they may be called in the various provinces. However, parents who by means of institutions and in an organised connection represent a large number of pupils throughout the country must also be afforded an opportunity to participate.

The reason for that is that we want parent representation to extend over as wide an area as possible because experience in the past has taught us that it frequently happens that when these control boards or boards of management had to be elected at schools, not all that many parents involved themselves in the election of members and that those bodies as such did not perhaps then have a very broad parent representation. For that reason we shall leave an opportunity open for representation to take place by means of another parent body, possibly in the provincial education councils, provided the respective parent bodies are sufficiently broadly representative of a specific number of parents.

I furthermore want to assure the hon member of my understanding for his request that we should give the South African Association for Technical and Vocational Educational, SAATVE, representation on the provincial educational councils. As the hon member indicated it is correct that these councils may consist of a maximum of 46 members per province. Those councils will be representative—so we believe—of all the parties involved—the parents, the organised profession, the Department of Education and Culture, the provincial department, the private schools, etc. However, the hon member also perceived that SAATVE has no representation on them. Admittedly it is true that the other body of which the hon member for Tygervallei is the chairman, namely the Federal Body for Technical College Councils—I shall come to that later—is in fact represented on them.

The South African Association for Technical and Vocational Education includes technical college tuition as well as special tuition. It is therefore a separate body. I can understand why these people, owing to their close involvement in education, would also like to have representation.

The hon member will note that in clause 9(j), which deals with the constitution of these provincial education councils, the Minister is being granted the right to appoint a maximum of seven members to serve on that council. I now want to state categorically here that in every province, within the right which I have to appoint a maximum of seven members to the council, I shall ensure that at least one member of SAATVE per province shall serve on the provincial education council. I shall therefore accommodate their representation on that body.

I am convinced that any Minister who may succeed me in future, will adopt precisely the same standpoint.

We want to try to give representations to all the various disciplines on those provincial education councils. Consequently I am quite convinced that it can be done in this way and that it will satisfy them. All the other hon members who advocated this, the hon members for Tygervallei, Stellenbosch and others will agree that if we do it in this way, it will satisfy the members of SAATVE.

I have already discussed many of the matters which the hon member for Rissik touched upon, and explained my feelings about them. The hon member’s principal objection is that we are not dealing here with an amending Bill. The hon member said that we were dealing here with an entirely new Bill because it affected the principle in the principal Act. I have already referred to this and I refer the hon member to where it came from. I indicated to him that the 1967 Act remains unaffected. I pointed out to him that the Constitution—not this legislation, but the Constitution—made the National Education Policy Act of 1967 subject to the provisions of…

But that is my point!

Now the hon member is saying that is his point. The fact of the matter is therefore that this is indeed an amending Bill, and not a new Bill. The Chair also indicated to the hon member that if he examine this piece of legislation he would not only see that it was an amending Bill, but that it was indicated in this piece of legislation that certain designations and definitions were being changed, and so on; in other words, it is in fact an amending Bill.

The hon member quoted from the constitution of the Transvaal NP, and the Programme of Principles of 1982, and said that we had deviated from it, as well as from the principles that we had here too in respect of education. Once again I want to tell the hon member that there has been deviation whatsoever from them. The principles remain precisely as they were. I explained a moment ago that what was stated in the White Paper ultimately found expression in the Constitution as well. That argument of the hon member, therefore, simply does not hold water.

The hon member accused us of…

Why are you so long-winded? [Interjections.]

Probably because I have something to say! The hon member for Sandton has nothing to say. I do not take it amiss of him for saying nothing. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik accused us of manipulating things, of making erroneous statements in public and of utilising education for party-political gain. While he was saying that, however, he walked into a trap when one of my colleagues made an interjection. He then boasted about it and said that there had been executive council election in Waterkloof and that all eight of the rightwingers had “hijacked” that council! [Interjections.] That was of course pursuant to what his colleague, the hon member for Koedoespoort, said approximately two years ago at a congress. He made an appeal to all members to take over the boards of management of schools so that they could ensure that the “right” teachers were appointed so that they could apply education in accordance with their political views. Now I want to ask the hon member for Rissik whether it is possible for him to accuse us of politicking, while he boasted openly and blatantly in this House that control board had been taken over by the right-wingers.

That is not my argument!

The hon member for Rissik may then reply with an argument. I want to ask the hon member for Rissik whether that control board in Waterkloof is now going to appoint the right teachers. [Interjections.] My question is this: Is that controlling board in Waterkloof, which is now right wing, now going to appoint the right teachers in future? [Interjections.] No, the hon member has no need to rise to his feet, he can merely reply to me.

I want to ask the Chair whether I may reply! [Interjections.]

No, I want to proceed.

It is a blatant indictment against those teachers who are doing good work and rendering a good service in education, but who are members of other parties. I therefore want to tell the hon member that he will appear before the tribunal of the teachers in this country. [Interjections.] I now want to tell him that he is being insulting to those teachers who are not members of the CP. That is what he has now said; nothing less and nothing more than that.

Daan, in which constituency are you going to stand?

I wish I could stand in Bellville. [Interjections.]

Order! We are not holding an election now.

I now want to deal with the hon member for Tygervallei. In the first place I should like to congratulate him sincerely on his election as chairman of the Federation of Technical College Councils.

Hear, hear!

I am aware that the hon member was not very keen to do this, but that very urgent requests were addressed to him to consider it favourably—not by a party and not by me, but by the representatives of the various technical college councils—because the hon member has for many years been associated with that sector of education. I want to express my appreciation to the hon member for Tygervallei for having, in the midst of many activities, agreed to take the lead in that respect. When I say this to the hon member for Tygervallei, I am saying it on behalf of all those involved in those technical institutions.

Education in this country will of course be built on the ordinary school tuition which is given and which we normally—and I am placing this between quotation marks—refer to as “academic subjects”. However, it will not be built on that only. The focus at present is on vocation-orientated education, and it is in that respect that the technical colleges and the technikons have an extremely important task to perform. Far be it from any right-minded person to try to do something to detract from technical training. We cannot do so, because if we were, we would be crippling ourselves. Consequently I want to tell the hon member something before I go into further detail on this matter. My department and I have appreciation for the exceptional work that is being done by the technical colleges. We believe that it is extremely important work, that has to be done.

When it comes to the further particulars of the hon member’s speech, I want to tell him that the liaison with industry that has to exist, will be maintained because we believe it is of the utmost importance to ensure in that way that the correct curriculum is established for those people who are being trained, because they will ultimately be employed by those industries. I want to tell the hon member that I can understand those persons connected with technical colleges feeling concerned about what he described as the technical colleges being turned into schools.

I can state categorically that the Technical Colleges Act will remain intact and that I have no desire to change that Act in any way. It must continue to exist, and in that same Act reference is made to “student”. I have no desire to change it. It is going to remain “student”. If I remember correctly, mention is also made in this Act of lecturers, and not of teachers. I have no desire to change this.

I now want to tell the hon member for Tygervallei that when the scientific advisory bodies, Ces and Reces, were investigating the new salary structures, post structures and so on, it was decided that we should try to rationalise as far as possible, and we then singled out the universities and technikons as tertiary institutions. Subsequently we included the technical colleges and the schools in the concept of “school”. This does not mean, and I am saying this categorically—in fact we must guard against this—that the character and identity of the technical colleges should be affected. They can and must continue to exist in this way. In exactly the same way as the teachers’ training colleges for many years fell under the administration of the education departments, the teachers’ education colleges will continue to fall under the administration of the provincial education departments. In exactly the same way the technical colleges will in future fall under the administration—as execution administration—of the education departments. This does not mean however—just as it was not the intention in respect of the teachers’ training colleges—that the character and nature of the particular work which is done there will be affected. The hon member may therefore rest assured that we shall deal with this matter in this way.

The hon member raised one other matter, ie that of registration. In future the lecturers at technical colleges must register with the professional body that is going to be established. Of course it is also necessary for the lecturers at teachers’ training college to register. I can understand what the hon member is saying in this respect because some lecturers may perhaps only have classes for an hour a week. It may also be that he is only offering a single course, and so on. I want to point out to the hon member that what we are dealing with here is not a matter of turning technikons into schools, but is a matter of professionalisation. We should like to have every person teaching at a technical college—even though he does so for only an hour—to continue to do so professionally. For that reason we should like such a person to be registered.

But I think it will be up to the new body that is going to be established to investigate the position in regard to those who cannot give full-time classes at technical colleges, or who are perhaps only dealing with part of a course. I undertake to convey the feeling of the technical colleges in this connection to the council that is going to be established, so that we can see whether we cannot perhaps make provision for this matter in some way or another within the regulations.

†I come now to the hon member for King William’s Town. The hon member stated the following:

He went on to say:

*At the beginning of my speech I indicated that we believed it was truly in the best interests of the respective population groups to receive their education in their own milieus. That does not mean that we are denigrating the education of the other population groups. It is not true that this means we have something against the education of Coloureds, Indians or Blacks.

What do Messrs Rajbansi and Hendrickse have to say about this story?

It is not true that we want to involve party politics in this matter in this way. [Interjections.] That is not the issue; the issue is that we can really justify this pedagogically, and we have found that it is in the best interests of everyone to do it this way.

The hon member for King William’s Town put a question to me. He asked what would happen if the House of Representatives, for example, did not retain their schools for their own pupils only. I want to tell the hon member that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates practise their education in accordance with the Constitution. If they do so in a specific way—within the provisions of the Constitution—I have nothing against it. Even if they move beyond the framework of the provisions in the Constitution, it will not be up to me, as the Minister of Education and Culture (House of Assembly), to express an opinion in that regard. That responsibility will lie on a different level. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter that, as far as I am concerned, we are dealing with education… [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Sasolburg want to put a question?

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

You are being invited to do so.

The hon the Minister has just made a remark in regard to which I want to ask him whether it makes no difference at all whether the education departments of the other two Houses apply a completely different principle to that of the hon the Minister. What is the principle of the Constitution, if three Houses are acting in accordance with the Constitution?

It is very clear that the hon member is not listening to me. He sits there, engrossed in his own thoughts, and does not listen to what I say. I said the Administration: House of Assembly is applying education in accordance with the Constitution. The House of Representatives and the House of Delegates also manage their education in terms of the Constitution because they are acting within the political dispensation. If a problem arises this whole matter is most certainly the responsibility of the State President. As far as I am concerned, White children will go to White schools. They receive their training in White schools under White teachers and that is how far we can go with that matter. It is therefore not relevant to ask me whether they will deal with the situation in a different way than we do, because it is done within the spirit of the Constitution. [Interjections.]

I want to come next to the last speaker, the hon member for Brentwood.

Mr Speaker, I accept the courteous answer of the hon the Minister, but can he tell us whether he does not think that the decision should be taken within a community. That was the most important point in my speech, because that is the difference between our parties. The NP says it takes the decision, but we say the community should take the decision on their own schools.

My apologies to the hon member for King William’s Town. He did put that question to me. It is not all that easy. The hon member adopts the standpoint that should be the case if a community wants a specific kind of education. The hon member then associates this, I think, because that is usually the course that argument takes, with the White Paper and the standpoint of the Government that we also want parental involvement and want education to be brought down to the community it is serving. The question, however, is who the community is. Who is the community? I want to give an example. A specific community in Natal or King William’s Town holds a referendum and 20% of the community say that the schools should be opened. We must first establish who the community is. Is it the parents of the school, or is it everyone living in the town? If 20% of them therefore say that the schools should be opened, does that mean that the community has told us to open the schools? Furthermore, if the community were to consist of the parents of the school, does that mean that the parents of a pupil of a particular year may decide what will happen in future. Then it would mean after all that we would have to hold a referendum every one, two or three years. [Interjections.] Yes, it is as simple as that. [Interjections.] It is easy to say that we must do what the community wants. On my part I argue that is exactly what we are doing, because we can say that the majority of the communities prefer these to be White schools. However, I do not want to use that argument. In respect of education and training it remains the underlying, basic philosophy of this side of the House that Whites must provide Whites with education. For that reason we are letting that suffice in respect of State schools. It does not mean to say, however, that we do not have appreciation for private schools. There members of other population groups are in fact being afforded an opportunity of being taught at specific schools, under specific conditions.

I want to conclude by conveying my thanks to the hon member for Brentwood for his support for this measure, as well as for the fact that he perceived what a tremendous amount of work had been done behind the scenes. The hon member was quite correct. In particular he strongly supported clause 5. In that way he justified the entire framework of own affairs. I thank him very much for doing so.

I have replied to the argument put forward by the hon member for Stellenbosch. He pointed out that we are dealing with reform legislation. That is correct. He also referred to the exceptionally important work being done by the national education councils. I also want to express my sincere thanks to him, particularly in regard to the extremely important argument he raised, namely that the training of teachers will take place in future and that policy will be determined after we have consulted widely with the respective parties involved, in order to ensure in that way that our teacher training is also of the best calibre for the purpose for which it is being utilised.

Last but not least, I thank everyone who participated in this debate.

Question put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill provides for the requirements for the registration of and financial grants to private schools to be uniform, and, furthermore, for a provision of an education ordinance providing for a matter dealt with in this Bill to cease to be of force.

Clause 2 provides that no one shall maintain a private school for which provision is made in this Bill unless that private school is registered. This provision is necessary so that control may be exercised in order to ensure that the education provided and the staff providing such education comply with certain requirements.

†Clauses 3, 4 and 5 deal with the registration of private schools, and more specifically with the procedures to be followed by the applicant, the consideration of the application by the Head of Education, and the registration of the school if the application is granted. Provision is made in clause 6 for financial grants to registered private schools applying annually for such grants and complying with the prescribed requirements.

It is also necessary to make provision that, in cases in which any person contravenes a provision of section 2, or manages or controls a private school which is not registered, or intentionally furnishes information or makes a statement which is misleading, such a person is guilty of an offence. Provision for this is made in clause 7.

In clause 8 provision is made to enable the applicant to appeal to the Minister, in cases where the Head of Education has refused an application for registration, and for the Minister to allow the appeal and to grant the application, or disallow the appeal.

*The Minister must also be given the power to make regulations in connection with private schools and the admission of pupils to such schools, as well as to make different regulations in respect of the various provincial education departments and to make such regulations with retrospective effect. Provision for this is made in clause 9.

In clause 10, provision is made for the Head of Education to delegate certain functions concerning private schools to the head of a provincial education department or to authorise any such head to perform any duty assigned to the Head of Education by this Act.

The education ordinances of the provincial education departments contain certain provisions concerning private schools, and it is now being provided in clause 11 that such provisions shall cease to be of force in so far as they deal with any matter provided for in this legislation. It is also provided that a private school registered in terms of any provision of an education ordinance shall be deemed to be registered in terms of this legislation. This means that a private school which receives grants-in-aid or which is subsidised or aided in terms of an education ordinance shall be deemed to receive financial support in terms of this legislation.

Since the provincial departments of education have been incorporated into the Department of Education and Culture since 1 April 1986, it is necessary that this legislation be deemed to have come into operation on 1 April 1986.

Mr Speaker, I just want to dwell on the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading Speech about the previous Bill for a moment. We shall discuss that in other debates as well. The hon the Minister did not reply to a single one of my arguments. Their is no doubt that he said that White education should be subject to a general Act. He gave us no indication whatsoever that education is an own affair. We shall continue this discussion at a later stage, however.

We are not going to support the legislation before us, the Private Schools Bill (House of Assembly). [Interjections.] We take that view because the milieu in which the hon the Minister deals with educational matters, implies that our educational system is enslaved and subordinate to a multiracial Cabinet and Government.

In the previous debate the hon the Minister referred to private schools. He then suggested that—when I was still a member of the NP’s study group on education and a member of the NP caucus—I had supported the things the hon the Minister advocates today. I want to remind him that the whole question of private schools was actually discussed widely at the time, especially while—I almost want to say the late Dr Koornhof, but that is the case only as far as the House of Assembly is concerned—Dr Piet Koornhof was the Minister. At that time private schools became the instruments whereby left-wing groups in South Africa—people who had left-wing views concerning educational matters—introduced integration into the remainder of the educational system in South Africa as well. The hon the Minister knows just as well as I do that he joined me in opposing Dr Koornhof at the time. He shared my views with regard to private education and private schools then.

Yes, he has undergone a metamorphosis since then!

Private schools in South Africa have actually become the breeding ground for integration. Left-wingers are simply establishing integrated private schools all over the country, and this makes integration a more integral part of our educational system.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that we cannot support this Bill. The reason is not that we are opposed to private schools in principle, but a CP government will make very sure that private schools fulfil the function for which they were initially established. They were definitely not established to promote integration between the separate races in South Africa, to be “non-racial” and “non-ethnic” schools, and to influence the teaching community. I want to tell the hon the Minister that is the only reason for our rejection of this Bill. A CP government will force private schools to adhere to the old traditional reasons for their establishment.

In the documents sent to the hon the Minister by Prof de Lange’s organisation, we state that we shall not allow private schools to be used as an instrument to change and harm the ethnic context the hon the Minister himself pleaded for during the years when we were in the NP together. Now the hon the Minister’s viewpoint is one of so-called self-determination in education. I want to read to the hon the Minister what his viewpoint of self-determination entails:

I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that his opinion of self-determination in education, like his opinion of all the other facets…

Ask him whether he agrees with this definition!

Does the hon the Minister agree with this definition? He may tell me in a moment whether or not he agrees.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that in our dispensation, private schools will in fact be subordinate to and will have to comply with the broader education policy, as formulated by us in 1967, without that legislation’s having to comply with Act No 110 of 1983, as the hon the Minister himself acknowledged just now.

May people speak to one another in your dispensation?

That hon member may speak to us if he is intelligent, but usually he is not.

As long as it is under a tree or something; not in a school! [Interjections.]

I want to warn the hon the Minister against the private schools which he is simply permitting to be established all over the country. The hon the Minister should also tell us whether he is of the opinion that private schools should simply be permitted where there is a need for them according to the people. Furthermore it is not quite clear from the legislation what exactly a private school is, and we should like to know from the hon the Minister how he sees matters. We would like to know what norms and standards the hon the Minister is going to apply when he permits private schools to be established in the country.

He is privatising the schools now!

I want to put it to the hon the Minister that, according to his dispensation, a Minister in one of the other Houses of Parliament may also become a Minister of general education. According to that dispensation, and according to this document, a Black person can become a Minister of General Educational Affairs in future, according to the new Constitution which the Government will have. I also want the hon the Minister to tell us today what exactly his relationship with the private education of the other two Houses will be. Is he going to make private education subordinate or equal to the standpoints of his colleagues in the other two Houses?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik takes such pleasure in referring to the standpoint he adopted in the study group on national education under the old dispensation.

Quorum:

The attention of the Speaker having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

He referred repeatedly this afternoon to the standpoints he had adopted at the time. There was a certain case which I have already related but I think I should repeat it now to refresh the memories of some hon members.

During a meeting of the National Education Study Group the hon member for Rissik rose and said he objected in principle—I recall his words vividly—to the admission of those of colour to White universities. I well remember that the then Minister of National Education, Mr Johan van der Spuy, said in his very calm and contained manner that objection based on principle had already been set aside in 1959 by one of Dr Verwoerd’s laws which provided that universities would be open to the children of diplomats. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik’s objection of principle had therefore already been completely settled at the time.

The hon member for Rissik based his objection to the Bill on the fact that it would create the type of private school which would be a breeding ground for all kinds of evil.

The hon member did not read the Bill, however, because by these very provisions the department is attempting to obviate the establishment of such private schools which will become breeding grounds for all kinds of mischief and undermining activities.

In terms of the Constitution, the Department of Education and Culture is responsible for the provision of education to the White population. By means of this legislation the Government acknowledges and accepts that private schools furnish and can furnish a very important service in addition to the public provision of education by the State. The State therefore does not and does not wish to regard private schools as being in competition with their public schools; on the contrary, the State would like to see private schools as fellow workers and complimentary according to their nature. In the normal course of affairs there are good reasons why a private school is or has been established; they are usually of a religious and cultural nature. In this way a community, for instance a German community, will proceed to establish a private school for German pupils on cultural grounds for the promotion and maintenance of German culture. Similarly, a Jewish community may also establish its own private school or schools for the sake of its religion. There is no doubt whatsoever that in the past these private schools made a great and important contribution to the promotion of education and training in South Africa.

This legislation should also be seen as recognition of the services private schools have provided and can and will still provide. Nevertheless the legislation also represents a State effort to regulate the activities of private schools and to be of assistance by way of funding from the Treasury. I want to contend that the legislation is typical of the style of a good tutor and teacher. It is couched in simple language and is clear and to the point with little verbiage or obscure style.

Clause 2 provides that a private school has to be registered in order to operate. The hon the Minister stated this clearly in a circular of 10 March 1986:

Very high standards are therefore set as requirements for application for registration to ensure that the problem raised by the hon member for Rissik may be avoided and the school not be a breeding ground for evil.

To my mind this is one of the most important principles embodied in the Bill. It is a fact that under South African conditions opportunities are legion for exploiting innocent, studious people who are, in fact, exploited through offers by conscienceless profit-seekers of certificates which may be attained at so-called private schools upon payment of exorbitant fees.

To obviate this problem, clause 3 provides that application for registration has to be made to the Head of Education and include full particulars—this is very important—which the Head of Education may require. It is clear that this is no mere question of application for registration of a school. Full particulars have to be furnished on the school for which application is being made.

Clause 4 provides that the Head of Education may refuse an application for registration. It is very important to note that application for registration does not mean that the school will automatically be registered. The Head of Education may refuse an application if he is of the opinion that the applicant does not fulfil requirements. It is important to note that, if an application is refused, the Head of Education has to notify the applicant in writing and furnish reasons. The fact that reasons have to be furnished ensures that arbitrary action cannot be taken or suspicion of such action be created.

Clause 5 provides that, if an application for registration is granted, a registration certificate will be issued in the form determined by the Head of Education. Once again it is very important to note that, on applying for registration, the applicant has to furnish full particulars and that the applicant receives a certificate in the form determined by the Head of Education if the application is approved. This implies a built-in safety measure as regards the form of the certificate as well as to ensure that these schools do not act in an unrestrained way.

Clause 6 provides that, if a private school is registered and issued with a registration certificate, it may then apply to the State for a financial grant. A private school therefore first has to apply for registration; it has to furnish full particulars on what it proposes doing and, on receipt of its certificate—also in a prescribed form—it may apply to the State for financial aid. If the Head of Education is convinced that the private school does not satisfy the prescribed requirements for financial grants, he may refuse the application. Even if the school is registered and has a registration certificate, the Head of Education may nevertheless refuse this if he is of the opinion that the private school for some reason or other does not satisfy the requirements.

In clause 8 the legislation provides that, if the Head of Education refuses an application for registration, the applicant may appeal to the Minister in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period. The Minister may uphold the appeal and grant the application in question or he may disallow the appeal.

To indicate that the Government is really serious in not permitting all kinds of weeds to be scattered in the field of education by reckless action on the part of private schools whose first concern is not the promotion of education but which are prompted by all kinds of sinister motives, clause 7 of the Bill provides for severe penalties by way of fines and/or imprisonment in the case of non-registration or the furnishing of false information when the application for registration is submitted.

I am satisfied that sufficient safety valves have been built into the legislation to make absolutely sure that such private schools as are registered and receive a certificate of registration and financial assistance from the State will be able to make a real contribution to the provision of education in our country. I shall close with an appeal to all institutions running or wishing to run private schools to make use of the opportunity offered by this legislation to expand and to assist in the expansion and promotion of education in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister referred in this House today to the fact that I was not present here this morning. From that he immediately deduced that I was not very interested in the education of the Afrikaner people and the White in particular. His words were hardly cold, however, when he had to have the bells rung to obtain a quorum in this House. His party has so little interest in education in South Africa that with its total of 127 members it cannot even ensure a constant flow of business in the House by at least having a quorum present. [Interjections.] I honestly have to say that we do not need to score that cheap type of point off one another now; it is actually evidence of a very weak standard of argument. [Interjections.]

I want to get to this hon Minister’s approach to a question of what constitutes a principle and particularly in education because it applies to this debate as it did to the previous one.

It emerges very clearly from this debate that the Government is opening the door wider to racial intermingling in private schools; that is why we intend voting against the Bill. My problem, however, is that the hon the Minister, who spent a long time in the teaching profession, definitely has no clear concept of what a principle is. I explicitly asked him a while ago and he did not give me an adequate answer; he actually did not reply to me at all. I asked him whether there could be a principle in terms of one constitution that provided for White schools whereas in terms of the same constitution there could be a principle permitting the Coloured community to open its schools to all races—as it has already done. The Indian community is also permitted to open its school to all races—as it has already done.

Universities, with which we dealt here a while back, are becoming darker and blacker by the day—colourwise.

I asked the hon the Minister something earlier this afternoon but I shall put the question to him again. What principle in the Constitution does the Government regard as being fundamental to education in South Africa? I want the answer from this hon Minister as one cannot incorporate four or five different principles in one constitution and allege they are all in accordance with that constitution. The Minister should then be honest and say: “Look, my action is in accordance with the Constitution, the action of the Coloureds is in accordance with the Constitution and that of the Indians is also in accordance with the Constitution. The fact that we have increasing integration in the sphere of universities and private schools is also in accordance with the Constitution.” The hon the Minister should rise and acknowledge that there are five or six different principles in the Constitution as regards education; there is definitely not only one. If the hon the Minister wants to allege that this afternoon, I say he does not know what a principle is.

A principle is a basic point of departure. It is a fundamental point of departure and, as regards education, we have always proceeded from the basic point of departure in South Africa that it takes place on the basis of racial division. There have been exceptions; I grant the hon the Minister that. There have been exceptions here and there but they were certainly no more than that. Now the exceptions are increasingly becoming the rule. The exceptions are increasing and the rule of long ago is applied decreasingly; this is what we are opposed to—the hon the Minister may as well concede this to me. I do not wish to fight and be at war with him. He is a reasonably “verkrampte” member of the Government. [Interjections.] In any case, he used to be a conservative member of the Government; we classify him as a right-wing NP. It is a signal distinction in the times in which we live still to be classified as a rightist in the NP. [Interjections.] I really do not want the hon the Minister merely to tell us this afternoon that, while one acts in accordance with the Constitution, everything is in order. He should tell us what the principle is. He should be honest and say: “We are now following more than one principle in the Constitution. As regards White children, we stand by White education but we are in favour of integration in private schools, universities and various other spheres. The hon the Minister should therefore tell us that there are at least two principles in the Constitution now. He and I would then be able to argue with each other and I could make the statement that the principle of racial division in the Constitution was shrinking as regards education whereas the principle of racial intermingling—of bastardisation in the sphere of education—was growing. That is our objection to the hon the Minister.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister in particular, as regards private schools, how matters stand concerning the quota system. I was unable to obtain the exact information in time; that is why I am asking the hon the Minister this afternoon. The position regarding private schools was that the composition of a school had to be 90% White for it to receive a subsidy of 45%. For a subsidy of 15% the figure had to be 80% White and, to qualify for any subsidy at all, the enrolment had to be at least 70% White. Does that quota system still apply? The hon the Minister is not replying to me.

I shall reply to you on that. [Interjections.]

Can the hon the Minister not just give me a quick indication whether the quota system still applies? [Interjections.] Is there a different quota system which applies? [Interjections.] Even if that is not the quota system applying at present, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is actually still such a system. He need not go into detail; I should simply like to know for the sake of argument whether a quota system still exists. I do not want to score points off the hon the Minister! Does a quota system remain or is there no quota system? Can the hon the Minister tell me in the interests of the debate whether there is still a quota system?

We shall give you an answer.

Yes, but can the hon the Minister not simply tell me… [Interjections.]… whether there is still a quota system; I am not asking for details. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister does not want to reply.

For this reason I shall now tell the hon the Minister that, if there is no longer any quota system whatsoever—if he has totally jettisoned it—this is in accordance with the direction in which the Government is moving, as I put it a while back; I do not intend repeating that point now.

If a quota system remains—it makes no difference what type of system—I wish to tell the hon the Minister now that he and his Government will handle the scrap of quota system which perhaps remains in exactly the same way as they did in the case of universities. A quota system applied there too. A White university could at least admit only a specific number of non-White students but the Government jettisoned that. The University of Cape Town then said it was becoming a Black university. That way is now open to every university—as we understand it; that is how the facts were published and not contradicted by anyone—to become as Black or as Brown as it wishes.

I now tell this hon Minister that, just as he and the Government in no way had the courage to support the quota system in the case of universities, they will have as little—or even less—courage to stand by whatever remains of a quota system as far as private schools are concerned. That is why we do not trust the hon the Minister—even if he is conservative—and we do not trust his Government either.

His Government is permitting a mass of private institutions to “steal” White children to fill their schools. In order to promote racial intermingling, the door is open now so that this will take place increasingly. Whoever wishes may now grab White children to put them in Coloured or Indians schools and so great is the hon the Minister’s love for the White child that he does not care what happens! [Interjections.] His love for and compassion toward the White child have disappeared. Nothing remains of his love for the White child. Nothing remains of his love for his people the moment that Coloureds, Indians—or whoever—are able to cream off White children to push into their racially mixed private schools. That is why we say to the hon the Minister we question his patriotism and love for his own people. We particularly question his compassion toward the education of the White man in South Africa. My love…

Oh! [Interjections.]

… is greater and that hon Minister’s action cannot even be compared to my dedication to and unshakeable stand for the education of the White child. [Interjections.] Even if I have to tell the hon the Minister myself this afternoon, I want to say his action is not in the same class as mine. [Interjections.] I regret being forced into this straight talk but when the hon the Minister wanted to imply a while ago that we on this side of the House had no feeling for education, it was the most arrant nonsense he had ever uttered in this House. [Interjections.]

Both sides of my family were involved in teaching. We have retained our interest in education for years; I am still intensely interested in education today but I am particularly interested in and will fight for it in this House that we cling jealously to our White education for our White children. Our numbers are declining dramatically. Within the next five or ten years there will be a slump in White children’s numbers. Schools are already emptying. In the heart of Pretoria Afrikaans-medium schools have already closed and more are to follow because 45 or 46 White schools were closed in the Free State the other day. [Interjections.] We cannot afford to permit a single White child to be educated in a racially mixed school. That hon Minister does not understand this but we are already faced with the closure of White schools in consequence of a declining birth rate as a result inter alia of this Government’s total inability to maintain the economy on a sound foundation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Whites are being impoverished because young people cannot obtain accommodation in our cities as a result of inflation. I shall not discuss all these factors now; they were put earlier. [Interjections.] If this Government retains any feeling at all for a White child, it will fight with all the power at its disposal to prevent a single White child from attending a single racially mixed private school—but it does not do so. It does not do this! It declares it to be in accordance with the Constitution. It does not care! This does not worry the Government! [Interjections.] That is why we shall oppose this legislation and after this we shall thrash and charge and attack the hon the Minister and the Government because they do not speak the truth when they say they retain some feeling for the education of the White child in South Africa in the sphere to which I have referred this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sasolburg firstly made a great fuss about the fact that this side of the House could not maintain a quorum. The hon member should rather look around a little and realise that hon members on this side of the House hardly have the opportunity to go and have a cup of tea.

You should rather go and speak at Willowmore. [Interjections.]

Oh, Daan. Do you realise that Willowmore does not fall within my constituency? [Interjections.] It seems to me you did not know that! [Interjections.] He should just take a look next to him, where there is a total boycott against the House. The hon the Minister has already referred to that. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the hon member for Sasolburg. He made out that the hon the Minister was not a good Afrikaner. An Afrikaner does not divide his fellow Afrikaners into good and bad Afrikaners. He does not sow discord among Afrikaners. [Interjections.] You despise and belittle the Afrikaner because you make out that the Afrikaner’s children will rush in their droves to be accommodated in private schools.

In 1983 your Afrikaner state also just collapsed into ruins. [Interjections.]

This legislation purely affords recognition to something that already exists in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to another hon member using “you” and “your”? [Interjections.]

Order! Who referred to “you” and “your”?

The hon member for Beaufort West.

Order! The hon member for Beaufort West must refer to hon members as hon members. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg should not try to create the impression that doors have now been opened here which will cause White children to be enrolled at private schools. This legislation affords recognition to a situation that has existed since those hon members were on this side of the House. I repeat that this is a misjudgment of the Whites in this country, since it creates the impression that the Whites are so eager to assimilate with people of colour. For that reason each racial and ethnic group in this country has its own culture and tradition of which it is proud, just as I am proud of mine.

The Act of 1967 was introduced to make provision for the institution, maintenance, management and control of, and furnishing of financial assistance to, schools at which particular types of education were provided. Private schools are now entering a new era because in terms of clause 2 of this Bill, in the first instance they now have to register. However, private schools may now also qualify for financial support from the Department of Education and Culture, provided that certain requirements and criteria regarding norms, standards and other matters are complied with. Here I want to associate myself once again with the hon member for Kimberley North, who is an expert in the field of education. He made a fine contribution here this afternoon. As he was also involved in the education of our children, it is possible for him—and this is clear to all of us—to speak with authority as well as compassion towards the children themselves. [Interjections.] It is recognition of this nature that we need in education. Private schools have always fulfilled an important role in education—and will continue to do so in the future—and the importance of that role is recognised in this legislation.

The hon member for Kimberley North also pointed out that for cultural, religious or linguistic reasons—that is immaterial—a need did arise in certain communities for the development of private schools. This will always be the case in the future, too. Therefore we on this side of the House recognise that certain needs can indeed exist in this regard. Therefore, for the sake of the children of this country, too, we are prepared to make financial contributions.

It was pointed out that someone, regardless of whether he attended a private or a State-aided school, enters the same labour market as everyone else. For the benefit of this country and all its people, and specifically for the benefit of the child, too, it is therefore essential for each person to receive the best-equipped tuition. It is therefore also important that private schools are now being made subject to uniform regulations. In the past each individual province issued its own regulations in its own way. Now uniform regulations are being introduced, subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education and Culture, and applicable to all education departments throughout the country. This legislation, too, has built-in flexibility so that specific regulations may still be introduced with a view to the specific problems and conditions peculiar to each individual province. There will, however, be overall uniform control and the same criteria will be applicable to aspects such as registration and financing.

With reference to private schools—and also to all schools as a whole—the primary issue is the child itself. Other obscure motives should therefore not be dragged in where they do not belong because for each parent his child is his most precious possession. I personally can state categorically that my child is my most precious possession. In the same way, I take it, each parent regards his child as his most precious possession.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I notice the hon member for Rissik is shaking his head.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: A little while ago the hon member for Rissik raised a point of order in which he requested that you instruct the hon member for Beaufort West to address hon members in this House as hon members and not using “you” and “your”. However, the hon member for Rissik himself continually refers to the hon member for Beaufort West using “you” and “your”.

Order! The Rule applies to all hon members in this House and specifies that they shall refer to other hon members as hon members. The hon member for Beaufort West may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I said my child was my most precious possession. The hon member for Rissik then shook his head. I do not believe he can come along and tell me what my child means to me in my heart and how I feel about my own child.

The hon member can go ahead and send his child to his own private school if he wants to!

Mr Chairman, I did not attend a private school. Still less did any of my children attend a private school. I did not feel the need for it. I was satisfied with the State-aided school—my own local school. For that reason I just said, a moment ago, that I could foresee people all of a sudden having such a great need to send their children to private schools. Such a need does, however, exist among certain parents. As a matter of fact, it has existed for years. The claim by the hon member for Sasolburg that we were now supposedly going to throw all schools open and in so doing create the opportunity for children in their thousands to stream into private schools, is therefore totally incorrect. In fact, the hon the Minister confirmed that White education was the first right and priority of this department. The education that is provided will therefore have to comply with the requirements of this department.

I want to stress once again that clause 9 of the Bill makes provision for the laying down of norms and criteria which will be controlled by the Minister of Education and Culture. By means of this measure it will be possible to exercise control over all schools.

Without going into detail on clause 9, which incorporates provisions relating to regulations, I should like to request the hon the Minister please to ensure that: Firstly, the best quality education be maintained in these schools at all times; secondly, recognition be given to the culture and distinctiveness of such a school, wherever the school may be situated and; thirdly, the quality and competence of the staff—I stress “staff’—always be above suspicion in these private schools.

I have already said that these parents are prepared to make great sacrifices, in the form of financial contributions too, for the sake of their children’s education. It is therefore our duty and responsibility to ensure that this will be the case at all times. As I said before, if we in this country want to build a fine future for ourselves, we have to co-operate and achieve only the best education in this country.

It will not be possible to establish private schools in the future if there is no negotiation, and existing private schools will not be able to continue with registration if they do not negotiate with this department. However, I have complete confidence that this hon Minister, with his background in and knowledge of education and his love of it, as well as his good nature and his capacity for negotiation, will ensure that only good will come of this for us and for the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is very pleasant for me to follow the hon member for Beaufort-West. It is clear that the hon member read the Bill thoroughly and therefore knows what is contained in it. It is also clear that he has sympathy for the problems surrounding the foundation of private schools. I thank him for the constructive contribution he made to this debate.

Never mind the expressions of thanks; the hon the Minister will thank him.

Just before I come to the theme of my speech, I want to refer to two hon members in the opposition benches. The first reference I should like to make is to the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

The hon member said the left wing now wants to infiltrate the private schools and then set the process of integration in motion there. [Interjections.] This is what the hon member said. I do not understand the standpoint of the hon member for Rissik. After all, he ought to know that most of the private schools in South Africa have been accommodating pupils of colour for a long time. [Interjections.] He is therefore not saying anything new.

What worries me is that the hon member maintains that these private schools could become a breeding ground for the left wing. I think this is an insult on the part of the hon member for Rissik to other White cultural communities in this country, who have often founded a private school for their children for very good religious as well as cultural reasons. The hon member ought therefore to be ashamed of himself for insulting these White cultural communities in this way by saying they actually want private schools so that there may become breeding grounds for the left wing. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Sasolburg. He says the fact that there is a diminishing tendency in the pattern of White population growth can be ascribed to the weak economy. He then says the weak economy is the fault of the Government. What sophistry! What would the hon member then make of a country such as West Germany, the Federal Republic of West Germany? West Germany has probably the strongest economy in the whole of western Europe and at the moment that country has a negative population growth. They are therefore retrogressing. How does the hon member for Sasolburg explain this? He is involved in an absolutely nonsensical argument. [Interjections.] Someone once said that poverty was the best fertility drug. I think the hon member for Sasolburg should take that into consideration.

I raised five children and I was not poor.

Private schools have long been a well-known phenomenon in education. When one looks at the development of education from a historical point of view, it is in fact striking that education was initially a private matter. It was traditionally given by a tutor to individuals or to a small group of pupils or students. It was only much later that public education became the task and responsibility of the authorities. One could therefore say, in fact, that initially education was in essence the education of the private school, the private group or the individual.

Private schools—this is of course general knowledge—do not exist only in our country, but have over a period of some centuries become a worldwide phenomenon. State subsidisation of private schools is not a new principle either. This, too, is a very old practice, carried out worldwide, which occurs in countries with a multicultural population and also in countries where multi-ethnicity and various cultural communities do not occur, or where these things do not in any event play an important role in the life of those communities.

How many private schools are there in Russia and China?

I shall now mention an example to the hon member for Sasolburg, although I shall not refer to Russia, his absurd example. Perhaps he would feel more at home there.

You said the whole world.

I said it was a worldwide occurrence. I want to mention just one example. I mention the Netherlands, the country from which the hon member’s ancestors came. In that country particular events and tendencies within the public schools—the State-subsidised schools—gradually led to the formation of private schools. The public schools started to become problematic for these people in various spheres.

I do not want to go into these matters in detail now, but one of the greatest problems was the institution of a so-called “neutral public education”. This meant, inter alia, that no religious education was offered at these public schools. According to the advocates of the so-called neutral education, religious education—particularly education in the Christian religion—could give offence to certain pupils. This would then, according to them, jeopardise the principles of freedom of religion. As a result of these developments within the public schools in the Netherlands, the need the parent community felt to found schools at which their children could receive their religious education, steadily increased.

Is this also the motive for private schools in South Africa?

As a consequence, various church societies in particular began to found their own private schools. I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg that the foundation of private schools in South Africa was in fact in many cases based on religious and/or cultural grounds. Obviously this is the case.

Now it is integration.

The financing of these schools was made possible by voluntary donors who formed a foundation to control the finances and to spend them in a meaningful manner.

In the old days.

The hon member for Rissik says this happened in the old days. He should take a little trouble to get his facts straight, for this is still the case. I lectured for a year at one of the “colleges”—this is what they are called in the Netherlands. It was in fact at one of these private schools which functioned on this basis.

You had better go and apply there again.

The hon member for Rissik has been out of education for so long that he no longer knows anything about it. [Interjections.]

Various cultural communities followed the same path and within a few decades private schools had earned themselves a fully fledged place alongside the public schools. In time it became clear that the private schools rendered an important service supplementary to the provision of public education by the State.

Today, inter alia in the country to which I referred—this is only one of many possible examples I could have mentioned—the situation is that all registered private schools that comply with State requirements, are subsidised.

Therefore what the House will be doing today, by passing the Bill, is firstly to bring the education setup in South Africa into line with the practice that has long existed in other countries in the world. Secondly, the Bill will enable the private schools in our country to receive a subsidy, provided they comply with the prescribed conditions and with specific regulations that may be issued by the Ministers concerned.

Clause 9 of the Bill under discussion describes very clearly the matters regarding which the Minister concerned may issue regulations. The hon members for Kimberley North and Beaufort West have already referred to that.

I am happy to endorse what the hon Minister of Education and Culture said in his announcement on 10 March this year, regarding the subsidising of private schools. He said this should be regarded as a concrete recognition and meaningful stimulation of the contribution of private schools to the total provision of education in the country. The hon the Minister also said the Government was confident that through this recognition a firm and mutually beneficial partnership between the State and the private school communities would be promoted.

I am very happy to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Potgietersrus has spoken. I shall presently, in my speech, be following up on certain remarks he made.

Before I come to that, I should like to refer to certain remarks made by the hon member for Rissik. Earlier today it was remarked that the hon member for Rissik was the only member of his party present in the House.

Louis is also an HNP member!

My apologies, yes, the hon member for Sasolburg is also here. Therefore there are two members of the HNP in the House. [Interjections.] I do not intend to quarrel with the hon member for Rissik personally because he is, after all, the only one present.

Another rara avis!

I think we should take note of the fact and have it placed on record that in the past, and again during the past few days, hon members of the CP have, in fact, often devoted lengthy speeches to repeating arguments over and over. I particularly noticed this last week when four Bills on education were before the House. The speakers on that side of the House stood up one after the other and repeated the same arguments for the umpteenth time.

Now, for some purpose of their own, they are trying to start a boycott action. At the same time there are two Bills before the House today which they are opposing very strongly. One involuntarily asks oneself the question: If they oppose Bills in the House and make speeches which are 30 minutes long, as they often have done in the past, do they do it in order to make a great fuss, or is it because they actually do have objections and want to impress them upon the Government? [Interjections.] I have no doubt that, when all is said and done there is only one issue involved. [Interjections.]

Which clause are you discussing? [Interjections.]

The hon member’s reaction is very interesting. It is spot-on in his case.

That is the Rissik clause!

Are you going to start crying, Daan?

I now come to what he said. I shall be harping on that in particular. I know that it does not relate to the Bill in question, Sir, but I am specifically reacting to what the hon member said.

Listen, I want to leave at 16h45! You had better hurry up! [Interjections.]

I will definitely not be finished.

At the commencement of his speech on this Bill the hon member said that he wanted to involve the hon the Minister further in the argument that White education was subject to general education or related policy measures. He said he wanted to attack the hon the Minister further on that issue.

I should like to put a question to the hon member. Does he not want to see the same norms and standards applied with regard to capital expenditure for all the population groups? Yes or no?

May I…

Order! If the hon member for Johannesburg West puts questions to the hon member for Rissik, it does not imply that the hon member for Rissik now has a turn to speak. The hon member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

I should like to put another question to the hon member. He need not react to it; he can simply say yes or no. It requires nothing more.

It is obvious that the hon member does not want equal conditions of service for all those who have teaching posts in the country. Is that true or not? Does the hon member not want equal norms and standards applied with regard to qualifications and certification? Yes or no? [Interjections.]

Any sensible or rational person must, after all, spontaneously say yes to that. [Interjections.] If one agrees with that, surely one must have enabling legislation that provides for instituting those equal norms and standards. [Interjections.] With all due respect, the hon member is now sitting there…

Order! In all fairness I must point out that I have ruled that the hon member for Rissik may not answer questions now being put by the hon member for Johannesburg West. He must use a subsequent turn to speak for that purpose. The hon member for Johannesburg West may proceed.

I shall leave it at that.

The hon member has had the questions put to him.

Saved by the Chairman!

With regard to this Bill the hon member made certain remarks about private schools. As always, he returned to his old dream world. He stated that when the CP came into power, they would maintain private schools, as was done in the old days, whatever those “old days” may mean.

The good old days!

He did not qualify it at all by indicating what those private schools would comprise. [Interjections.] Now I just have one simple question for the hon member. If he wants to revert to the old days, will he not need an Act to enable him to do so?

The hon member said that he was opposed to the Bill. What does it embody other than authorisation for private schools to exist? It also provides for the hon the Minister to promulgate certain regulations with regard to requirements for admission etc. However, the hon member says that he is opposed to that. He wants private schools to be as they were in the old days. How is he going to manage that if he does not have an Act to authorise it?

We want non-defined blocks.

He is opposed to sinfulness because he likes it!

With all due respect, I do not think the hon member considered what he was going to say before he rose to speak.

Daan, you are opposed to sinfulness, but you like it!

In the same breath the hon member said that private schools should be subordinated to the overall education policy. I ask him once again: If that is the case, is it not necessary to have enabling legislation to bring this into line with the education policy as a whole? What is this legislation before the House other than a measure to provide for precisely that?

I now come to the hon member for Sasolburg. What he said was really hilarious—actually one should not react to it again.

Then leave it alone!

It is nevertheless important to have it on record. The hon member made certain allegations and we already know that he is going to hawk this around outside the House. I believe it is necessary to reply to this. The hon member said that this Bill had only one purpose, and that was to bring about racial integration in private schools. Now I want to ask the hon member if there is one single concept in the Bill which indicates that is the self-evident objective. Is there? [Interjections.] He must quote one single clause to prove his statement. Obviously there is no such clause. [Interjections.] The hon member made a stupid statement.

There is nothing to prohibit that.

Exactly. This is an enabling Bill, and in terms of the legislation the hon the Minister may promulgate regulations that provide for entrance requirements etc.

Louis, do you know which Minister is responsible for the legislation? [Interjections.]

Now I should like to engage in a serious argument with the hon member for Sasolburg, and I would appreciate it if he would stop writing for a moment.

Were the other arguments not serious arguments?

The hon member said a principle equalled a basic point of departure, a basic premise. That was his definition of a principle. Those were his words: A principle equals a basic point of departure. I am not going to argue with him about his definition. [Interjections.]

It is important to note the rest of the argument. He says the basic premise with regard to education is racial segregation. He said that as far as he was concerned, that was the only principle. That was his argument…

No! No, I did not say that was the only principle…

The hon member for Sasolburg used the following words. He said the hon the Minister had a set of principles, five or six or so, but that he, the non member for Sasolburg, had only one principle and that was racial segregation. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon member said.

[Inaudible.]

Now I want to ask the hon member for Sasolburg: What about the principle which is deeply embedded in the minds of the Afrikaners, namely the Christian National philosophy of life or outlook on life, as a point of departure or premise for education?

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I want to ask the hon member: What about the principle of Christian National Education as seen from the Afrikaner’s point of view. What about mother-tongue education as seen from the Afrikaner point of view? Is it, to his way of thinking, subordinate to racial segregation? Could it be that it is not important to him at all, because he has only one thing uppermost in his mind, namely racial segregation? [Interjections.] I therefore conclude—I would like to bring it home to the hon member very strongly…

You are quite wrong.

The hon member must just listen to me now. That is the normal idea or conclusion any normal, well-intentioned person would have come to after having listened to the hon member this afternoon…

That is an abnormal idea.

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg will now have to answer that question in a subsequent speech.

The only conclusion that a well-intentioned listener could have come to this afternoon, after what the hon member for Sasolburg said, is that Whites need not pay any heed to civilised norms and standards. They need not bother about them and need not have any civilised norms and standards, because all that counts is a White skin. From the point of view of the Afrikaners they need not be Christians and they need not pay any heed to mother-tongue education. They need only have a White skin. [Interjections.] They can steal, they can be criminals, they can be heathens and do as they like, as long as they have White skins. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg questioned the hon the Minister of Education and Culture’s patriotism, his love for his people, his love for White children judging by this and the previous Bill. Those are the words he used. I now want to tell the hon member, on the strength of what he said in his speech here today, that I seriously question his point of departure on the Afrikaner’s philosophy of or outlook on life. I can draw only one conclusion, and that is that he is nothing but a racist. That is all that counts as far as he is concerned. [Interjections.] One can draw no other conclusion because he is not interested in anything else. He is interested in one thing only, and that is a White skin. He is simply a racist. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon member why we are concerned about our survival in this country, as seen from the point of view of the Whites and, in particular, of the Afrikaner. Is it about a question of the preservation of a White skin, or the maintenance of Christian, civilised norms and standards in this country for everybody’s sake? The latter way is the only way in which we can ensure our survival in this country. I think that the sooner the hon member can return to that point of departure and realise that should be the premise underlying our arguments, the better. As long as he clings to his simplistic philosophy of race, exaggerated racial purity and complete racism, we cannot make any progress, not in our own ranks, and not in our relations with other population groups in this country either.

Roelf, say that again! [Interjections.]

With regard to the Bill, I want to associate myself with what previous speakers have said. I want to stress the fact that the Bill offers a very clear framework within which private schools can act. The question we must ask ourselves when evaluating this Bill, is if there is a need for private schools, or not. The point of departure of the Government is very clear, and that is that there is indeed such a need. Private schools exist today and in future there will also be a need for private schools. Legislation is necessary precisely to ensure the necessary room, the necessary framework within which private schools can operate. That is why we have set up a framework here. In so far as it is necessary to embody this in legislation, this Bill is quite adequate and meets the need for a framework within which private schools can operate.

We are dealing here basically with two matters, namely that of creating a system within which private schools can register, on condition that they comply with the requirements and, secondly that of providing for financial grants enabling them to function.

In conclusion I want to point out that there is no doubt in my mind that in future we shall make increasing use of a system of private schools in this country because they meet a particular need, not only for particular groups among Whites, such as the Germans, the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Jews, but precisely because they can also meet a specific future need with regard to particular developments in the country. I think that anyone making a study of the composition of this country, including its constitutional composition, will inevitably come to the conclusion that private schools will be playing an ever greater role in this country. It is therefore timeous to provide enabling legislation at this time. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on after the hon member for Johannesburg West. It is always a privilege to listen to him and he has once again made a very solid contribution here this afternoon.

In my speech I should first of all like to refer to the interesting thing that has been happening here since yesterday afternoon. The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition no longer talks to those of us on this side of the House. This afternoon we also saw that he does not talk to us, but every time there is a vote, they vote against us. It now seems to me as if they are really not too angry with Parliament. It makes me think of the old story of an old man and woman who were sitting and chatting. Someone asked the old man why he was angry with the old woman. He said: “I have been angry with her for 30 years already.” When the man asked what about the children, the old man said: “No, I really was not that angry with her.” [Interjections.]

It seems to me as if the Progs are really not that angry with Parliament. They at least still vote here, even though they vote against us.

There is something else that I want to mention. Earlier this afternoon the hon member for Rissik spoke about education in a very blatant fashion. I want to state bluntly here in the House that he was really an embarrassment to White children and White education as a result of the way in which he spoke here this afternoon. He in fact made no contribution and was really an embarrassment to White education.

He also said that the legislation on private schools was a step in the direction of integration of all the schools in our country. That is a blatant untruth. I want to quote for his benefit from a speech which the State President made recently at the federal congress in Durban when he spoke about the Group Areas Act. He also referred specifically to education in connection with this. After he referred to the Group Areas Act, he said:

I therefore want to tell the CP this afternoon that it is the Government’s intention to stand by the substance and principles of the Group Areas Act, and that we shall keep our schools White in accordance with that, because it is necessary that there be White schools. But it is also necessary that there be private schools, because there is a certain part of our community which has a need for that. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to a second matter in regard to the hon member for Rissik. In a challenging manner he referred here to a coming election and every now and then challenged hon members on this side of the House to resign their seats. He makes me think of the anecdote of the old man in the country who, when it was very dry, was standing on the Jew’s stoop. There were a lot of cars in town that day because they were holding a day of prayer for rain. The Jew asked the farmer: “What are all these cars doing here?” The farmer said: “No, but have you not heard? We have come to pray for rain today.” The Jew looked up into the sky and said: “The west wind is blowing, but we can try.”

I therefore want to tell the hon member for Rissik that they can really make an effort in the next election, but they will not govern the country.

[Inaudible.]

I also want to refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. I do not know what interjection the hon member for Kuruman is making, but he should do so audibly so that I can react to them. Otherwise he should put a question to me.

Order! The hon member for SchweizerReneke must not provoke the hon member for Kuruman. [Interjections.]

I shall not provoke him, Mr Chairman. I also want to refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. He also made the dust fly here, and someone said that it was somewhat white dust. I want to ask him if he does not know that there are also members of his party who have a need for private schools. Is he aware of that fact? Is he aware of the fact that there are also people who vote for his party who have a need for private schools?

What private schools?

We are talking about private schools in general. There are people in his party who have a need for private schools. I have the information here with me. He himself was in the Port Elizabeth area at Woodridge the other day. There are apparently people who vote for his party who send their children to the private school in Woodridge. [Interjections.] He should therefore not be so sanctimonious and attack private schools. There is a demand for private schools even among the membership of the HNP.

The hon member for Sasolburg did something else here which was very ugly today. He cast suspicion upon the Whites of this country, and specifically the Afrikaner, when he said that we are now making it easy for people to go to private schools and that our White schools are empty as it is and will lose more pupils to these private schools.

Let me tell him that the Whites of this country, and the Afrikaner specifically, are satisfied with the existing provincial schools, and the Government will continue to provide the community with provincial schools in which the Christian national character will hold good. He should therefore not judge our people by himself.

I specifically want to return to the Bill and I should like to say the following in connection with this. Private schools have been in existence in South Africa since the earliest years. There have always been certain arrangements between provincial education departments and private schools according to which these schools could function.

The hon the Ministers of National Education and of Education and Culture announced earlier this year that the Government has been disposed to provide financial assistance and support to private schools on certain conditions. According to this announcement private schools could register under certain conditions, and if they could also satisfy certain requirements, they could receive a subsidy of 15% or even of 45%.

Before the above-mentioned subsidy can be paid, legal authorisation is necessary, and that is why this Bill is before us today so that the statutory authority can be vested in the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to make those subsidy payments to those private schools which have applied for them.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into every clause of the Bill. Previous hon speakers have dealt with it thoroughly. I therefore leave it at that.

In conclusion I just want to mention one point, since we are discussing private schools, that I have raised for the hon the Minister’s attention on a previous occasion. During a recent visit to the Drakensberg Boys School I was shocked to see the condition of that private school, which mainly serves the White community of South Africa. There are only Whites in that school. I found it shocking to see what condition the building and grounds were in, particularly in the light of the important work which those people do for our country—here as well as abroad. As we are granting permission today for the hon the Minister to be able to help private schools financially in terms of this Bill, I once again want to ask that urgent assistance be made available to the Drakensberg Boys School—as quickly as possible—so that the condition of the building and grounds can be put in good order. It is after all a display window of our country. I believe and am confident that the hon the Minister and his department will help us to give the necessary assistance to those people as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members who participated in the debate. I also wish to thank the hon members of the opposition parties—there were only two who took part—for their participation in the debate.

The hon member for Rissik tendered his an apologies; it is probably impossible for him to be here now, and we accept it. He put certain questions, which I shall deal with presently, and was supported by the hon member for Sasolburg. According to the hon member for Johannesburg West they are the two HNP members in the House. I think four or five speakers from our side of the House took part, and I must truly say they acquitted themselves so well of their task that there is really very little left for me to reply to regarding any argument which these two hon members put forward. I am afraid that if any of us were to read the Hansard of this debate again, those two members of the opposition who took part in the debate will look like two cockerels that have been stripped of their tailfeathers…

Two lonely birds! [Interjections.]

Yes, like two lonely birds, because absolutely nothing is left of their arguments!

[Inaudible.]

Surely it is an important day in so far as this legislation before the House, in the same way as the previous legislation, is in my opinion particularly important… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman had ample opportunity to participate in the debate. He chose not to do so, and I should therefore be glad if he would now restrain himself from making incessant comments. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

The Bill now before us is in my opinion as important as the previous one before this House, because as hon members on this side of the House said recognition is in fact being given, by means of legislation, to the particularly good work which is being done at the private schools—despite the criticism expressed by the hon members for Rissik and Sasolburg.

The premise of the Government with regard to private schools—it also gave rise to this legislation—is once again to be found in the De Lange Report. In that report mention was made of the good work which had in the past been done by private schools. It is very true—the hon member for Potgietersrus and certain other hon members referred to it—that over the years good work has been done by private schools in the historical process of this country’s education.

After all were not the CNO schools private schools? There was a stage, with the introduction of the CNO schools, when the Afrikaners in our own country said that they did not want to be subjected to a policy—that was their conviction at that stage—they did not approve of. It was according to them an anglicising policy that applied to schools. So they said that they would establish their own Christian National Educational institutions. No one can tell me today that excellent work was not done in those schools.

In the same way other private schools were established over the years, as a result of the fact that specific cultural and other requirements such as religious requirements were not satisfied by the Government education system. We can elaborate at length on those cultural and religious requirements in terms of which these schools are run. We can also point out language requirements and so forth. Allow me to say once again—I also said it in the debate on my vote—that the Government and I have the greatest appreciation for the good work which has been done in private schools. There is no doubt about that. It is true that there are good teachers in these private schools, who teach the pupils entrusted to their care with dedication. We need look no further than the examination results of pupils in private schools. In general I do not think that the private schools need be ashamed of the results of their matriculants. In other words seen from the angle of academic achievement, I have no doubt that in general good work is being done in private schools.

It is also the case that the Government and I understand that there could be a private school—let us say for example a German private school—where the German parents simply felt that their particular cultural needs were not being adequately satisfied, and therefore decided to establish a private school. These people paid very dearly to have their children taught in private schools.

Today I do not in any way wish to give the impression that everything is perfect and way it should be in all private schools. If I were to say that, I should examine myself as well. Nor can I say in the House today that we are achieving the absolute ideal in respect of our educational principles in every school in this country, but we all aspire to it. Those hon members said that they could become a breeding ground for all kinds of uniquities. Some hon members on this side of the House replied very forcefully to that allegation, and I do not wish to say anything further except to associate myself with their replies and add that I consider that to be a disparaging remark, because unsavoury things can occur in the same way in any government school. There is nothing to prevent it from happening, unless we were to argue that the mere presence of members of other population groups would suddenly be the reason for those iniquities and I think that would be an incorrect premise.

As far as we are concerned there is no doubt that the private schools have over the years made a particularly worthwhile contribution in the general educational setup and we have, arising out of the De Lange Report, reached a decision that private schools will make an integral contribution to the education and training of our children in this country. [Interjections.] However, it was not sufficient merely to admit it. For that reason we went further and said that we would have to give such schools greater financial assistance if we were to admit that these schools formed an integral part of the general educational system.

In the past, there were various methods of rendering assisting to the various forms of education provided by the various provinces. The fact remains, however, that parents of pupils in private schools had to fork out a great deal of money. The Government said that it was also prepared to make a monetary contribution now, within its financial means. These statements were made by the hon the Minister of National Education and were followed by some of my own statements, which were in essence that we would in fact make a contribution, measured against 15% or 45% of a formula amount, according to which these amounts would be granted.

Today I wish to express my personal thanks for the work which is being done in private schools, but I should also like to ask that in future private schools will continue to be run in a manner which is in the best interest of education in this country. I do not mean anything sinister when I say this. My hon colleagues pointed out that we have already, by means of this legislation, done everything necessary in order to ensure that these private schools will continue to do good work—educationally speaking. Therefore, when an application is therefore made for the registration of a private school, specific requirements must be complied with. Some hon members asked me in what ways we are going to ensure that those schools will comply with these requirements. The fact of the matter—and we shall also phrase it in this way in the requirements for registration—is that there should at least be a need in respect of language, culture or whatever. We even went further and said that we would lay down certain requirements, which would also apply in the normal public schools—for example that the syllabus must be approved, that school buildings should be functional, that registers should be kept, that inspections should take place and so on. We have therefore formulated the perfectly normal requirements which are necessary when proper schooling is to be instituted.

I therefore think that these private schools will in fact continue to render a very good service. Now we are being asked—and I know this question is secretly being asked by many people; the hon member for Sasolburg in fact asked it very specifically—whether there is a quota. In this regard the hon member for Sasolburg referred to a document which he ostensibly could not lay his hands on, but from which it appears that certain requirements would be laid down with regard to a specific percentage and a specific amount which would for example apply to Whites. [Interjections.] This whole matter was broached—if I still remember correctly—when one of the PFP members spoke about a document which he had got hold of. At that stage already I said that I knew of no such official document. At the present moment I say this again to the hon member for Sasolburg. No such official document exists. [Interjections.] If the hon member were therefore to ask me whether there was in fact such a quota or not, my answer to that would be that the admission of other population groups to private schools will occur in accordance with the relevant sections in the Constitution, i.e. paragraph 2 and paragraph 14 of the Schedule. In those sections—without repeating them—it is clearly stated that education is on all levels an own affair. In paragraph 14 it is stated, however, that a service may be rendered.

Of course the following question now arises. When I say that we shall allow to this to take place in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, surely it is very clear that the spirit of the Constitution entails separate education for separate population groups. Therefore the admission of other population groups to private schools will occur in accordance with the principle that such an institution may not, owing to the service it is rendering, be alienated from the community for whom it was primarily established. This is the standpoint which I have expressed here before—also in reply to questions which were put to me—and in essence means that one cannot expect the institution to remain loyal to its community if a pupils from that specific community find themselves in the minority in that school. In other words, it amounts to an institution being able to remain true to its community only for whom it was primarily established if the number of pupils in that school, who originate directly from the particular community, are more in number than all the other pupils combined. That is the principle—and I am saying this for edification of the hon member Prof Olivier as well—we shall apply to private schools because we remain true to the most basic premise in the Constitution, ie that there will be separate schools for the separate population groups. For that reason too…

May I put a question to the hon the Minister?

The hon member can put his question in due course. I shall give him an opportunity to do so in a moment. I should first like to complete my argument though.

I grant the same right to the House of Representatives, the House of Delegates, as well as the Black people for that reason a private school administered by the House of Delegates or by the House of Representatives can also exist. The respective Education Ministers of the separate Houses often consult one another, and I can therefore testify that the Education Ministers in the House of Representatives and in the House of Delegates adopt the same standpoint as I do. They also think that their institutions were established primarily for their own communities. For that reason therefore, when there are some of those hon members who say that they will admit members of other population groups, they nevertheless say that this can only occur if it is not disadvantageous to their own people—provided it does not impede the admission of a pupil from their own community while benefiting someone from another community. Their premise is therefore precisely the same, and I think it is a healthy one. If we want to run these things according to that principle I think we are achieving something in the development of quality education for all population groups in the country.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon Minister a question? He must weigh his words very carefully now because he will go on record. He has stated his policy, namely to see that a school does not become racially alienated from its own community. That the hon the Minister has defined. I want to put two questions to the hon the Minister. Will that just be his policy or will he see to it that the racial provision appears among the regulations? My other question is: Precisely what stage has been reached in the drafting of the regulations which will back up this law?

I said on a previous occasion—I think that I may have said it to the hon member as well—that these matters are sensitive in the sense that every step we take, we take in co-operation and consultation with the parties involved. I say to myself—but I think I can also say it freely to every hon member in the House—that we should be careful that we do not at times bedevil a good cause by wanting to make a contribution ourselves and by dragging politics into it. We should leave these things to the people who deal with them. Today I wish to say here that my discussions with the Private School Associations were conducted in such a manner—and for this I express my profound gratitude to my chief executive director and other officers—that in general there was satisfaction concerning the way we are to deal with it.

If the hon member were now to ask me how far we are with the regulations, then I say to him very far indeed. We shall enact these regulations as quickly as possible after this legislation has been passed by Parliament. We very much want the private schools to derive benefit from the fact that we say we are going to subsidise them; they will therefore be able to receive hard cash. I wish to state here that I have appreciation for private schools. Although we shall make it retrospective from 1 April, some time will still elapse—that will be as a result of the power we have to obtain by means of this legislation—during which they shall have to carry on without the financial means. I shall therefore announce the regulations as soon as possible.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, wait, I shall reply to the hon member’s question. He asked me two things, and I shall reply to both. He should just give me an opportunity, because I cannot reply to both simultaneously.

You are very long-winded!

Secondly, the hon member asked me whether I was going to say something definite about the quota in those regulations. I want to tell the hon member that it will be very clearly indicated in the regulations that we shall manage the private schools in accordance with the spirit of the constitution, as set out in items 2 and 14 of the Schedule to the Constitution. All parties involved expressed their satisfaction in this regard, and I hope the hon member is not going to bedevil it now.

I now wish to proceed with questions put to me by individual hon members. The hon member for Rissik said that in the past he had adopted a standpoint opposed to private schools. In fact the hon member adopted a standpoint opposed to the service of private schools rendered to members of other population groups. It is interesting that the hon member expressed his concern about this, but he never said that he disagreed with the policy of the NP or that he is going to resign from the party. Eventually he decided to go as a result of an alleged meaning he attached to power-sharing. But let us not conduct a political debate now.

Now the hon CP members suddenly turn around and say that they were always opposed to the principle. I wish to contend that the hon CP members for years sat on this side of the House in spite of that. I shall concede to them that perhaps they did not feel very happy about it, but it did not cause them to leave.

What then happened, is that we acquired a Constitution which was accepted by more than 66% of the voting public. For that reason we recognise the principle of service of private schools are incorporating it today in the legislation. When we recognise the principle of service, it is merely a confirmation of what has already been happening for years. The hon member spoke of the breeding grounds for integration, and the hon member for Kimberley North replied to that very effectively. I myself have something to say about that. The hon member for Rissik said that when the CP possibly came to power in the future—he will have to wait very long—private schools would be run in the way in which they were designed to be run. He said that they would be run along traditional lines. I do not know whether the hon member for Sasolburg could perhaps tell me, but the hon member for Rissik did not tell me what they were. I should like to ask the hon member for Rissik to tell me, on another occasion, what he means when he says that they will run private schools as they were designed to be run. That is precisely what the schools are doing now.

Those schools initially came into being because they wanted to meet a specific cultural or religious need. That is precisely what we are doing now and what they have accepted throughout the years. If they want something else, they must tell us.

The hon member for Rissik says private schools would play a subservient role as far as general education is concerned. In my view private schools will not be subservient, but will form an integral part of the normal education process as long as services are rendered for which they can be accountable educationally. The hon member for Rissik said furthermore, that he had been informed—if I had to reply to everything they are informed about, I do not know where we would end—that private schools could now be erected where they wish to be erected. [Interjections.] It was stated very clearly on a previous occasion, in the budget debate, and today it was stated again, that private schools would be erected where the need arose. Registration would be allowed in accordance with specific conditions they would have to comply with.

The hon member referred here to a document, and I want to react to that by saying that I am definitely not going to reply to statements about documents which, according to the hon member, are confidential documents, even though he quotes certain passages from them. If the hon member does not have the courage of his convictions to tell us which documents they are, and what the status of the documents is, I really cannot bother with that any longer or reply to it either. If the hon member wishes to ask me directly about a particular standpoint of the Government, I shall very gladly reply to his question. [Interjections.]

I wish to reply to what the hon member for Sasolburg said. He takes it amiss of me that I said that he was not in the House this morning. I wish to tell him that I appreciate the positive spirit in which he debated matters with me. Towards the end he became a little excited, but I do not begrudge him that. The truth of the matter is, however, that I raised those arguments while he was not here because one of the hon members of the CP provoked me. I then told him that he was looking for trouble and that I would speak to him in due course. I looked around, but did not really find very much to look at. I understand the hon member for Sasolburg’s position because I know if he is not in the House, there is in fact 0% of his party present in the House. I understand that because it does create a major problem for him. [Interjections.]

The hon member asked me what a principle was, but I do not think that we should start arguing with one another about what we consider a principle to be. What the hon member and I do, in fact, agree on is that a principle is generally non-negotiable, in contrast to a policy or a method, which can be adjusted—for the very purpose of achieving the aims of a principle. I think the hon member will agree with me on that.

One could argue that point…

We can argue that point, but I think that the hon member will largely agree with my definition of a principle. The hon member says a principle is a point of departure, and I shall be able to argue that point with him…

Policy grows out of a principle.

Yes, certainly. A policy arises out of a principle, but that policy can be adjusted, in accordance with the demands of the times, in order to achieve the very ideal and aim of that principle. That happened in the hon member’s own party and in the CP.

[Inaudible.]

Very well. The hon member asks me what our principle is when it comes to private schools. He said we were simply opening the Bill up further for the purposes of integration. That is not true. My colleagues have said that people of colour have been admitted to private schools for years now. The door has therefore not been opened to allow integration…

It is wider now!

No, we cannot say it is wider now because then we are not adhering to the principle. It is a question of whether they were admitted or not. They have been admitted for years now, probably even when that hon member was still a member of the NP. There were private schools even then. The principle was therefore accepted even then, and what we are now doing is regulating the matter by way of legislation.

The hon member asked me how we were going to administer private schools in future. In this regard I refer him to the premises set out in the Government’s White Paper drawn up after the De Lange Report was published. In that White Paper we state what our principle is with regard to private schools. We believe in separate education for the respective population groups, but in the Constitution we acknowledge the principle of the rendering of service. Our principle is therefore that education should be separate, but we are prepared to render a service in accordance with specific conditions, and that is the principle upon which the private schools were established. It is simply not true that private schools are merely going to be thrown open, are going to become breeding grounds for integration, etc.

Has the quota system not been abolished?

Surely I have already dealt with the quota system.

He was not here. He walked out again, of course.

Fine. I think I have now more or less replied to all the questions the hon member put to me.

I should like to extend my sincere thanks to hon members on this side of the House. The hon member for Kimberley North was the first speaker on this side. I agree with the comments made by one of the hon members on this side of the House about this hon member certainly having made a study, not only of the legislation, but also of what gave rise to the legislation. I wish to congratulate the hon member for Kimberley North on having given a very good résumé of what is in the Bill and what the legislation is, in fact, striving to achieve. For this I thank him very much.

I wish to thank the hon member for Beaufort West for what he said. The hon member says these schools will, in the future as in the past, be playing a very important role. What I have already said endorses that view. It is true. We acknowledge the good work that is being done. The hon member made a further very important observation when he said that the best possible level of education is the aim in these schools. As a result, even now certain requirements are laid down. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon member about that. I thank him for the contribution he made.

As far as I am concerned the hon member for Potgietersrus made an excellent speech in which he presented the whole principle of private schools to us, also from the point of view our own countries of origin. He also indicated how they had developed historically. I also wish to thank the hon member for the excellent contribution he made.

I think the hon member for Johannesburg West is responsible for not having stripped the two opposition party members of their tail feathers. I thank the hon member for his contribution, for the way in which he dealt with the matter and for the way in which he referred to the Bill.

I wish to thank the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke for his contribution concerning private schools. He also referred to the Drakensberg Boys’ School when we were dealing with the discussion of the Vote. I personally—and I think the whole country too—greatly appreciate the achievements of the Drakensberg Boys’ School, not only in our own country, but also beyond the borders of our country. The hon member is correct in saying that school has made this country famous. The hon member spoke to me about the needs of that school. An inquiry into this is under way. There were discussions between the Drakensberg Boys’ School’s controlling board and the Director of Education in Natal. The problem is the subject of a further investigation at the moment. The Drakensberg Boys’ School is not only experiencing difficulties in respect of actual facilities; there are also certain other problems. At the moment, however, we are considering ways in which we can accommodate the Drakensberg Boys’ School, so that it will be able to proceed with its good work. I wish to tell the hon member that there are specific circumstances involved which are not applicable to other private schools and that it take some time to ascertain whether we can accommodate them in some way or other.

I think I have replied to all the questions; I thank the hon members for attending.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we object to the adjournment of the House because there are still seven minutes left… [Interjections.] I am not objecting because we have not been consulted—we do not expect to be consulted in these circumstances—but we want to place on record the objection of all the opposition parties. Our attitude has been not to take up the time of the House with regard to Bills which we support. However, where we have opposed Bills, we have stood up and opposed them in this House.

I think we have presented the governing party with a golden opportunity to complete the work on the Order Paper. However, what has happened? Since 10h00 until nearly 17h30 today they have dealt with only three Bills. They have filibustered and have demonstrated to us that they are not serious… [Interjections.] … in trying to complete the work on the Order Paper. We would like to know why they are filibustering and why they are delaying the passing of the Bills by this House. [Interjections.]

I do not see the hon the Minister of Finance here, so we cannot carry on with the next Order of the Day. I also do not see the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs here to deal with the fifth item on the Order Paper but, with regard to the sixth Order of the Day, I do see the hon member for Albany here who has charge of a Private Bill. In the few minutes that are left his Private Bill could be passed by the House. Therefore, we object to the adjournment of the House now.

Mr Speaker, as a matter of principle I also wish to object to these early adjournments… [Interjections.] Before the opening of Parliament I had to furnish the Chief Whip of Parliament with a list indicating the period of time each member of the CP would spend participating in the discussion of the Bills appearing on the Order Paper. I told him how many speakers would be participating in the discussion of each Bill. I told him how much time the CP would spend discussing each of those Bills. He then said to me that, if we adhered to the timetable, we should be able to finish by about 30 September.

Is that the whole truth?

That is indeed the whole truth.

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

No, Sir… [Interjections.] That is the whole truth.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament then asked me whether we could cut down on the time a bit more.

But surely that is not the whole truth!

We limited the time which would have been available to us even further, because, as we said to him, we badly wanted to get this session over with as soon as possible. They wanted Parliament to adjourn on 30 September so that they could hold the Cape NP Conference. [Interjections.] However, we are still sitting here—I agree with the hon the Whip of the PFP—and we could have cleared the Order Paper today. Parliament could have adjourned now, and we would have supported the Government in that respect. The CP wants Parliament to adjourn, because we would like to return to our constituencies, where we can serve our people who are also waiting for us there. We are not afraid of returning to our constituencies, unlike some hon members on that side of the House. [Interjections.] We would like to return to our constituencies so that we can serve our people there. [Interjections.]

I do not think the governing party, that on previous occasions asked us to limit our time in order to expedite the business of Parliament, should ask the CP or me to cut our time short again. In future we shall participate in the debates as we decide, because those hon members have proved to us today that they are prepared to waste time and money, merely to see whether they can find some triviality which can be debated next week. [Interjections.]

Order! Nevertheless, the House is now going to adjourn.